Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

If I may, I will make just a few brief comments and put on record my apology for last night not being here to sum up on the second reading debate. At least one person dropped off the speakers list, for which we as a government in fact are thankful—albeit I think it was an oversight by that senator. Nevertheless, we are thankful. As a result, I was not able to answer some of the questions that were raised during speeches on the second reading. I thought, rather than have all those questions raised again in the committee stage, I would seek—and I thank my staff, as they have compiled a list of those questions—to answer some of those now. I will do that in a bid to truncate some of the questions that will undoubtedly have to be repeated if I do not.

Having said that, I understand that Senator O’Brien raised a question about the protections provided to people involved in the inquiry, and we had a bit of a discussion about that last night. As I mentioned yesterday, the bill ensures that witnesses appearing before the commission of inquiry will have the same protections as witnesses appearing before a royal commission. For example, the provisions under the Royal Commissions Act make it an offence to injure a witness or to prevent a witness from attending et cetera. These protections do not provide a blanket immunity against self-incrimination. Indeed, section 6A of the Royal Commissions Act specifies that the possibility of self-incrimination does not excuse witnesses from answering questions. However, section 6DD of the act does provide that specific statements made by a witness in the course of giving evidence to an inquiry are not in themselves admissible in subsequent court proceedings against them.

I understand questions were raised by Senators O’Brien and Milne in relation to the tabling of Mr Callinan’s report and that the suggestion was made that the government should be required to table Mr Callinan’s report once it is completed. We as a government cannot support such a requirement, as it could actually narrow the scope of what Mr Callinan can include in his report. For example, the report might contain personal information or commercially sensitive material that could not be made public without unfairly disadvantaging individuals involved in the inquiry. Tabling has never been a legal requirement for the reports of royal commissions. It could effectively limit reports to including only information that can be made public. In relation to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, this flexibility meant that the government could act on the recommendation that one volume of the report be kept confidential, as its release might have prejudiced possible future criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the government remains fully committed to making the findings of this report public, as Minister McGauran made clear when he announced the inquiry. There was some comment about the potential narrowness of the terms of reference, but I think we covered that off in the discussion last night. Without delaying the committee further, I look forward to further questions.