Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) (11:14 AM) —I involve myself in this debate with some degree of regret, because I think it is a sad reflection on those opposite that this motion is before us. We know that the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats are leaderless and policyless, and they are now trying to run some interference, thinking that they can occasion some damage on the government by attacking the Governor-General.

The previous speaker, Senator Kirk, gave the game away by saying that if Dr Hollingworth had to resign it would be an admission that Mr Howard had made the wrong appointment. So we have got the grubby little political exercise in there already. We then had the bit about changing to a republic—that that is what we really need to do—and then we were exhorted to listen to the opinion polls. Can I suggest to the honourable senator opposite that, if you are going to listen to the opinion polls and take that as your guidance on fundamental moral issues and fundamental issues of principle, you will accept that, in a poll that actually counts, the people of Australia rejected the republican proposal. You will also accept now that the majority of the Australian people were in favour of our involvement in Iraq.

The Labor Party's problem throughout a number of debates in recent times has been that their guiding light is the latest opinion poll. They clutch to the latest opinion poll and then repeat it, automaton like, hoping that that will somehow get them some support from the electorate. But the people of Australia want leadership, and that is why, when we embarked on the Iraqi situation with only 18 per cent support in the opinion polls, the people of Australia respected our position, and now the vast majority support the decision that was taken at the time because the Australian people will listen and will determine the issues on their merit.

Similarly, for Senator Kirk, I suppose that on the basis of opinion polls she would support the death penalty being reintroduced. People do not want us simply to be, in this place, automatons repeating the latest opinion poll. They want us to show leadership and to make a rigorous analysis of the issues. Unfortunately, those opposite believe that by trying to chop off the Governor-General at the knees they somehow improve their own stature. Let me tell them that they will fail, because the grubby exercise they have been involved in will not assist them, will not avail them in any way with the Australian people. Their attempts at running interference and trying to take the spotlight off themselves by running this issue does not cover them with any glory; it does not cover some with any respect from the Australian people.

Just in case people listening to this debate missed the wonderful speech given by Senator George Brandis, I simply invite them to read that speech, to ring Senator Brandis's office and ask for a copy of the speech, because he dealt with the facts as they occurred. The simple fact is that, in the early 1990s, when Dr Hollingworth was confronted with a very difficult situation, a leading psychiatrist of the time said that the way Dr Hollingworth dealt with the issue was leading edge in comparison to what had been the normal church practice. Now, a decade later, I think we all accept that that leading-edge practice that Dr Hollingworth implemented for the Anglican Church is no longer good enough. The measure of the man that Dr Hollingworth is is that he is willing to accept that he made an error of judgment. But one of the great concerns of Dr Hollingworth's in dealing with this one paedophile priest was to ensure that there was protection for any potential future victims. The good news is that it appears that the measures put in place by Dr Hollingworth ensured that there was no repeat of the offences that that particular priest had committed.

I must say I am somewhat bemused by some people's newfound concern about the way we as a community deal with the very serious issue of child abuse and paedophilia. I reflected with some—I suppose `regret' would be a good word: it was with regret that I reflected on a debate that was had here in this place, and indeed throughout the Australian community, about the film Lolita. Senator Ferris, coming from South Australia, would know of the very good work that the federal member for Makin, Trish Draper, did on that. It was a film that Jeremy Irons described as trying to put the perpetrator of paedophilia into the light of being the victim. Some of us were outraged at the classification that got because we argued very strenuously that it did not deal with the scourge of child abuse and it sent out the wrong message to the community.

Did we get one scrap of support from those opposite, from the Australian Democrats or the Australian Greens? No. We were the old fuddy-duddies. This was something artistic, albeit that the message sent out to the community was: in a situation of paedophilia, the perpetrator could in fact be the victim. It was a terrible message to send out to the community, but the Labor Party: deathly silent; the Democrats: deathly silent; the Greens: deathly silent as well. But it is nice to know that they are now concerned about this very important issue.

Let there be no doubt that the only suggestion is that Dr Hollingworth made an error of judgment in dealing with a paedophile priest. He acknowledges that, albeit that at the time he made the decision it was on professional advice and in conjunction with other bishops and that it was seen as leading edge, as really coming to grips with the issue and as ensuring that the church took a stronger approach to the issue. He should be congratulated for that rather than be vilified with the benefit of a decade or more of hindsight. The issue is not whether he made an error of judgment. The measure of a man is not, `Did he make a mistake and can we pillory him for it?' The measure of a man is to say: `Did he make a mistake? Did he admit it? Did he apologise?' That is the great measure of Dr Hollingworth: he acknowledges that he made a mistake and he has apologised.

That is in stark contradistinction to the behaviour of the person who moved this motion against the Governor-General in this place. Senator Faulkner is a man who has defamed dead people in this place. Senator Ferris will recall his defamation of the Baillieu family.

Senator Ferris —Senator Crane's family.

Senator ABETZ —And Senator Crane's family as well. Once the facts became known, it was absolutely obvious that Senator Faulkner was wrong on both counts. The dead Baillieu family were unable to defend themselves; at least Senator Crane and his family were able to. It was put to Senator Faulkner: did he have the moral fortitude, the courage or the integrity to come into this place and say, `Sorry, I got a bit excited. I went over the top. I apologise'? No. That is not in the measure of Senator Faulkner or the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in this place. I find it quite astounding that Senator Faulkner has the gall to come into this place, with his tawdry record of defaming people, having the information pointed out to him and never apologising, and to then say, `The standard of behaviour to be expected from the Governor-General is exactly as I say but definitely not as I do.' Senator Faulkner's actions and behaviour speak so much louder than his hollow words of condemnation in relation to Dr Hollingworth.

