Senator WONG (12:54 PM) —Following on from Senator Brandis, I am interested in his assertion that Minister Ruddock is one of the few people—as I understood Senator Brandis's argument—in the parliament to protect and defend our judicial officers. The issue I am going to speak on today deals in part with the actions and words used by Minister Ruddock in attacking judges of both the Federal Court and the Family Court during his period as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, but I will come to that later.

I rise today to speak primarily in response to a rather appalling contribution made in the other place by the member for Sturt which was reported in yesterday's Advertiser. The article is headed `Goebbels jibe at Labor'. It reads, in part, as follows:

I am sure many others would share my outrage at this sort of intemperate and offensive language. To liken legitimate political debate over an important policy issue such as schools funding to Nazi propaganda is both inaccurate and highly disturbing. It seems to me it is disturbing at a number of levels. First, and perhaps most importantly, it trivialises the horror that is fascism. It trivialises the sort of propaganda machine that was an integral part of Nazi Germany. Second, it is disturbing because it brings a new low to public debate. It cheapens public debate to the level of simply throwing offensive language at one another.

I would argue that this is not an isolated incident. I say this is part of a pattern engaged in by members of the Howard government, a pattern of smearing and attacking, at times vitriolically, those who express a dissenting voice. We heard in this chamber last year, and there was some considerable media coverage of it, Senator Brandis likening the political modus operandi of the Greens—I think he referred to the international green movement—to those engaged in by fascists. Again it was an offensive reference to many people. Whilst I have my political disagreements with the Greens—certainly at times in policy debate I wish the world were as simple as the Greens appear to make it out to be—fascists they are not.

We have seen this pattern of attack by the Howard government in quite a number of policy areas in this term. I would argue that the approach taken by this government is more that of an authoritarian government than that of a true Liberal government. It is an approach that seeks to deter dissent by attacking dissenters by other means. An obvious example of this was the attacks by the then Minister Alston, a former senator, on the ABC. People would recall Alston's dossier of complaints against the ABC, the overwhelming majority of which were found to be unfounded and not to indicate any bias. Minister Alston was quoted in the newspapers as stating:

meaning the ABC—

He alleged bias in reporting on the war on Iraq. As I said, the overwhelming majority of his complaints was dismissed as not demonstrating any bias. Essentially this comment by Minister Alston was a threat to the funding of our national broadcaster. I gave a contribution to the Senate at that time which described it as political thuggery at its worst.

A similar approach was also taken by Minister McGauran. When the South Australian government indicated it would legally challenge the federal government's attempt to impose a nuclear dump on South Australia, Minister McGauran threatened to cut South Australia's science budget to pay for the legal bill.

Senator McGauran —Fair enough.

Senator WONG —My colleague says—

Senator McGauran —Loyal brother.

Senator WONG —My colleague—his loyal brother—says, `That's fair enough.' No, I do not think it is fair enough. For ministers to throw their weight around and threaten to cut public funding to a state government that is pursuing the legitimate interests of the people of the state is not fair enough. It is not appropriate for ministers to do that and it is nothing more than political threats and political thuggery and is part of the pattern of a government that seeks to crush dissent, stifle dissent and attack dissenters wherever it can. We have also seen this approach in the attack on charities which both ministers and backbenchers of the Howard government have been engaged in. Senator Mason was reported in Tuesday's Herald Sun as criticising some charities for becoming political fronts. He is quoted in the paper as stating:

He said in his speech, according to this article:

This is another attempt by a member of the Howard government to attack any group or organisation which expresses a dissenting view. What I say Senator Mason really means is not that these people have become political fronts per se but that they have become political fronts against the Howard government. Actually, Senator Mason was only parroting the views of his political leader, the Treasurer. The Treasurer's views on charities are well known, and his view appears to be that charities ought not engage in political lobbying. I refer to an article of July last year in the Financial Review which discussed the proposed charities bill. It stated that Mr Costello:

The article in the Financial Review also stated that the legislation would have dramatic ramifications for public debate in Australia. You will recall that the press at the time demonstrated that charities and church groups were most concerned at the possibility that their criticism of government policy could make them lose their tax-free status under the draft legislation.

Then we come to Minister Ruddock, who as the then immigration minister made a number of criticisms as long as your arm of judges of both the Family Court and the Federal Court for their decisions in asylum seeker cases. One example—and one could quote many—was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 July 2003 in an article headed `Ruddock attacks Family Court'. The article reported:

It is rather ironic that we had prior to my contribution today a contribution from Senator Brandis in which he accused the Leader of the Opposition of demeaning judges when the now AttorneyGeneral in his former life as minister for immigration made it part of his job to regularly criticise decisions of the Federal Court and the Family Court when it came to asylum seekers because they did not suit part of the Howard government's political agenda. If we want to talk about which side of politics has actually threatened the independence of the judiciary through their intemperate remarks, I say that it is to that side of the chamber that we ought to be looking.

I will return to the contribution of the member for Sturt. What did the member for Sturt actually say? He was quite clear in what he said: he likened the Labor Party's campaign to a campaign that would make the former Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, proud. He also said that it would make Joseph Stalin—yet another authoritarian figure—proud. He was critical of the member for Jagajaga for her comments about public school funding and stated that the facts were alien to the Labor Party in this debate. What are the facts? What did the member for Jagajaga actually say? On 16 February this year the member for Jagajaga did a doorstop interview, discussing amongst other things the Commonwealth's priorities when it came to school funding. She stated:

I do not know what is Nazi propaganda about that. It seems to be a pretty clear statement of facts regarding the percentage increase that the Howard government has presided over when it comes to schools funding. On Sunday, 29 February, the member for Jagajaga did a doorstop interview in Melbourne. She was asked, in the context of the funding for needy Catholic schools—and, incidentally, Labor indicated we welcome the additional funding for needy Catholic schools—what sorts of needy schools she was talking about when she referred to schools which have not benefited under this government. She said:

So what are the facts that the member for Sturt is asserting we are misleading the Australian public with? We are putting very simple facts to the Australian people, and they are the government's own figures regarding the increase in funding that it has given to the wealthier private schools as opposed to the public school sector. This is not the place to have a long debate about schools funding. I am sure there will be other occasions when we can continue to articulate our view that there should be a needs based funding system and that the schools with the most need should receive the most funding support. One would have thought that was a fairly self-evident proposition. I want to emphasise that what we have seen from the member for Sturt is inappropriate, offensive, not in the spirit of appropriate public debate and, I would argue, part of a continued campaign by this government to attack in the most unseemly terms institutions, organisations or individuals who express a dissenting view from their own.