Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, I will make just a few brief comments and put on record my apology for last night not being here to sum up on the second reading debate. At least one person dropped off the speakers list, for which we as a government in fact are thankful—albeit I think it was an oversight by that senator. Nevertheless, we are thankful. As a result, I was not able to answer some of the questions that were raised during speeches on the second reading. I thought, rather than have all those questions raised again in the committee stage, I would seek—and I thank my staff, as they have compiled a list of those questions—to answer some of those now. I will do that in a bid to truncate some of the questions that will undoubtedly have to be repeated if I do not.

Having said that, I understand that Senator O’Brien raised a question about the protections provided to people involved in the inquiry, and we had a bit of a discussion about that last night. As I mentioned yesterday, the bill ensures that witnesses appearing before the commission of inquiry will have the same protections as witnesses appearing before a royal commission. For example, the provisions under the Royal Commissions Act make it an offence to injure a witness or to prevent a witness from attending et cetera. These protections do not provide a blanket immunity against self-incrimination. Indeed, section 6A of the Royal Commissions Act specifies that the possibility of self-incrimination does not excuse witnesses from answering questions. However, section 6DD of the act does provide that specific statements made by a witness in the course of giving evidence to an inquiry are not in themselves admissible in subsequent court proceedings against them.

I understand questions were raised by Senators O’Brien and Milne in relation to the tabling of Mr Callinan’s report and that the suggestion was made that the government should be required to table Mr Callinan’s report once it is completed. We as a government cannot support such a requirement, as it could actually narrow the scope of what Mr Callinan can include in his report. For example, the report might contain personal information or commercially sensitive material that could not be made public without unfairly disadvantaging individuals involved in the inquiry. Tabling has never been a legal requirement for the reports of royal commissions. It could effectively limit reports to including only information that can be made public. In relation to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, this flexibility meant that the government could act on the recommendation that one volume of the report be kept confidential, as its release might have prejudiced possible future criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the government remains fully committed to making the findings of this report public, as Minister McGauran made clear when he announced the inquiry. There was some comment about the potential narrowness of the terms of reference, but I think we covered that off in the discussion last night. Without delaying the committee further, I look forward to further questions.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify one matter: I think the minister said that section 6DD of the Royal Commissions Act provides that specific statements are not admissible in proceedings seeking to prosecute a witness. I did take some comfort from that. To be clear: does that exclude all the evidence taken from the royal commission or just the witnesses’ statements to the commission, and does that include a witness statement prepared for the commission rather than their evidence to it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the first question is yes. I think I have confused myself in relation to Senator O’Brien’s questions. Would he mind repeating them?

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question was about statements in relation to section 6DD of the Royal Commissions Act where you said specific statements were not admissible. I was taking it that that meant that the specific evidence of the particular witness was not admissible. But would statements taken for the purposes of the royal commission’s inquiry—for example, by an investigator—be protected in the same way as the actual evidence before the royal commissioner?

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

I see the minister is consulting with his advisers. I call the minister, now that he is fully informed.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was indeed, thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, and I now have the benefit of having section 6DD in front of me. It states:

(1)

The following are not admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory:

(a)

a statement or disclosure made by the person in the course of giving evidence before a Commission;

(b)

the production of a document or other thing by the person pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice under section 2 or subsection 6AA(3).

(2)

Subsection (1) does not apply to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings for an offence against this Act.

So, that is, if you have offended against the Royal Commissions Act—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the Quarantine Act, given that you have transported the commission into it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would remain the same because, if there are offences against the Quarantine Act, that would be covered by (1)(a) and (b)—if there is a statement or disclosure made in those circumstances.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure if that clarifies one of the points I made, and that is this: if a person were to come forward and speak to an investigator and sign a statement for the purposes of ultimately giving evidence at a hearing, is the original statement protected rather than the evidence?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is covered in section 6DD(1)(a), which I read before:

(a)

a statement or disclosure made by the person in the course of giving evidence before a Commission;

and:

(b)

the production of a document or other thing by the person pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice ...

So that is my advice.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not certain that that does cover my area of concern, but let us move on. In relation to material that the minister introduced yesterday, about the post 24 August security and quarantine arrangements introduced at Eastern Creek: one matter that was raised was the requirement for persons to shower upon arrival at the horse quarantine facility and upon leaving, and to wear an AQIS supplied protective overall or some such. Isn’t it the case that the AUSVETPLAN states that personnel handling horses in a quarantine station must shower before leaving the station to minimise the risk of transmission? And was that provision in place prior to 24 August and observed?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, that was the procedure that should have been adopted at the time.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So was that showering provision observed? I am not sure if you said that, so I am raising that question again. Was that provision observed? Obviously, that is a critically important question. Or is the minister unable to assure us that that was the case?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is always a distinction between provisions that are in place and whether those provisions are actually observed. I am not going to trample on the ground of whether the provisions that existed at the time were or were not observed because if we knew the answers to that, or thought that we were fully acquainted with all the information, there would be no need for us to be debating this legislation for an inquiry to be conducted by Mr Ian Callinan QC. They are the matters that are best left for Mr Callinan to inquire into and then advise us of what his determination is as to whether the procedures were in fact observed or not.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5388:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 28) to page 4 (line 11), omit subsection 66AY(1), substitute:

