Senator CHRIS EVANS (3:28 PM) —It was a good lawyer's argument produced by the previous speaker, Senator Brandis, but like most of the government's argument it was very selective in its use of the evidence. We had another example today when Senator Ferguson verballed Mr Latham by not correctly quoting the whole transcript of Mr Latham's interview on the AM program this morning. That was used as a device by the minister, Senator Hill, in order to launch a pre-emptive strike. He is very much into pre-emptive strike policies, but this was a pre-emptive strike on the debate that he knew he would have to face today. We finish this fortnight of the parliamentary sittings as we began it: embroiled in a debate about the government's abuse of the traditions of the Public Service and its politicisation.

As Mr Latham said yesterday, Mr Howard will use anything to try to hang on to power. Last week it was Commissioner Keelty, the head of the Australian Federal Police. He was used as part of a defence of the Prime Minister's position and was pressured to retract his honestly held opinions about the influence of government policy on the risk to Australia from terrorist attack. We went through that terrible episode where Mr Keelty was publicly humiliated because he had a view contrary to the government's. He was pressured by the government as part of its defence and was pressured in a very unfortunate way.

In the last couple of days we have seen the government again attempting to abuse Public Service processes, to hide behind public servants in order to launch an attack on Mr Latham. I know they are scared of Mr Latham. I know they are terribly off-balance as a result of the way Mr Latham is connecting with the Australian public. They are concerned about the polling figures. I understand all that. This week's exercise was about trying to grubby Mr Latham, to dirty him and to mess him up a bit.

We have had false accusation after false accusation. The Prime Minister and Mr Downer began by claiming that there had been no briefings. But when it became clear that there had been briefings, Mr Howard said, `Mr Latham had briefings, but they were not really by Foreign Affairs and Defence.' Mr Latham makes it clear that they were by officers of Foreign Affairs and Defence and puts that on the record. Then the government claim that the briefings were not really about Iraq. Mr Latham makes it clear that Iraq was discussed. The government then claim that the briefings were not enough about Iraq or did not contain enough information from the departments about the issues on which the government think Mr Latham should have had information before he announced the Australian Labor Party's policy on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. What absolute nonsense!

Mr Latham had two briefings. In addition to those, he had a range of advice provided to him about how best to implement longstanding Labor policy. He had advice from Kevin Rudd, the foreign affairs spokesman, who had visited Baghdad and had first-hand experience of the situation on the ground—the role of the troops in the Australian contingent and the functions that they are providing. He had advice from me, which went to the briefings I had had earlier in the year from Defence, and there was information on the public record of discussions with General Cosgrove and others about the deployment of troops, the dates for their planned withdrawal, their functions and their health issues. All of those things have been examined and discussed at length at estimates and in earlier briefings during the war period. Mr Latham had all that information.

As the Prime Minister gets more and more desperate, we are seeing, as I say, desperate attempts by the government to try to dirty up Mr Latham. The government have then dragged public servants into this issue, insisting that they provide letters. On the first day of the government's defence, the Prime Minister presents a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Defence. That was not good enough; it did not really establish the Prime Minister's case. So then they had to get Mr Bonighton to sign a personal letter, in which he was obviously requested to address a whole range of issues. Mr Bonighton is a good officer. I make no criticism of him. But we have seen the constant politicisation of the Public Service, and Defence has suffered very badly. Who can forget the instance involving Paul Barratt, the former Secretary of the Department of Defence, the misuse of intelligence over Timor and the DIO, the `children overboard' affair, Andrew Wilkie and the concern by many former defence chiefs and senior officers about the government's misuse of intelligence in their public statements leading up to our involvement in Iraq? We have seen Defence constantly misused and constantly politicised as part of this government's desperate attempt to hang on to power. It is not good enough. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.