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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Let me be plain about this. The minister for justice was asked about statements from the government regarding the anthrax scare at the Indonesian Embassy last year. Last year’s hoax was a very serious affair but it was not assisted by the Prime Minister’s eagerness to rush out and declare it was an act of murderous criminality without the preliminary testing suggesting it was a biological agent. This government’s eagerness to act as an agent of fear is all the more deplorable for its failure to correct the record once it learnt that its statements were wrong.

It is typical of this government. The principle here is very simple: when you become aware that a past statement is wrong, it is critical that the government correct the record immediately. Hasn’t this government learnt anything in 10 years? When you look at children overboard, it could have learnt a lesson but did not.

This is all the more important when you are dealing with matters of national security and potential terrorist threats. The government should be wary of becoming the boy who cried wolf. Its failure to correct the record in relation to past warnings and claims about something that turns out to be a hoax undermines the credibility of future warnings on similar matters, thus putting Australian lives in danger. That is the premise. This government should learn from that. It is completely unacceptable.

Senator Vanstone, the minister for immigration, is a key figure in the Howard government’s culture of denial. In the AWB scandal, we see them channel funds to one of the world’s greatest criminal terrorists to the tune of $290 million and then beat their chests about how pure they are because they grudgingly held a limited inquiry into this disgraceful conduct. But the culture of denial is rampant through this government and is demonstrated by the following statement. Senator Vanstone, in parliament on 10 May 2005, said:

The short answer is that I think the department do an excellent job. We are talking about 0.2 per cent of the cases.

And the PM, picking up on that I assume, on 26 May 2005, said:

And I’m told that of these 88,000, 201 individual cases fell into the category where a person was released after it was determined they were not here unlawfully and that was 0.2 per cent of the number of people who were located.

So it is this ability to say: ‘It’s a small margin.’ But if there is any doubt about where the source of the problem culture lies, Mr Palmer, when he conducted his inquiry nailed the Prime Minister and Senator Vanstone with this quote direct from the Palmer report, where he said:

It was suggested to the Inquiry that, of the thousands of removals and cases DIMIA deals with each year, the case of Cornelia Rau represents less than 0.001 per cent. The Inquiry considers that this statement, more than most, demonstrates the culture and mindset that have brought about the failures in policy implementation and practices.

There is something seriously wrong with the moral fibre of the Howard government when it relies on that, and it has been clearly outed by the Ombudsman. From answers from the minister given to the Senate today, it is clear that the culture of fear, cover-up and denial are still alive and well in the Howard government. When you look at the Ombudsman’s recent report, the Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, said he was shocked by the report which highlighted serious administrative deficiencies in the immigration department. He added that the problem could be solved by proper leadership. That is what he said.

The minister is the person who should take the lead and demonstrate leadership. That is where the blame lies: in the inability of this minister to take her ministerial responsibility and accountability properly and deal with it effectively and ensure that we do not use an AWD defence of ‘We held an inquiry. We’ve opened the door.’ You have not corrected the problem; you have left the minister where she is. But I see that that could be corrected this Christmas. Mr Robb might get it yet. (Time expired)

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, on the last take note of answers this year, to talk about the question on the biological agent early in question time today. It seems to me that the criticism, if you analyse it, is not because there was no real fear about the white powder that was discovered at the Indonesian embassy, a country with which we are very closely associated; it was with respect to describing it as ‘a biological agent’. It was certainly biological; the difference in some people’s minds was that this disingenuously caused some fear when the term ‘agent’ was applied to the biology of it. I never knew that the powder at the time was being analysed—and it took several days to analyse it before it was discovered that it was actually flour—but fear is just as genuine when you initially believe something is dangerous and it is subsequently found to be not dangerous.

The Sydney Morning Herald described it as ‘Australia’s biggest terror scare’. That helps sell newspapers, but it is irresponsible for any media outlet, let alone one as significant as the Sydney Morning Herald, to use that phrase. It certainly was not geological, as we now know. Was it pathological? No—not now. Was it mythological? I think it probably was closest to that category. It certainly was not astrological.

But there are some powders that all look the same. It is very difficult, even when feeling them, to test the difference between different forms of white powder to which you could attach a name. Some of those white powders are quite common: flour; talcum powder; calcium carbonate, often referred to as chalk in its solid form; manganese glutamate; niacin, which is referred to commonly as vitamin B; artificial sweeteners; cement—you can get a white form of cement and, although it is dense, it feels like many of those other white powders I have just mentioned; the dust from gyprock after a ceiling has been fixed on new or repaired homes; laundry detergent; and gypsum.

