Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should devote a brief part of my contribution to the committee issue. I will not go into all sides of it. Frankly, at stages of that meeting a number of people got more intransigent than they needed to, and that tends to back people into corners. With just a little bit more stepping back and people operating with a bit more willingness to get the business done, there would not have been the sorts of problems that have been mentioned. Clearly when the government has the numbers on a committee it can put through a vote, although it is a matter of the standing orders that, if a committee has a private meeting whilst the Senate is sitting, then, if there is not a unanimous view on the matter before the committee, it cannot make that decision. The outcome can still occur via a phone hook-up, and that will be what will happen.

I am more concerned about the committee just deciding that Telstra not be called. Arguments no doubt will be made that that is necessary at the moment. I do not go to every Senate estimates committee—not least because four of them sit all at once, and you cannot be at all of them at once—but I have not previously heard of the situation where a blanket determination is made, point blank, that a government agency will not appear. I think that is a concerning precedent.

Earlier today we were discussing a range of annual reports. One that we did not get to was the annual report of Telstra. It is a matter of longstanding practice—it is a matter of standing orders—that annual reports stand referred to the committees and that committees consider annual reports of departments and the issues in them at the next estimates committee hearing. We as a committee will not be able to do that. I say ‘we’, but I would not be there anyway because I have to be in another committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, considering the DIMA annual report. But the committee will not be able to consider Telstra’s annual report, because it has been determined—it will be re-determined, no doubt—that Telstra will not be there. I think that is a very dangerous precedent. Unless there are extremely strong reasons for it, this is very concerning. I know that some reasons were put. I thought about them, and asked other people afterwards; they do not sound strong enough to me. The precedent of just determining that this agency will not be able to be questioned—no questions asked, literally—is very concerning.

Earlier this evening we had documents from a whole range of different organisations—the National Water Commission, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Migration Review Tribunal, ASIO, the Australian Sports Anti-doping Agency, the Aboriginal Benefits Account, Film Australia Ltd and the Australian Electoral Commission. All of those annual reports normally would be able to be used as the basis for questioning at the upcoming estimates. But that is not the case for Telstra Corporation Ltd, whose annual report was just tabled. That is a serious problem. I know there are issues around market matters and all that sort of thing, but I am not convinced that is an adequate reason.

That is in a sense the substantive decision, but there are also concerns about the process itself. As I said, it is probably not appropriate to report what everybody said, but obviously it is no secret that I was not very comfortable with the way the dispute was handled. We can all have disputes, but it is obviously better to try and handle those disputes in a way that does not force people into corners and generate division when you do not need to. I just reiterate that it is a very concerning precedent to be determining that agencies will not be able to be questioned by Senate estimates committees. I hope I do not see it again unless there is an extremely good reason.

The main issue I want to talk about this evening is the fifth anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV X. A number of people have referred to that event over the course of this week. Today, 19 October, is actually the fifth anniversary of the sinking. I was pleased to attend today the launch of a case study for secondary schools that has been developed, called ‘The sinking of the SIEV X’. This was referred to today in an article in the Australian which I thought was quite disappointing. I know this is a politically contentious issue, but an enormous number of issues can be politically contentious, whether they are recent or ancient history. Nevertheless, the case study is a great tribute to the people who put it together, particularly Don Maclurcan, who spoke to it at the launch today.

Comments and criticisms were made by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, saying that this was ‘an outrageous attempt to disguise a political agenda as school curriculum’—ignoring the fact that this is not actually a curriculum; it is a case study that schools can use as part of fulfilling their curriculum if they wish. We had the Australian’s usual, frequently quoted, education critic Kevin Donnelly saying that it is a case study that implies a predetermined answer about the tragedy and that students are being directed towards a politically correct response. I can only assume that neither of those people read the case study, because that is not what it does. I would urge them to read it, because it asks questions about the event.

This is a major tragedy. It is not every day of the week, every month or even once a year that 353 people drown trying to seek protection in Australia. It is a major tragedy—it is an unprecedented tragedy—particularly since there were 146 children involved. If we want to learn from this—on all sides—we should not just say, ‘Well, that’s too hot; we don’t want to talk about it.’ The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone, is quoted as saying that students should be presented with the facts as we know them rather than being given a biased presentation. I would agree with that; they should be presented with the facts as we know them. I think that the case study makes a good effort to do that. I really urge people to read it and make up their own minds.

One of the wider issues is that we do not know all the facts. There are more facts we could know if the government did not keep insisting on making them unavailable. Indeed, the fact that we are not able to access the facts is a fact that is relevant. But the questions that are asked are questions that people who support asylum seekers—that side of the debate—need to ask themselves as well.

It is totally appropriate for students to be asking themselves these questions. These are years 11 and 12 modern history students. The case study includes questions such as:

Why were the passengers trying to reach Australia?

Who arranged the trip and were passengers forced onboard?

In what state was the vessel and how did it sink?

What events immediately followed the sinking?

Where did the SIEV X sink?

What is so horrendously biased and politically outrageous about assessing those questions in regard to a major tragedy that linked to a major issue—a social issue, a political issue—in Australia at the time: how did this happen, how did people get there, and what was going on? And then there is the issue of the intelligence and response:

What was known, when was it known and how was the information used?

I remind the Senate and the critics that an assessment was made, including by non-government people, on the basis of the intelligence response—what was known when, and what happened. There are some criticisms about the response, but there was also an assessment made that, even if everything had been followed through, it would have been unlikely to have made a difference based on the information available. There are some other questions:

What was the disruption program?

In what context did the events occur?

That issue has a political context, and that is the one area where you might suspect that, if there was going to be a big bias, you would find it. It starts with source 36, an extract from a briefing paper for members of parliament by historian and writer Dr Barry York. It contains six long paragraphs—one of the longest sources in the book—and ends by saying that the government weathered the criticism and achieved its objectives of stopping boat arrivals. It is hardly biased; it is not biased against the government anyway.

There is the issue of where responsibility for the sinking might lie. And the final question is: ‘Was the sinking and subsequent loss of life preventable?’ They are all very valid questions. I think that people who support the asylum-seeker side of arguments need to acknowledge that it is quite feasible to argue that the sinking and subsequent loss was not preventable in the context of the time. But to say that we cannot even ask these questions is just terrible.

Finally I want to say that I saw the unveiling of the temporary memorial on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin earlier this week. It is a fantastic memorial. It involved schools and churches from around the country. I urge the National Capital Authority to recognise this as a valid activity and a beneficial one. It will happen one day or the other eventually; they should just allow it to happen and stop being seen to be preventing it. It is important to remember the people who died in this tragedy, and particularly the children who died. It will forever have a link with me because it was also the day that my own daughter was coming into the world—at the same time as so many children were tragically leaving it. That gives a special poignancy to thoughts about the purpose of life. (Time expired)