Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) (4:18 PM) —This motion has been moved by the Labor Party with the support of the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats, and therefore they have the numbers for its passage. What does it do? It urges the Prime Minister—I guess it is the Prime Minister—to establish a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Australia. That subject could be dealt with separately and distinct from any matter relating to the Governor-General. One would have thought that efforts would be made by those who support this motion to make out the case for a royal commission into child sex abuse in Australia. I failed to hear that case being made by Senator Faulkner.

Senator Faulkner —You will hear it shortly.

Senator HILL —He tells me that others are going to take up that part of the motion. But that is the first thing that is being sought by the movers of this motion. The second part of the motion that the proponents ask to be carried is that the Senate urge the Governor-General to immediately resign or, if he does not, urge the Prime Minister to in effect dismiss him or have him dismissed by the Queen.

I will set aside the first part of the motion—that relating to the royal commission into child abuse. I will come back to that, because I do not think there is any dispute that the issue of child abuse is very serious, probably as serious an issue as anyone could think of, and the real issue is what could be achieved through a national royal commission into that subject. Senator Faulkner has principally dealt with the second part of the motion because the other issue was dealt with when the parliament last met. He argued that the matter of the priest Elliot arising out of the Aspinall report is so serious that Dr Hollingworth should resign as Governor-General or, if he does not, that the Prime Minister should dismiss him. Senator Faulkner has not sought to make out that any conduct of the Governor-General in the normal execution of his functions as Governor-General warrants that. It seems to relate back to Dr Hollingworth's administrative functions as the Archbishop of Brisbane in handling the Elliot case.

The first point to make is that I think anyone who has read the Aspinall report would feel that Dr Hollingworth made a serious error of judgment in that matter. The matter was brought to his attention by another bishop. It was a long time after the events had occurred; nevertheless, it came to the attention of this bishop that there had been abuse of a child or children by a Mr Elliot, as he was then. Mr Elliot had subsequently become a priest, and the matter was brought to Dr Hollingworth to deal with because the bishop to whom the complaint was made felt that he was too close to the family, particularly the wife of the then Reverend Elliot. The issue became whether this man, who was within a couple of years of retirement, should be allowed to continue his ministry or be dismissed by Dr Hollingworth. Dr Hollingworth referred him to a psychiatrist, Dr Slaughter. Dr Hollingworth took the advice of this psychiatrist, who seems to assist the church in these matters, and also consulted with two bishops.

At the end of that process, he decided that the Reverend Elliot could continue and complete his term before retirement—which was to be about two years later, at age 65—on certain conditions. Dr Hollingworth would have to tell Elliot's wife about what had occurred and seek the wife's assistance in the matter. From memory, I think a regional bishop was to play a supervisory role. There were certain matters that were attended to in such a way that Hollingworth believed he could be confident there would be no recurrence of the abuse. In these circumstances, he seemed to place weight on his responsibility as a priest, as I said in question time, to seek to forgive such a person and to seek reconciliation. That was where he concluded the matter. Obviously, there were other abuses by this man, because he was subsequently prosecuted for them. There was no suggestion that they had been brought to the attention of Dr Hollingworth.

Most people would say that it really is untenable to have someone who admits to child abuse remain as a priest. On reflection, clearly Dr Hollingworth has also reached that conclusion, because subsequently he has said that he now recognises that he made a serious error of judgment in this matter. The Aspinall report finds that he made a serious error of judgment. Dr Hollingworth accepts that he made a serious error of judgment: he believed that it was tenable for this person to continue in the priesthood whereas really he should have been removed from the priesthood and, one might have thought, also referred to the police. But one might also ask why the parents of the children did not refer it to the police when it came to their attention at that time. But, anyway, that is beside the point. My reaction would be that, if something like that comes to your attention, you would call in the police and, if the person is in a position of trust, you would get them out of the position of trust. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Also, Dr Hollingworth now accepts that that would have been the right course of action to take.