These powders are all innocuous white powders. They are powders I am familiar with and have read about. I have maybe even touched most of them; I have touched some of them. I think the white powder scare at the Indonesian embassy caused us to set up a white powder room here in the basement of this parliament. Some are dangerous powders like anthrax. I recall in America some postal workers died; others became seriously ill because anthrax had been sent through the post. Some nitramines or explosives are white powders. Cocaine is something that, again, I am not familiar with, having never touched or ingested it in any way whatsoever. Diclofenac sodium, used as an anti-inflammatory, is a white powder. Ketoprofen is also an anti-inflammatory. There is boron citrate and lithium carbonate. Cyanide is highly toxic but is used in prolific amounts in the goldmining industry.

The real point I want to make today is not that the Prime Minister and others acted irresponsibly by calling it a ‘biological agent’ instead of a ‘biological’ what I am not sure—as they were accused by those opposite today—but that they would have been irresponsible had they not alerted the correct authorities which had due process, which had been laid down by this government in these matters and if that had not been followed and nothing had been said about it. If it had been a toxic or dangerous white powder then the Prime Minister and others could have been accused of irresponsibility—but not for carrying out their responsibilities in a most proficient and proper fashion, taking all those precautions necessary to ensure that no damage was done to our society.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to take note of answers given to questions asked of Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Just a few days after we learnt of the compensation payout of $4.5 million to Vivian Alvarez Solon, we find again that we have the minister conceding that compensation is going to have to be paid out to victims of the incompetence of the immigration department. This of course follows the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, as delivered by him yesterday. The report by the Ombudsman found serious deficiencies in the department. He found that it was these deficiencies that led to the wrongful detention of 10 Australian citizens, four permanent residents and four temporary visa holders between 2000 and 2005. Needless to say, all 10 of the people that I have just referred to have a legal entitlement to be in this country.

The most disturbing example is one that has been referred to this afternoon here in the Senate. Of course they are all disturbing, but this one really stands out; it is the case of Mr G. Mr G is a person who came here lawfully in 1975, I understand, from East Timor as a refugee. Unfortunately later in life he developed chronic schizophrenia. At the time that he was taken into immigration detention he had been living on the streets of Fremantle. He was detained by the immigration department for a period of 43 days in the year 2002 even though he had a valid visa.

Professor McMillan said in his report, the one that I was referring to earlier, that Mr G’s schizophrenia was plainly evident to anyone when he was detained. However, immigration department officials apparently did not make the inquiries that you would have thought would follow in such a circumstance. In fact it even went further than that. It is quite concerning, and I referred to this in the question that I asked, that some immigration officers were aware that there could be some, shall we say, problems with this case and they expressed some doubt that Mr G was being unlawfully detained one week after he was detained. He was detained for 43 days, but a week after he was detained immigration officials—some at least—became aware that there could be a problem here. In fact, one immigration officer was reported as having said, and I quote:

I also remain concerned that we have a person in detention who is a permanent resident ... and that we are on very shaking (sic) grounds to continue to hold him here.

This immigration officer went on to say, and this I find so appalling it is beyond words:

Fortunately, Mr G is not educated enough to consider suing us for unjustified detention however, I think we need to be very careful in regard to how long we continue to detain him.

This is an outrageous, appalling situation. We cannot begin to imagine the sort of trauma that Mr G must have experienced. But it was not only Mr G; the report found that eight of those who were wrongfully detained were children. I have spoken on many occasions in this place about children in detention. One of the children who was detained was held in detention for 214 days. When is this government going to acknowledge what it is doing here is just inhumane, unjust and an absolute disgrace? The Prime Minister’s response to this was, and I quote:

No administration is perfect; there are mistakes made.

That response is just an utter disgrace and he should be ashamed.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opportunism displayed in this chamber by the opposition is breathtaking. None of these matters would have come to light, none of these cases or indeed the questions asked of the minister for immigration this afternoon in question time would have been possible, had it not been for the action by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to undertake the hard work of confronting a problem within the department. The bouquets go to her. She is the one who has done the right thing.

Extensive departmental restructuring has taken place under the direction of this minister. There have been extensive departmental management changes under this minister. Improved protocols and detailed procedures have been instituted by this minister. She called for the Palmer inquiry and the Comrie report. These are the things that have been undertaken by this minister. May I say that it would be very difficult to find a more dedicated and successful minister. There has been absolutely no prevarication with respect to the problems surrounding Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau. The government has been upset by and has taken full responsibility for these matters. That stands in stark contrast to what the Labor Party would do in similar circumstances, and I will come to that a little later. It is in absolutely stark contrast.

