Senator FERGUSON (3:13 PM) —One could be forgiven for thinking that this is the last taking note of answers on the very last day of a sitting session because Senator Faulkner asked: how low can you go? I would say about as low as Senator Faulkner got in taking note of the answers today. All Senator Faulkner could come up with was a whole range of criticisms of the Prime Minister based on some very loose facts. Of course, we need to remember that Mr Latham has put himself in this position because of his use of Mr Bonighton to justify some of the statements that Mr Latham has made in relation to withdrawing troops from Iraq. He used Mr Bonighton. He used a private briefing to justify every statement that he has made in his policy bungle—and he realises that it is a policy bungle—to bring our troops home immediately from Iraq.

Today we heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate say how important the work is that those people are doing in Iraq—in the reconstruction of Iraq and in making sure that the people of Iraq have a better life in the future. We heard Senator Faulkner talk about coercion of public servants. What rubbish! People have provided information to the government of their own free will—letters were freely given, not extracted—but it sounds good for Senator Faulkner to stand up and say that these people were coerced into doing these sorts of things.

Senator Faulkner says that Mr Bonighton is on the rack. If Mr Bonighton is on the rack, it is because of Mr Latham, not because of anything that this government has done. It is because of Mr Latham's use of a private briefing that is normally given to leaders of the opposition when they assume that role—a briefing and an overview of the role of that department. Mr Latham says that he had an express briefing and, from the information gained from that meeting with Mr Bonighton, he says that he determined that our policy in Iraq was chaos. What rubbish! It was never said at that briefing, and Mr Bonighton has already said that that is not the substance of what was said during that briefing.

There is nothing sensitive about the identities of or the positions held by Mr Irvine or Mr Bonighton, and the information that was provided to the House in no way compromises the identities of members of our intelligence agencies—another issue raised by Mr Latham today and one which nobody in this place believes. Mr Latham spent all of yesterday and all of today trying to get out of a policy position that he espoused—I guess without any consultation with his colleagues, because he has not consulted the caucus on any of his other major decisions in relation to defence and in relation to withdrawal from Iraq.

Senator FERGUSON —Plenty of your guys say so, Senator Ludwig, so we know that it must be true. The Leader of the Opposition's claims—and the claims made here by Senator Faulkner today, when he stooped to the same old record and back we went to the history of this government because he could not find any other way to justify what Mr Latham has said—are completely unfounded. They only serve to confirm his ignorance about the operation of our intelligence agencies and the associated conventions that have been developed in this parliament. Those conventions have been recognised by governments for a long time now.

The Prime Minister provided the information to the House yesterday and the day before to clarify the contents of briefings, because Mr Latham used those briefings—his so-called briefings; the lengthy briefings, he said, although we know now that they were not lengthy briefings—to justify the policy position that he took in relation to our troops in Iraq. The troops in Iraq do not agree with his position. Scarcely any public commentator in Australia agrees with the policy decision taken by Mr Latham. Certainly the people of Australia do not agree with Mr Latham. At least 61 per cent of them have said, `We want our troops to stay in Iraq because we want them to finish the job.' Mr Latham's policy on the run—this ridiculous policy of withdrawing our troops—should be refuted. (Time expired)