Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please proceed.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I proceed on the basis of misinformation from a Defence Force source published in articles by Glenn Milne in the Brisbane Sunday Mail, the Adelaide Sunday Mail, the Sydney Sunday Telegraph and possibly other Murdoch papers. Although Mr Milne gave me the courtesy of commenting, there are a number of misrepresentations. The misrepresentations relate to a bipartisan ADF parliamentary deployment during which time was spent on HMAS Stuart in the northern Persian Gulf.

The first misrepresentation in all papers is that I insisted on using the ship’s satellite phone system—almost a demand. There was no insistence; the truth is that I asked politely to use the phone and permission was immediately given. The second misrepresentation in the Sunday Telegraph and the Adelaide Sunday Mail is that my calls deprived sailors of precious satellite time to talk with loved ones. The fact is that I am advised that my calls and those of another member did not deprive sailors of any calls. The next inaccuracy is a claim in all papers that I divulged key information regarding the location and operations of the ship and that in doing so I put the lives of Australian sailors at risk. This is not the case and I distinctly recall saying, on a call, that I could not say where I was for security reasons. The fact is that everyone, including the Iranians and possible hostile forces, knew exactly where HMAS Stuart was as part of Australia’s contribution to gulf security and protection of Iraqi oil platforms. We have been there for these purposes since the early 1990s. While I may have mentioned that I had visited an oil platform, and with the benefit of hindsight it probably would have been better if I had not, there is no way that as a result the lives of Australian sailors were placed at risk.

The next misrepresentation is an implied suggestion that the sailors on HMAS Stuart were put at similar risk to that of British patrol boat sailors taken into custody a year earlier. Given the differences in the sizes and respective locations of the two vessels, this comparison is ludicrous. The fifth misrepresentation in all papers is that the delegation was read the riot act by an intelligence officer on the ship. This is not the case. There was a routine briefing by the intelligence officer, as occurs with all delegations. Naturally, security was discussed but no riot act was read. The delegation also had other routine briefings with other officers.

The last misrepresentation that I want to rebut is in relation to a claim that a planned boarding of a tanker had been abandoned as a result of my phone calls. I do not believe this to be true. We were permitted to observe the boarding of an Iraqi boat from an American patrol boat at very close quarters so that we could see the professionalism of Australian sailors. I understand that it was not possible for us to board the Iraqi boat for security reasons not associated with any calls I made. I applaud our Australian sailors and I thank the House for listening to this explanation.