When Vivian Solon’s position was known, the minister responded and sought a whole-of-government response. She was provided with a support package almost immediately following the Comrie report. A Centrelink assistance officer was taken to the Philippines and put at her disposal. She had free medical and health care, including private services if required, for as long as she required. She had carer support for up to 24 hours a day for as long as required. She had health-related aid and transport to health services as long as required. There was a compassionate, responsive action by the government to do the right thing for this lady, who obviously had her rights transgressed. Other assistance included a $25,000 interim lump sum resettlement package, and free accommodation and transport. These were the things that the government undertook to do as soon as this matter became known.

This minister has been proactive. She called for the reviews that have elicited these 23 cases. But let us just look at a contrast. The minister for immigration, Senator Vanstone, has, at every turn, sought to do the right thing. But let us go back to the 10 Cambodian refugees or asylum seekers who were illegally detained. What did Labor do to address that problem, that scandal? Did they pay compensation promptly? Did they evaluate the rights that had been abused and transgressed of those 10 individuals? No. They legislated to restrict the compensation payable to $1 a day. That is what inmates at state prisons get—a dollar a day.

This was the great human rights touting, public spirited Labor Party at its best! And here they are today, lecturing us in a way that is utterly hypocritical—with the greatest of respect to my learned colleagues across the chamber. Taking people’s rights away and then legislating so you cannot be brought to account is the worst form of ‘good governance’ one could imagine. It does not happen in Cuba, it does not happen in China, but it happens in Australia when the Labor Party have their hands on the chequebook.

That is one of the most classic abuses of parliamentary majority one could imagine. The rights of 10 people were abused, in stark contrast to what has happened to Vivian Solon. The Labor Party sought to obliterate the rights of those people and to abuse their own parliamentary majority and legislate themselves security by squashing and quashing any opportunity for compensation. There is the hypocrisy of what went on under Labor in similar, comparable circumstances. They put aside the human rights of those 10 people and have the audacity to talk about the culture of denial.

There is nothing in these 23 cases that does anything other than indicate that this minister, at every turn of the corner, has done the right thing. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Abetz to the question I asked of him this afternoon. First of all, can I say how disappointed I was by the minister’s response. Those people who know anything about agriculture and the agricultural industry would know that the issues of invasive species and weeds are taken very seriously by industry all over Australia, and I think the trivial response that we received from Senator Abetz today did him no service at all. It certainly indicated that he really does not understand the issues that are within his portfolio. And to denigrate and trivialise the question to the extent that he did really seemed to me to be an admission of his lack of understanding of how important the issue is.

To remind the minister, and to remind colleagues here, I reinforce that there was a very substantial undertaking in this area by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee in 2004, reported in Turning back the tide—the invasive species challenge: report on the regulation, control and management of invasive species and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002. The report was a very comprehensive piece of work undertaken in good grace and good spirit by the committee, and it found that invasive species are generally argued to be the second biggest threat to Australia’s biodiversity after land clearing and other forms of habitat destruction. So invasive species are not only of major concern to the agricultural industry; they are also a major concern to our environment and to our environmental movement, and, as I say, a threat to our biodiversity.

In the submissions to the inquiry, some very important evidence came to light. Dr Barry Traill, the President of the Invasive Species Council, said:

... with land clearing hopefully now sorted out as a destructive problem, with controls in Queensland and New South Wales, invasive species are probably now the No. 1 threat to nature in Australia.

And we know that Minister Abetz himself said, only a few days ago, that invasive species and weeds in Australia are probably the No. 1 threat, even above climate change. So it was a bit disingenuous of him to come into the chamber today and trivialise the issue in the way that he did.

I tried to explain to both the minister and to my colleagues in the chamber just how expensive an economic impact invasive species make. Weeds cost about $4 billion every year in lower farm incomes and higher food costs. Commonwealth, state and local governments spend at least $116 million every year on the costs of monitoring, control and management of and research on weeds. The figure of $4 billion is actually a very conservative one because it does not take into account the financial impacts on biodiversity, landscape, tourism, water and on labour costs of volunteers. And as a result of the introduction of pest species to Australia, ecosystems have become much more homogenous and biodiversity has been dramatically affected.

The question that I asked of the minister today was about funding for the proposed Invasive Species CRC. It was an important question because the government has dramatically changed CRC funding guidelines, requiring them to focus much more on industry and the chance of inventing or developing or selling widgets. It has just about wiped out all of the environmental CRCs, and all the existing CRCs that deal with sheep, cattle, pigs or cotton will not be funded under the new guidelines.

The judging CRC committee that rejected the proposal for an invasive plants CRC and a tropical savanna CRC took the view that tens of thousands of grain and livestock producers do not legitimately commercialise the research findings of the agricultural based CRCs. The committee obviously did not understand and does not understand either the science involved or the time scale that is involved in weed research. I understand that Minister McGauran says, ‘Well, no-one is making a fuss about all of this,’ and it is an issue that arose when he was the science minister. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.