He made an error of judgment. He was not a perpetrator of any child abuse himself. There is no evidence to suggest that he condones child abuse in any way. What he did was make an error of judgment in keeping this person in the priesthood. Should he be dismissed from his subsequent office as a result of that? That takes us to the point regarding Dr Hollingworth. Senator Faulkner has been very critical of Dr Hollingworth as a result of this particular error of judgment. What Senator Faulkner has not sought to do is balance that against his lifetime contribution to our community. Why was Dr Hollingworth appointed to this job? It was not because he was an archbishop; it was because he had given a lifetime of service to the community, particularly to the poor.

Senator Mackay —How do you know that?

Senator HILL —Because it is on the public record. It has been recognised in this country before. A lifetime—

Senator HILL —Don't overstate the case. You can criticise him on the basis of the report, but if you want to be fair in this matter—and I suggest that all parties should seek to be fair in this matter—you should also take into account his lifetime of commitment to the poor and the downtrodden and the reasons why he was regarded as a person of significant enough standing in our society that you could consider him as eligible for such a high office as this. I must say, seeing that we are all laying ourselves out here, that that was my view. My first reaction to the appointment of somebody from the church was one of some worry about potential conflicts of interest. But I saw Dr Hollingworth in a different category because—and I hope this is not misinterpreted—he was not just a priest. In terms of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and so forth, he had given his whole life to social service and was highly regarded for that public contribution. I did not hear anybody saying anything to the contrary at the time.

Here we have a case of somebody who made an error of judgment, albeit acknowledged as a serious error of judgment, in his administrative function as an archbishop. He should have removed the priest Elliot. He did not do so. We now have to determine whether that error of judgment is such that it disqualifies him for his subsequent job. What I am saying is that, when one considers that, one should at least make an effort to balance it against all the good that Dr Hollingworth has done within our community—much more good than I would ever claim to have contributed. Each senator and each Australian will seek to make a judgment on that. Dr Hollingworth is obviously considering the matter also, and that is appropriate. The fact that he has been able to stand aside, not to focus on what I really think is, in some ways, an unfortunate distraction—that is, the case in Melbourne—and to focus on the issues that have arisen out of the Aspinall report is, I think, a good thing as well.

So the issue is whether he should resign. There is nothing in his conduct as Governor-General that would suggest he should resign. The issue is whether his error of judgment in a previous life was such that it has so tainted him that he should resign. As has been said, in the opinion of the Prime Minister—and it is an opinion I support—that is something for Dr Hollingworth to decide.

Senator Faulkner —You are happy with his stat declaration? You are happy with his statements on Australian Story?

Senator HILL —Senator Faulkner is asking in effect, `Are you happy with the exchange of evidence that was put before this inquiry, the way in which the inquiry analysed that evidence and whether it was fair play and whether the allegations were put back to the parties against whom the allegations were made?' You can be critical of a number of aspects of the inquiry, but I have not sought to be critical of that because I think it really misses the point. The real point is whether the error of judgment was such that it requires him to resign.

The Labor Party, obviously, is primarily interested in the Prime Minister; this is an opportunity to attack the Prime Minister. Senator Faulkner was good enough to acknowledge in his contribution that that is the case, because he says it was the Prime Minister's appointment and that the Prime Minister made a terrible error of judgment. I do not think he did make a terrible error of judgment. On the basis of the information that was available at the time, he had a candidate who, in my view, was well qualified for the task. Maybe he was different from other appointments: he did not have a military or legal background or whatever. His background was social service but, in my view, he was well qualified for the task. So now the issue is not whether an error of judgment was made at the time—that is just a smart shot—but whether the revelation of an error of judgment is such that it should lead to a different course of action.

Senator Mackay —The protection of paedophiles.

Senator HILL —It is easy to say that. The Labor Party want to stand up and say, `We are tougher on child abuse than the Liberals.' That is really what is being said. If the Labor Party was a bit tougher on child abuse, then you would hear that the Premier of Queensland was taking action against child abusers, because law enforcement is his responsibility, rather than passing the buck to the federal government—not just saying `Take action against child abuse' but setting up a royal commission, setting up another examination.