I understand there are people who have served in previous cabinets under the Labor Party who have had criminal convictions against their names from things in past years. Senator Faulkner was happy to share the cabinet table with them. A gross error of judgment was undertaken by one person—I believe it was an attempt to defraud a Commonwealth instrumentality. Time moves on but, if you are prepared to share the cabinet table with somebody like that, do not come in here and say, `Surely His Excellency needs a standard of behaviour well above that with which I associate myself.'

One of the most galling things about this is the tabling in the Queensland parliament of the report commissioned by the Anglican Church, and the way the Labor Party are dealing with this. Mr Peter Beattie was the state secretary of the Australian Labor Party, if I recall, from about 1981 to 1988. Wayne Swan, now a federal member from Queensland for the Labor Party, took on the state secretaryship shortly after that. Do we really believe, despite all the rumours that were flying around about Keith Wright and Bill D'Arcy, that those gentlemen—

Senator Ferris —The leader and deputy leader.

Senator ABETZ —Yes, the leader and deputy leader of the Labor Party in Queensland—when rumours were rife—knew nothing about this? They did not investigate. Indeed, when Bill D'Arcy finally resigned from the Queensland parliament, Peter Beattie, although he knew why he resigned, said publicly, `It was for health reasons, and I want a bit of renewal in my ministry.' Of course, when Mr D'Arcy's name was publicised, the real reason he resigned soon became obvious. Indeed, in 1992, the former state Labor leader Keith Wright was convicted of child sex offences. Wayne Swan was the state secretary of the ALP between 1991 and 1993—right during that period. What did he know? What did he do? I notice that Senator Ludwig was involved in this debate. A certain Mr Bill Ludwig was a fishing partner of Mr Bill D'Arcy, who is now serving time in a Queensland prison for child sex offences. I suppose the hierarchy of the Australian Labor Party saw no evil and spoke no evil, and especially were not willing to hear any evil.

The Labor Party's approach to this is so hypocritical that it defies belief. They have not only embraced an Anglican Church report lock, stock and barrel but, might I add, also misquoted it.

Senator Ferris —Selectively quoted it.

Senator ABETZ —`Selectively quoted it' may be a better turn of phrase; thank you, Senator Ferris. If they have found this new passion for Anglican Church reports, let them embrace the Anglican Church reports in relation to issues such as poker machines or prostitution. The Democrats and Greens who quoted the report might also adopt some Anglican Church reports on same-sex marriages. Why select one report from the Anglican Church where the person who was the subject of it was clearly denied fundamental natural justice? Dr Hollingworth was allowed to make a statement to it, but was not allowed to test the veracity or, indeed, respond to or answer allegations that had been put on the record against him. He then had to wait for the report to come out to find out exactly what was said.

If those opposite were genuinely concerned about the office of Governor-General and its unique position in our constitutional arrangements, I would have thought a request for a discreet meeting with the Governor-General giving him their views would have been the appropriate course of action. Instead, they were into the tabloids and on the airwaves with their megaphones, trying to broadcast their views. They showed no respect for the office or the office holder. If they were genuine they would have made those sorts of approaches to His Excellency the Governor-General but, no, it was all via the megaphone to make a very cheap political point.

Cheap political points were made by people like Senator Kirk when she accused the Prime Minister of a cover-up in relation to the rape allegations. Senator Kirk must know, because it has been reported widely, that Ms Jarmyn had no wish to make her complaint public. That is exactly what she did not want. She did not want to be called a liar. That is why her lawyers have spent all these months working on it. The Weekend Australian reported that the lady concerned was

Why didn't Senator Kirk quote that? She did not do that because all she was interested in was besmirching His Excellency the Governor-General. She knows the facts. She knows who sought the suppression order. She knows why it was not revealed to the public: it was because the complainant wanted it that way. Yet somehow there is a big cover-up under way. The Labor Party's arguments on this are hollow and transparent.

The motion has numerous parts. One part I find particularly distasteful is the smear contained in paragraph (iv) where it refers to Dr Hollingworth `in his particular interview' and `his apparent reconstruction'—note `apparent' reconstruction—and in the same paragraph states:

They say it is only apparent; they are not 100 per cent sure but, as a result, he is not suitable. That is the sort of kangaroo court tactic adopted by the other side, who say, `There is just a bit of a smear because we can't actually pin it; we just think it's apparent but we're not sure,' as a result of which he is not fit to hold office. There is somebody sitting on the other side who was state secretary of a division of the Labor Party who used Labor Party funds to pay the private debts of a Labor Attorney-General. Does he consider that to have been an error of judgment? Has he apologised? Does he regret it? I trust he does, and he has. But let those on the other side who have never made an error of judgment in their lives—and I have now referred to a number of them—let those who have such a clean record of no personal errors of judgment, albeit based on the best professional advice, as Dr Hollingworth had at the time, throw the first stone.

The simple fact is that Dr Hollingworth, a former Australian of the Year and a wonderful crusader for the less privileged in this country, has been pilloried by the Labor Party and the Democrats who, without leadership and policy, have sought a diversion from their own failures. The Labor Party and the Democrats do not cover themselves with any glory with their pathetic attempt to besmirch His Excellency the Governor-General.