Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5:11 PM) —I move:

What a contempt of the Senate when the National Party deputy assistant whip in this place is delegated to inform the Senate that the government will not comply with such an important order of the Senate. The most junior person in the Senate who could provide that information, Senator McGauran, was delegated—probably because he was the only one who would be willing to do so, probably because he did not understand what he was doing—to come into this chamber and indicate that this important order of the Senate would not be complied with. How typical of the Howard government to thumb its nose at the Senate in this way. How typical of the Howard government to cover up and fail to comply.

Why are they doing it? In order to avoid embarrassment, in order to avoid exposure of their heavy-handed bullying of Police Commissioner Keelty and in order to keep the facts hidden. They have sent in poor old Senator McGauran to tell us that the government will not comply, that the government will not table these documents—poor old Senator McGauran, the patsy who has to reveal that the government is not going to provide these documents to the parliament and to the Australian people.

Of course, if those documents were provided, it would reveal the government's role in this sordid affair. Last Wednesday, 24 March, the Senate passed a motion seeking the tabling of the various drafts of the clarifying statement that the government forced on Police Commissioner Mick Keelty two days after he made what could only be described as a commonsense observation that the war in Iraq would increase the terrorism threat for allies of the US involved in the war.

We know that the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr Sinodinos, rang the AFP commissioner on Sunday, 14 March after he had had a conversation with the Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister was watching the Sunday program from the comfort, the splendiferous surroundings, of Kirribilli House. Apparently, we are told, the Prime Minister was `unimpressed'. He immediately called Mr Sinodinos and:

I interpolate here; it is Commissioner Keelty—

That was from Dennis Atkins in the Courier-Mail. We know that on this occasion, through Laurie Oakes in last week's Bulletin, Commissioner Keelty was, to use Mr Oakes's words, `clearly shaken' by the phone call from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr Sinodinos. Media reports suggest that Mr Sinodinos personally chastised the commissioner and that the conversation was terse. Was this when Mr Sinodinos put the hard word on the commissioner for the clarification or was it after the Channel 9 news that night? Mr Howard was extremely agitated about the news item, so much so he repeated the news grab twice during question time and in the debate on the censure motion in the House of Representatives last week. This is what Mr Howard said in the parliament:

That is what Mr Howard said. Was that when the clarification was demanded, after the most widely watched news bulletin aired a commonsense interpretation by Police Commissioner Keelty? We do not know. Oversensitive as he is, Mr Howard certainly thought this whole thing was a gigantic media problem for his government. The Prime Minister confirmed it in parliament last week. He said:

That is what the Prime Minister said in parliament. What did Senator Ellison say in this chamber? What did the Minister for Justice and Customs tell the Senate on 22 March? Senator Ellison said:

Senator Ellison admitted in this chamber on Tuesday of last week that he did not speak to Commissioner Keelty about the matter until two days later, which, of course, is extremely lax. It is just what you would expect from Senator Ellison as the minister in charge of the AFP. I am not particularly surprised, I have to say, that Senator Ellison was kept out of the loop. That is what you would expect in the case of Senator Ellison. But the commissioner's clarification was issued on Tuesday afternoon, 23 March. We understood through media reports that the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold, and perhaps the office of the Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, or the Attorney-General's Department were involved in its drafting or vetting. When asked last Wednesday in question time whether it was true that his staff had drafted the clarifying statement at his direction, the Prime Minister, unlike Senator Ellison, simply avoided the question. He did not answer the question. He did not try to answer the question. He just claimed:

If that is the case, this government should have nothing to hide. It should be prepared to table these important documents in the Senate.

The Prime Minister told parliament that the commissioner was not rebuked, that the commissioner was not treated improperly. That is not the picture that emerges from the leaks to the media and what we know about this incident as it has been reported. If the Prime Minister does believe that the commissioner was treated properly, why does he have a problem with releasing the drafts of the clarifying statement? There is no reasonable excuse for failing to release these drafts. It is not as if there have been a lot of drafts to round up. There might be Commissioner Keelty's drafts; there might be Dr Shergold's drafts; there might be whatever tinkering went on in the Attorney-General's office or department; and there might be whatever tinkering went on with Mr Howard and Mr Sinodinos. But there is no good reason why the drafts of the statement could not be tabled in the Senate in accordance with an order of the Senate.