Senator Ferguson —In Queensland, where you need it!

Senator Mackay —Shut up, Fergie.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! Senator Mackay, that was quite unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw.

Senator Mackay —I withdraw.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you.

Senator HILL —That leads to the other issue of whether having a royal commission is going to lead to outcomes that are better for children than not having a national royal commission. In some ways, when there is a problem it is easy to say that the solution is to have a royal commission. That does not actually lead to any better outcome at all because, in this instance, we largely know what the problem is. The principal source of child abuse is actually within the home, quite often within the family. When it occurs and it is discovered it should be prosecuted; that is Mr Beattie's job. The federal government can do things. Senator Vanstone is responsible for certain intervention programs in relation to social security. There can be prevention programs. The Commonwealth can take responsibility, and we believe that we do have programs that are assisting in that regard. If it can be argued that those programs can be improved, then we would like to hear that. That would be policy that the Labor Party could actually advance. You do not need a royal commission to tell you what is the appropriate policy. That is what politicians are supposed to do.

In relation to institutions, the problem within the churches, for example, has been acknowledged and I would like to think that, through such as the Aspinall report, the churches are making a real effort to identify their problem and to move in a way that will put children less at risk. That is certainly what they are claiming to do. I would like to see out of this a better balance, in the eyes of the church, between the victim and the perpetrator. Certainly the perpetrator might have problems and society may have some responsibility for the perpetrator, but the victim should be of primary concern. I think that within the churches that balance is sometimes being got wrong, but the churches seem to be making an effort.

There have been major issues relating to state institutions in the past. Some of those have been acknowledged. Some think that a royal commission into state institutions would be helpful. I do not actually think it would. What would be helpful would be for state governments to face up to their responsibilities and ensure that their institutions are working appropriately.

Senator Mackay —Face up to your responsibilities.

Senator HILL —Senator Mackay says that the federal government should face up to its responsibilities. But how is calling a royal commission facing up to the Commonwealth's responsibilities? As I said, in terms of the Commonwealth responsibility, it is issues such as intervention and family law programs and the like where the Commonwealth can make a contribution and where it is making a contribution. I know that Senator Faulkner has said that the Labor Party has not yet sought to make out its case for a royal commission. We are going to hear that from subsequent speakers. I am sure that all honourable senators have thought about this matter. I know that even within the Labor Party there are differences of views on the royal commission. I think the New South Wales Premier is opposed to it; the Queensland Premier has been calling for it.

Senator Ferguson —The Queensland Premier could have set one up.

Senator HILL —He could have certainly set one up if he thought it was important at the Queensland level, but I am afraid that Mr Beattie is a great one at passing the buck. In the case of Queensland, one might understand that. Certainly the case has not been made as yet for a royal commission, because no benefit that would flow from such a royal commission has been demonstrated.

I do not think that you will find any dispute in this place on the bigger issue of the need to be tough on child abuse. All honourable senators would abhor child abuse. All honourable senators appreciate that if physical violence is involved it is a criminal offence and we would like to see the full force of the criminal law applied. We do not want to see any child abuse condoned within institutions, and we are pleased to see that there seems to be a greater community effort to face up to these issues and responsibilities.

On the call for a royal commission, the case has not yet been made. On the issue of Dr Hollingworth's conduct as Governor-General, no effort has been made to make a case for his resignation. It really comes down to a judgment as to whether, as a church administrator, his error of judgment in the Elliot case outweighs his other contributions to society that are of a positive type. Individuals can make that judgment, but in the end it is primarily for Dr Hollingworth to make that judgment, and no doubt he will. In conclusion, all I say to the Labor Party is that they might think they can win some political points against the Prime Minister on this matter, but I will be very surprised if it works out that way. (Time expired)