Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I took no pleasure from the fact that I predicted that the government would gag public servants. I said so in a meeting of Labor Party people several days before estimates. They were a bit cynical of that view, but it proved to be right—and I take no pleasure in it. What I do not take pleasure in either was that when we asked the question: ‘Who imposed this ban?’ the answer from the minister at the table was: ‘The government.’ We asked: ‘Who in the government?’ An answer was refused. ‘When was the decision taken?’ Answer refused.

Later in the day, the Prime Minister fessed up in the House of Representatives: it was a cabinet decision. Clearly he sent a message to Senator Minchin that we could be told the date of it, which was 6 February. But we could not even get answers to questions from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about when they received notification and whether they instructed public servants in writing. We could not even get that. So this was basically an ambush: make the decision on 6 February but don’t announce it until 13 February. Let all the Labor Party people—other than me, probably—slave away, research the issue and get prepared, and then waste all that time. That was a deliberate strategy. It is a disgraceful one because it means that other areas at estimates, when there was not going to be time for them, were not covered properly. That is a pretty cynical exploitation of the cabinet decision-making process. If it was such a principled decision made on 6 February, why wasn’t it announced then? Why weren’t we informed so we could concentrate on other areas?

I suppose in some ways the ban is a great compliment to Labor senators in particular. Labor senators are, apparently, feared at estimates committees. They were worried about what might come out. Let us accept none of the nonsense that, in fact, they were worried about impinging on the Cole inquiry, because the ban only applies to estimates. It does not apply to any other committee. A reference committee tomorrow considering an annual report could call the same public servants in, cross-examine them, and there would be no ban. So the government’s fear was of the estimates process, not the parliamentary process.

The fact is that they botched it even then. It had not applied and could not apply to statutory authorities, so the Wheat Export Authority had to come in and answer questions. But Austrade were banned even though, when you read their legislation, you have to have a written directive to be able to enforce it on them. In fact, that was an illegal act by this government. But the tragedy of this is that information that could have been pursued then may have enlightened us all. For instance, we did ask some process questions about documents that were made available, but we could not pursue it in depth.

And what happens today? Four new secret cables are discovered and sent to the Cole inquiry. They go back to the year 2000, to meetings in Washington, and go to Canberra recommending—but we do not know the result of it—that Mr Vaile be informed. I am not alleging that Mr Vaile was informed at that stage, but we would have liked to know why he was not informed. If these cables were coming from New York from Mr Nicholas, expressing all sorts of concerns after a meeting with Mr Flugge, why can’t we pursue those issues? The Cole commission does not have the terms of reference to fully explore the government’s role. It was deliberately cast that way so it could not. If you look at the cross-examination these are peripheral issues to the Cole inquiry, but they are core business for this Senate and the scrutiny of the executive.

I must say that the most disappointing aspect of this was PM&C. I want to refer to the following exchange. Senator Faulkner asks the deputy secretary:

Dr Morauta, when were you informed of the government decision in relation to this matter?—

that is, about the gag on public servants—

Dr Morauta—I think I will take the question on notice.

Only two implications can be drawn from that answer: ‘I am willing to cover it up and not say anything,’ or ‘I do not know.’ They are the only two explanations. I await a third one, if there is one. What does that say about a deputy secretary who will not answer a direct question from an estimates committee? It was not a banned question, by the way. It did not go to the AWB, it did not go to the Cole commission; it went to the processes of government. Can we really believe that a deputy secretary could not recall or did not know of this cabinet decision, when we know that the secretary of the Senate Rural, Regional and Transport Legislation Committee on the Tuesday read the decision and ultimately remembered and recalled sending out written instructions on this to public servants? Or can we believe that Mr Varghese found out about it at the start of the estimates process and noted it? The answer from DFAT is that they knew a week before and they had instructed officers. But, oh, no—in PM&C the deputy secretary cannot answer that question! I think it is an absolute disgrace that witnesses take questions on notice to which they know the answer but it is politically inconvenient to give it.

The thing that strikes me, that is a tragedy in this government, is the dumbing down of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I have been going to those estimates committees for 10 years and I have run into some pretty fearsome characters there, some immensely capable people. And I am just wondering whether PM&C has been used too much as a recruiting ground to fill up other departments’ weaknesses and it is now left with the dross that it has got. That performance by the public servants on that day was nothing short of pathetic.

I predict again: by the time we get around to the May estimates some new excuse will come up not to have the public servants examined. It will be because matters are with the DPP or the report is not in, or some other reason to avoid scrutiny. Really, I do not think that is good enough. Senator Faulkner pointed out that this is not just a matter of bad form. If, in fact, money went to the Saddam Hussein regime—and the government define that regime as one that supported terrorism—then their own legislation kicks in. So we need to know the full details. We need to know what responsibility lies with the Public Service in these matters, why they did not pick up the signals and why they did not act on them. But as long as this ban is in place they are protected.

We are seeing the same weakness on this issue as we saw with weapons of mass destruction. It is not so much that I blame this government for its analysis and its belief that there were weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda from the Iraqi regime. That is quite feasible, on the intelligence put before them. The same goes with the AWB issue. It is that, once it occurs, there is no desire to go out and prosecute it. I have only heard one substantial Liberal come out and criticise the AWB for its activities and say that there should be possible criminal convictions. That, of course, was a minister who has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, who is isolated from it and who wants to put a bit of pressure on his colleagues because he wants to be Prime Minister. So I take that as a pretty insincere comment.

Any government with decency, faced with the facts that it has now got, would be roaring out there trying to find out—not hiding behind a royal commission, not gagging public servants, but taking the initiative themselves to find out what went wrong, when it went wrong and how they can rectify it. But not this government; it is not interested. It is interested in one thing and one thing alone: how can they protect themselves. They are fearful that a smoking gun will be found, so every activity is directed to distancing themselves from the department and the issue as much as they can. What I would like to see is a hungry government going out there representing the proper interests of Australia and trying to get to the bottom of this particular problem. But, oh no! The answer is: gag public servants, ambush the opposition and sit there smugly knowing you have a Senate majority and you can do what you like.

Question agreed to.