Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Johnston, I present additional information received by the committee relating to supplementary estimates hearings in the 2005-06 budget estimates.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

This report is one to the Senate from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and I am particularly interested in volume 2 of this report because that deals with the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio—the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and Austrade. Of particular interest to the Senate is the fact that on pages 4, 5 and 6 of this report we have answers to questions from senators which were asked on 3 November 2005 in relation to the Australian Wheat Board. I might come back to those answers in a short while.

However, this stands in very stark contrast to the approach of the government in relation to not only the foreign affairs and trade estimates committee but all estimates committees in the recent round. Senators would recall that in an absolutely unprecedented action the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated that ministers and officials would not be answering any questions in relation to matters that may, however loosely or indirectly, have some vague association with matters before the Cole royal commission. In fact, it was interpreted even more broadly than that.

How did this come about? Neither the Labor Party—the opposition—nor, for that matter, any non-government senators were informed of this ban. The cabinet had made a decision some time before Minister Minchin indicated to the estimates committee that the ban had been imposed. When this Senate chamber determined the arrangements for the Senate estimates committees, no-one in government had the courtesy to inform the opposition or non-government senators that questions on this important matter that had been dominating public and parliamentary debate in the week prior to Senate estimates were banned. No-one acknowledged or notified senators in this chamber that they were about to be ambushed by the government.

It was unprecedented. It was improper. It was absolutely outside the standing orders that govern the operations of this Senate chamber and the committees of the Senate. It was something that had never previously occurred in the history of the Commonwealth parliament. I suppose you do not expect much courtesy in this place but, for this government, it plumbed new depths. But this is a government that has absolutely no interest in parliamentary accountability.

We have a situation where when questions were asked of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, time and time again, when the questions were directed through the minister, the minister refused to answer. It was quite extraordinary that when questions were directed to officials from Austrade—which has statutory autonomy—there was a problem. The Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, had not made a direction to Austrade officials in accordance with the Austrade Act so as to prevent Austrade officials answering questions. But that was ignored too. We could not even get a straight answer from the minister at the table, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, as to whether Mr Vaile had provided a direction in writing to Austrade officials to prevent them from answering questions properly directed to them. Why not? Because no such direction was provided in accordance with the Austrade Act by Minister Vaile. So they were hung out to dry.

From time to time, some questions about the operations of the department in relation to how it responded to a subpoena from the Cole royal commission, how documents were collected and other procedural or administrative issues were answered. Through recent evidence at the Cole royal commission, what has become absolutely clear in relation to those procedures in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is how hopeless even that action was. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had a coordinating role but the procedures in other departments have also proven to be absolutely inadequate. We even had a situation where one minister was congratulated for ensuring another search took place in his department, the Department of Defence, in recent time. So the procedures within the department have been inadequate.

The breach of Senate procedures, the breach of proper process and the breach of faith involved in this are unprecedented in the history of the Commonwealth. Of course, the government is hell-bent, with its new Senate majority, on turning the best accountability mechanism we have in the Australian parliament into a farce and a joke. As far as the opposition are concerned, we intend to keep going.

We know what the Prime Minister’s theme is in relation to any questions that might embarrass him. As someone who is moving on in years, I remember in my youth Helen Shapiro’s famous hit Not Responsible. That is the Prime Minister’s theme song: ‘Not, not, not responsible. I can’t answer for the things I do.’ They might be Helen Shapiro’s words, but they are John Howard’s slogan. That is how this government does business: not responsible. The Prime Minister will not be responsible for his or the government’s actions. The words of the song are: ‘I can’t answer for the things I do.’ In Mr Howard’s case, he won’t answer for the things that he and his ministers have done.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that we have a situation where we go to war with Iraq on the basis of a lie and make the most condemnatory statements as a nation about the Saddam Hussein regime when, on the other hand, while we are doing that, through the backdoor, we are acting as Saddam Hussein’s bankers to the tune of $300 million. Under the laws of the land, introduced by the Howard government and supported in large measure by this opposition, if a person is reckless as to whether funds will be used to fund terrorism or be used to facilitate or engage in a terrorist act—if you are just reckless—the penalty is life imprisonment. So imagine what would happen in the case of an Islamic or Muslim organisation where $300,000 was channelled to Saddam Hussein. But in this case $300 million was channelled because this government turned a blind eye to what AWB were doing. It is the greatest scandal in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. (Time expired)

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.