        (1)    The Minister must, in writing, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, appoint a person to:

             (a)    conduct a Commission of inquiry into:

                   (i)    the 2007 outbreak and spread of equine influenza in Australia;

                  (ii)    the causes of the outbreak and spread, and, in particular, any protocols, measures or practices that may have contributed to it;

                 (iii)    the nature of protocols for the importation of horses and the policy settings upon which they are based, including the role of ministers in the determination of policy settings and the appropriateness of those policy settings;

                 (iv)    quarantine requirements and practices relating to the outbreak and spread;

                  (v)    any matters incidental to the matters referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iv); and

             (b)    report to the Minister on the matters (including any recommendations relating to the matters) as soon as practicable, and, in any event, on or before a day specified in the instrument of appointment.

That amendment proposes to replace 66AY(1) with a new provision. This provision deals with what we are concerned may be inadequate terms of reference as contained in the bill.

The amendment would have three effects. Firstly, it would require the minister to appoint a person to conduct a commission of inquiry rather than being couched in permissive language, so the parliament would require the minister to conduct that inquiry or appoint a person to conduct a commission of inquiry. Secondly, it would require the terms of reference to be as stated in the legislation. And, thirdly, it would make absolutely clear the range of matters which should be investigated.

We had a discussion last night as to what might be the interpretation of the provisions in the bill, and it was suggested that the provisions would cover matters relating to the outbreak and spread of equine influenza in Australia. We believe it would be preferable if this bill required the investigation rather than left that as a matter for interpretation and a matter upon which the commissioner might have to come back to the parliament to seek further authority in the case of a challenge. We suggest that one could not rule out the possibility of a challenge, in relation to the potential breadth of the inquiry, from an interested party or from a potential witness at the inquiry—someone who believed that their position might be prejudiced by the extent of the inquiry going beyond certain matters and perhaps including other jurisdictions.

We believe it is far preferable for the commission’s terms of reference not just to be specified in the legislation but to be as broad as possible. We think that the terms of reference ought to be specific as to the types of matters which should be investigated—for example, the protocols, measures or practices. This covers a range of circumstances, and we have discussed some of those, such as whether there are appropriate protocols established—that is, the rules that have been laid down in relation to the importation of horses.

We have been talking about measures such as those contained in the AUSVETPLAN about showering before leaving the quarantine station, to minimise risk, and we have been talking about practices and whether the observance of such measures has been rigorously followed. We think it is much more responsible of the parliament to be specific that we intend—we expect; we require—this inquiry to deal with all of those aspects, rather than to leave that as a matter for interpretation.

The other matter which we think ought to be specifically spelled out in the legislation as a requirement for the terms of reference is the question of the policy settings upon which protocols are based, the role of ministers in the determination of those policy settings and indeed the appropriateness of those policy settings.

We are concerned, given that this government has form in relation to terms of reference shielding ministers from proper inquiry, that these terms of reference not be constrained by the minister with the discretions which are contained within the language in the bill currently and that it be a requirement that the commissioner look into the relevance of policy settings in relation to their role in the outbreak and spread of equine influenza.

Of course, we agree that there may be matters which ought to be inquired into which arise in the course of those inquiries and which should be open to the commissioner. We therefore agree that what I will describe as the catch-all provision—which is the fifth provision: ‘any matters incidental’ et cetera, which I think is basically the same as the provision in the bill—ought to remain to allow the commissioner to delve into fields that arise from the sorts of inquiries that we have outlined in the earlier provisions.

It is our belief that it is much more preferable that these matters be required by the parliament to be investigated. This bill comes here to equip the minister with the power to commission an inquiry. We think that the parliament ought to be specific about the range and extent of the inquiry it requires, and these provisions would assist in the specification by the parliament of the terms of that inquiry. We do think that, despite the assurances which have been given, there is a risk that this inquiry will not be as broad as it should be, and we do believe, given the form of this government in relation to such inquiries, that there is a serious risk that the terms will be drawn in such a way as to constrain the inquiry and protect ministers from the proper reach of it. I think that would be a travesty, given that there clearly has been an involvement of ministers in policy settings affecting protocols as they apply to the importation of horses. That should be properly investigated and ministers involved ought to be accountable, through the inquiry, to the Australian people. We believe our amendment is important and we urge the Senate to support it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable senator opposite has made the bland assertion that, allegedly, the government has form. We, of course, reject that. The important thing with any royal commission and terms of reference is that there be the catch-all phrase. The fact that Senator O’Brien himself is reduced to using the catch-all phrase indicates that, no matter how clever you think you are at drafting, if you want a genuine inquiry, you need a catch-all phrase, such as the one we are introducing—namely, ‘any matters incidental to the matters referred to’. That is the important part.

