Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support Labor’s amendment and to indicate that the Greens have a similar amendment, the only difference being in the time frame. The Labor Party’s amendment requires that the report be presented within five days. We are saying the report should be presented within 14 days. To save time, I thought that I would speak to my amendment and then, if the amendment is put sequentially when the time comes, it might facilitate the business of the chamber.

The public has a great interest in this issue. Right across Australia, communities want answers on where this disease came from and how it managed to escape the quarantine facility. Many questions are being asked about the compensation payments. We are told they are not compensation payments; they are income substitution payments. Perhaps there will not be compensation. It depends entirely on what the inquiry report finds and how far it goes. Certainly, there are people who argue that they ought to be compensated. We are going to see enormous public interest in the inquiry because it has such far-reaching ramifications throughout rural and regional Australia, particularly for the horse-racing industry. But it is not confined to that; it has ramifications for all horse related industries. I believe the report should be tabled in both houses of parliament.

My only experience of the impact of a royal commission report—and this is the equivalent of a royal commission—was the Carter royal commission into the attempt to bribe a member of parliament in 1989 in Tasmania. That report was full and frank in its assessment of the evidence. The detail was in the report and it was tabled. Royal Commissioner Carter made judgements at the time. He made it clear why matters were being referred to the DPP and where there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a reference to the DPP. If it was possible to make that kind of finding available in that case, I cannot see why it cannot apply in this case. I would expect—as would every member of parliament—that matters that would prejudice the outcome of any criminal proceedings would be dealt with appropriately by Justice Callinan in this report. I have no doubt that that will occur and that he will frame the report in a way that ensures the maximum potential for the success of any criminal proceedings in the event that they are warranted. It would give much more comfort to people around Australia if they knew that the report was going to be tabled in the parliament and that they were going to have an opportunity to read the whole thing from start to finish. They will then be able to determine whether they concur and can take comfort from the fact that (a) the investigation was comprehensive and (b) they were able to make judgements having read the evidence and looked at the recommendations. That is the entirely appropriate way to go.

With the Carter royal commission, which was much more politicised than this inquiry, the report was able to be tabled and made public in full at that time. I cannot see why the same cannot apply in this case. I do not follow the government’s argument in terms of caveats. There is such huge interest in this issue that, as a matter of transparency for the Australian community, not only should the report be made available to the minister but very soon thereafter it should be made available to the parliament. I am prepared to support the tabling of the report within five days, as the opposition proposes. In the event that that is not supported by the government, my amendment seeks a period of 14 days. It is then a question of principle as to whether the government believes it is appropriate for people to read in full what Justice Callinan finds. It is entirely appropriate that, as the representatives of the Australian community, we insist that the whole community has access to the report as Justice Callinan writes it.