Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take the minister’s comments in relation to Justice Callinan and the investigation not only of how this disease entered the country but also of how it spread. As I understand what the minister is saying, there are two specific matters that he has directed Justice Callinan to inquire into and then any other matters incidental to those. Under this umbrella, the minister is suggesting that the issue of the spread of the disease will require Justice Callinan to investigate and report.

From the opposition’s point of view, we take the minister’s second reading speech at its word. In that speech, as I recall—and I must admit that I do not have it in front of me but I did quote from the minister’s second reading speech in the contribution I made to this debate—he refers to the fact that this investigation will cover not only how the disease entered the country but also how the disease spread. I say to the minister: if you are willing, in your second reading speech, to be quite specific about the nature of this inquiry, I simply invite you to incorporate that particular provision in the bill. It seems a logical extension of what you have already said in your second reading speech to incorporate that specific provision in the bill, and then there will be no argument. There will be unanimity on both sides of the House and in the industry and the community about the particular inquiry.

We restate some things that perhaps we do not like to restate on the floor of the House time and time again. But on this side of the House we are sick and tired of the government initiating inquiries where there are, shall I say, ‘nobbled terms of reference’. I used that term in my speech. I am not suggesting that the minister is nobbling the terms of reference; I am merely saying that we have had a very bad experience in terms of AWB and the capacity of the terms of reference in an inquiry to actually limit where the justice entrusted with the task of the inquiry can go. All we are simply asking the minister to do in the amendments we have proposed is to be true and specific to what he has already stated in his second reading speech ought to be the subject of inquiry. We do not think it is a big step to take. I think it would allay the fears of the opposition. It would certainly temper any ongoing criticism we might have of the minister and what he might be attempting to do in framing the terms of reference to shield himself and the government in an election environment and a post-election environment from proper scrutiny. We are simply asking that this matter be transparent and that the government be accountable. We think the best way to do that is to implement the amendments that we have proposed, because they are very specifically consistent with the terms that have been used by the minister in his second reading speech.

See this speech in context