Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ellison, the Minister for Justice and Customs. I refer the minister to the following comments made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday regarding the Cole commission of inquiry:

If we had wanted to cover up, do you know what we would have done? We would have sent this off to some kind of investigation by the Australian Federal Police.

Does the minister share the Prime Minister’s view that the Australian Federal Police is the place to send matters that you want covered up? If the minister agrees with the Prime Minister, can he indicate how many times the AFP has been used by the government in this way? Does this mean that the reason why the Australian Federal Police is investigating seven potential breaches of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is that the government wants to cover them up?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig needs to get into context what the Prime Minister said the other day. What the Prime Minister said was that it was an appropriate thing to do to send the AWB issue off to the commission of inquiry. It is interesting that in the Age the other day it was reported that Jeffrey Meyer, the senior counsel to Mr Volcker, who started all this with the Volcker inquiry, said:

If there is a silver lining here, it is that Australia took this report very seriously.

The larger global scandal here is so many other countries failed to take any kind of action despite the fact that the Volcker commission exposed, and conclusively proved in many instances, illegal payments.

What the Prime Minister was saying was that when you have an issue such as the one we had with AWB, it necessitates a commission of inquiry and that that was an appropriate way to deal with the matter. That has been endorsed internationally, and I refer to no less than the comments of the senior counsel to Mr Volcker, who ran the Volcker inquiry which started it all.

Senator Ludwig mentioned the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to the AFP. What he did not tell the Senate is that the Prime Minister said that the AFP does a very good job, a very thorough job, if I remember correctly. Certainly, matters which contravene the law are referred to the AFP. We do that regularly, both through me, as the Minister for Justice and Customs, and also through other avenues of referral. The Prime Minister was quite right when he was outlining the difference between a police investigation and a commission of inquiry. The commission of inquiry was the appropriate path to take in relation to the AWB matter. Matters of criminality, which may or may not be proved, may well be referred from that commission of inquiry, as is normal when you have a commission of inquiry. The Prime Minister certainly endorsed the very good work done by the Australian Federal Police, and so do I.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Don’t Tuesday’s comments by the Prime Minister, and his poor choice of words in particular, risk tarnishing the Australian Federal Police and all of its dedicated officers? Will the minister now apologise on behalf of all of the government for the Prime Minister’s outrageous slur on the integrity of the Australian Federal Police and its officers?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, in the very answer that Senator Ludwig referred to, the Prime Minister acknowledged the very good work done by the Australian Federal Police, as do I. We all do. The Prime Minister certainly acknowledged that. There is no need for an apology at all. In fact, the Prime Minister praised the work of the AFP.