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 incident where the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs used the term ‘biological agent’ to describe the white powder that was sent to the Indonesian Embassy on 1 June 2005. Does the minister recall Mr Downer telling parliament that afternoon that the powder had ‘tested positive as a biological agent’? Didn’t the Attorney-General go so far as to say the next day that the powder was ‘a biological agent and it comes from a particular family including anthrax’? Did the Australian Federal Police advise Mr Downer that the powder had tested positive as a biological agent? Was it the Australian Federal Police that advised Mr Ruddock that the powder was from the same family as anthrax?

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

There is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age today which is totally wrong in relation to this matter. The article suggests that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister added the term ‘biological agent’ to the description of a substance which Senator Ludwig refers to which was received at the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra on 1 June 2005. The article alleges that the public was never informed of the true nature of the substance. This is wrong in a number of ways. Firstly, the advice that the white powder posted to the Indonesian Embassy was a biological agent was included in an incident report prepared by the Australian government’s Protective Security Coordination Centre at 2.13 pm on 1 June. The PSCC advice said:

Initial analysis of the powder has tested positive as a biological agent, though further testing will need to be carried out to determine what the substance actually is.

The foreign minister provided a statement to the House of Representatives approximately an hour later. He quoted directly from that report and also advised that further testing would be required to determine the exact nature of the substance. He also said there was a possibility the Indonesian embassy would be shut down for quite a period of time and the 22 staff would remain in isolation. The PSCC’s next incident report at 3.40 pm included the same words. In media interviews later that day, when answering questions about the white power incident, the Prime Minister also quoted from the advice provided by the PSCC. Advice at 6.24 am the following day said that testing by health authorities in the ACT had revealed that the substance was gram-positive bacillus bacteria, which has a number of different forms. While one form, anthrax, can be lethal, others are naturally present and harmless. The article alleges that this advice was not provided to the public. This is simply wrong.

In question time that day, 2 June, the Prime Minister advised that analysis of the substance indicated that in all probability it was not toxic. The Chief Police Officer of the ACT and the Chief Minister of the ACT also made this clear in a press conference on 2 June, the same day. The Australian Federal Police statement advised that ‘testing has shown that the substance is not anthrax; however, it must be stressed that these findings are interim and analysis is continuing’. Prior to the publication of this erroneous article, Mr Moore was advised that there were other documents that did indicate the material was biological but he chose not to pursue them or include any reference to them in his article. His conclusion that the government exaggerated the threat is outrageous and factually incorrect.

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. If you allege that, then why did Mr Howard, Mr Downer and Mr Ruddock whip up so much hysteria about the incident as it was reported in the papers at the time? If they knew the facts about it, why didn’t they clarify that at the time? Why didn’t they come in and make a statement to parliament? Why didn’t they ensure that the record was clear? Because it seems that they did not.

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

Senator Ludwig has not listened to the answer I have just gone through very carefully. I say again: the initial PSCC advice was that analysis of the powder tested positive as a biological agent. That was conveyed to the public by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Subsequently, when further advice was obtained, that was conveyed to the community as well. If they had not done so, I would suggest that you would have Senator Ludwig and others criticising them for not doing their duty and keeping the Australian public informed of what was a very serious incident.