Whilst Senator O’Brien has added a few extra words and an extra two paragraphs, he is reduced to also having, at proposed subparagraph (v), ‘any matters incidental to’. In the terms of reference we talk about ‘outbreak’; Senator O’Brien then says ‘and spread’ just in case ‘outbreak’ does not cover the spread. If I wanted to be smart, I could say: ‘How can you have an outbreak without an introduction?’ In that case the wording ought to be ‘introduction, outbreak and spread’. We can keep on adding words ad infinitum, having a great verbal joust and playing word games, but, at the end of the day, we know that the totality of those matters that Mr Callinan needs to inquire into are covered by the final paragraph:

… any matters incidental to the matters referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii); …

In Senator O’Brien’s amendment, it would be ‘in subparagraphs (i) to (iv)’. I am sure that Senator O’Brien and I could sit down and draw up a list of potential extra paragraphs that would go for pages and pages about showering protocols and this quite bizarre allegation of ministerial involvement in the setting of the protocols. We could go through chapter and verse and set out in great detail, page after page, things that Mr Callinan should possibly inquire into. Even if we did that, if we had any sense whatsoever we would still be reduced to adding a final paragraph which said ‘any matters incidental to’. I think most people fully accept and understand that that catch-all phrase, which is a description quite rightly employed by Senator O’Brien, is the important part of these terms of reference. We can spend day after day expanding the terms of reference without actually adding anything to it because of that catch-all phrase. Given those circumstances, we do not believe that the amendment will add anything to the terms of reference and to the full extent to which Mr Callinan will be clothed to conduct a very full, wide-ranging inquiry.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provision that both Senator Abetz and I have described as the catch-all can only catch all matters relating to, in the case of the bill, the previous two provisions and, in the case of my amendment, the previous four provisions. The real test of how broadly the inquiry can range is how broad those first governing provisions, if I can put it that way, which establish parameters for the inquiry are. Matters which arise out of or are incidental to those matters are then available, one might say, through the catch-all provision. If we are debating this as a piece of legislation, the matters that are incidental and which can be referred to arise from those specifics contained in the terms of reference. That is the nature of the debate we are having. I have not heard the minister say that all of the matters contained in the four provisions in the amendment are specifically covered in the terms of reference. What I have heard the minister say is that if Mr Callinan thinks he needs broader terms of reference he will ask the minister for them. To that proposition, I say: if the parliament cannot be sure that all of these matters are currently covered in the provisions in the bill, then it would be good public policy for the parliament to require that these matters be inquired into without having regard to whether it would necessarily extend the term of the inquiry, increase the cost to the public or increase the process of the parliament to deal with it.

The other aspect which the minister has not responded to is the question of whether the terms in the bill as they stand guarantee that the inquiry, as determined by the commission signed off by the minister, will even be as broad as the government’s bill, let alone the amendment as contained in sheet 5388. That is within the discretion of the minister. It may be that there are some arcane reasons why these things are normally couched in this way. I suppose it is not surprising that the minister is trying to ignore the fact that the Cole inquiry into the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal was couched in such a way. The public commentary makes it absolutely and abundantly clear in the public’s mind that the role of the government in the scandal was not able to be properly investigated. The range of questions which could be asked of government witnesses was constrained by the commissioner by reference to the terms of reference. In other words, those intervening parties who sought to question ministers were told that the questions they were seeking to raise did not arise from the terms of reference and so their questioning was constrained. That is something we do not want to see with this. We know that there was an exchange of correspondence between the Australian Racing Board and the then relevant minister, Mr Truss, in 2004 and 2005, which I have referred to earlier, about specific protocols and with specific reference to the potential for the introduction of equine influenza. We know that there were circumstances where the effectiveness of protocols was questioned by industry in relation to the potential for the introduction of the disease, which is now having a very significant effect on horse industries in Australia.