This government has had plenty of time to get these few documents in order and there can be no valid excuse for not complying with this order. Of course, while there is no valid excuse, there is a reason for not complying with the order. The reason is that, if these drafts were tabled, the parliament and public would become aware of the government's bullying of one of the country's most important independent statutory office holders. The government would actually be exposed. The drafts would expose this government's modus operandi in dealing with senior officials who stray away from the government line. Of course, the problem is that these drafts would expose the truth. When the truth is unpalatable, this government will go to any lengths to conceal it.

Although this is a very serious breach of an order of the Senate, on a matter about which there must be government accountability, it needs to be said that this is now standard operating procedure for the Howard government. I think it is worth identifying this government's abysmal record of compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents. It is an absolutely abysmal record. There have been 72 such orders made by the Senate since the beginning of 2002. On 22 occasions out of 72, the government has refused to comply with the orders. No doubt someone from the government will stand up and say, `That's how the Labor Party operated when it was in government.' It is simply not true. This stands in stark contrast to the way the Labor government responded to these orders of the Senate. During the term of the Keating government, the Senate made 53 orders for the production of documents, only four of which were not complied with. On those four occasions there were very good reasons for noncompliance.

Although we have that pattern of failure to comply with Senate orders and the pattern of government cover-up, the particular case we are looking at is an open-and-shut case. The truth of the matter—when there is any truth from the government on any of this—is that Mr Howard crossed the line in this case. Instead of frank advice from our highest officials, Mr Howard demands unqualified, third-party endorsement. That is standard operating practice for the Howard government. That, in Mr Howard's mind, in the government's mind, is what high-profile government officials, public servants and officers are there for—to back Mr Howard's line, to back up the government holus-bolus, without demur and without dissent.

If the return to order had been adhered to, as any reasonable person would expect from any government in these circumstances, we would have seen clearly what demands were made and what demands were met. Given that Commissioner Keelty did not retract from his original position in his clarification statement, I do not think that Mr Howard did get this issue, by any stretch, all his own way. One thing is for sure—the Howard government does not want anyone to know. We may never know, because the government will probably continue its policy of cover-up.

That is what needs to be clearly identified here. In failing to provide the documentation demanded by the Senate, Mr Howard is covering up a very dubious process. In an accountable system of democracy, such behaviour is utterly unacceptable. This should be unacceptable to the Senate and the Australian parliament. It ought to be unacceptable to the Australian people. It ought not to be acceptable to put the screws on the chief of police, our top cop, cover it up and then hide behind the pathetic statement that we have heard read out to this chamber.

I believe the appropriate course of action for the Senate is to roundly condemn interference where prime ministerial advisers ring senior, non-political figures and leave them shaken because their nuance about an issue is not the preferred nuance of the government, the government's advisers or the Prime Minister. When an unremarkable comment, like the one that Commissioner Keelty made, becomes some sort of political bombshell, it is a pretty fair indication of how rattled the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, is, how rattled his government is and how corrupted the process of government has become.

I want to be very clear about this: I think that the treatment of Commissioner Keelty is a disgrace, but I also think that the failure to adhere to such an order of the Senate is a disgrace. This chamber now needs to consider what action to take. One of the problems that we face in the Senate when a government engages in this sort of behaviour is the issue of what sanctions exist. What can the Senate do that is reasonable? There are suggestions that we should not deal with government legislation—effectively, if you like, that the Senate should go on strike—and that we should not ask certain ministers questions and so forth. All of these have an impact on the very important accountability mechanisms of this parliament, the best of which lie in this chamber. There is one course of action—one sensible course of action, one proper course of action, one principled course of action—and that is to censure the government and the minister responsible. I do not believe that the Senate has any alternative but to take substantive action in this circumstance and censure Minister Hill. I commend this censure motion to the Senate.