If we are to leave this in the hands of the minister, especially in relation to the discretions that might arise if there is a deficiency, it will be inefficient and inadequate and will necessitate delay. If there is a deficiency in the words the government proposes, for example, the matter will need to come back to the parliament. We seek to make that unnecessary. To suggest that, somehow, we could talk about every possibility and put them in a terms of reference—of course, one can make that claim about any form of drafting that you attempt to draft exhaustively, but, on the other hand, you can attempt to draft away perceived issues so that they are not issues in the sense that the terms of reference will clearly allow those issues to be canvassed in the inquiry. The opposition have sought to introduce specific provisions with specific reasons behind them, which I have outlined, and to make sure that those matters are canvassed. We have not been given the absolute unquestionable assurance that these matters will be pursued, and that is why we are pursuing them with this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5388:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 16), at the end of section 66AY, add:

        (5)    The Commissioner’s report must be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the report is received by the Minister.

        (6)    If a House does not meet within 5 days after the report is received by the Minister, the report must be made available to the Presiding Officer of that House for distribution to the members of that House within 5 days after the report is received by the Minister.

I note that our amendment is similar but not identical to Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5392. I think that we are both on the same page in terms of intent but that we have perhaps slightly different drafting instructions or drafting sources—I am not sure which. I think it is fair to say that what we are about is ensuring that the commissioner’s report is made public. The concern which exists is that there ought be a complete public understanding of the causes or cause of the outbreak and spread of the equine influenza disease in the horse population and that if there are public moneys to be spent on that then the parliament ought to be fully advised as to the findings. The way that the commissioner would write any such report would be, I think, with regard to the terms of reference. I am not certain one can feel that somehow the commissioner would be constrained in responding to the terms of reference because of fears of publication.

This is an examination of, essentially, the implementation of public policy and the adequacy of public policy in the form of our quarantine policies as they relate to the importation of horses. This is not akin to the inquiry that the government has referred to—the inquiry into human practices in the building industry. That, I suggest, was to do with the lawful or unlawful behaviour of individuals in relation to an industry and the practices that existed within it. This is an inquiry into the matters of public policy that determined the protocols that apply to the importation of horses, the practices and procedures that were put in place, the observance or nonobservance of those practices and the performance of ministers, departmental officers, managers and contractors in relation to their obligations to ensure that we did all that we could to keep disease from the Australian horse population—quite a different circumstance.

We were told that the evidence taken in these inquiries could not be used against an individual in relation to any prosecution or civil case. I think the provision referred to for that protection was section 6DD of the Royal Commissions Act. So I am struggling to understand the caveat that the government seeks to place upon the issue of the publication of these reports. If the report is tabled in the parliament but the evidence cannot be used, I struggle to see how the findings of the commissioner based on that evidence could be intruded into any such proceedings.

One would have thought that if these are prosecutions under the Quarantine Act then they are not matters which will go to a jury. So I really do not understand the caveat that is sought to be placed on the publication of the findings. Were there to be a finding that individual A or B completely ignored their responsibilities in relation to a provision of the legislation, one would expect that those proceedings being subsequently considered would be considered on evidence other than evidence before the commission and certainly not on the findings of the commission. Without the presence of a jury trial, a trial in the public arena would, I suggest, perhaps not be the issue that the government has suggested it would be. So we cannot see the problem with publication. We think it is desirable that the information be available to the public. We are certain that the industry would desire the information to be published. We are certain that the public would like to see the result of this inquiry—after all, they are going to pay for it—and we cannot understand why the government would not agree to provisions which would require the reports to be laid on the table in parliament and the outcome of this inquiry to be made public. The minister has said that it is his wish that this matter be made public but that he would leave that in the hands of the commissioner. We think it would be more appropriate for the parliament to determine the outcome at this stage and for the inquiry to commence on the understanding that, at the end of the day, in the mind of the commissioner, the parliament and the public, the report would be made public.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Labor’s amendment and to indicate that the Greens have a similar amendment, the only difference being in the time frame. The Labor Party’s amendment requires that the report be presented within five days. We are saying the report should be presented within 14 days. To save time, I thought that I would speak to my amendment and then, if the amendment is put sequentially when the time comes, it might facilitate the business of the chamber.

The public has a great interest in this issue. Right across Australia, communities want answers on where this disease came from and how it managed to escape the quarantine facility. Many questions are being asked about the compensation payments. We are told they are not compensation payments; they are income substitution payments. Perhaps there will not be compensation. It depends entirely on what the inquiry report finds and how far it goes. Certainly, there are people who argue that they ought to be compensated. We are going to see enormous public interest in the inquiry because it has such far-reaching ramifications throughout rural and regional Australia, particularly for the horse-racing industry. But it is not confined to that; it has ramifications for all horse related industries. I believe the report should be tabled in both houses of parliament.

My only experience of the impact of a royal commission report—and this is the equivalent of a royal commission—was the Carter royal commission into the attempt to bribe a member of parliament in 1989 in Tasmania. That report was full and frank in its assessment of the evidence. The detail was in the report and it was tabled. Royal Commissioner Carter made judgements at the time. He made it clear why matters were being referred to the DPP and where there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a reference to the DPP. If it was possible to make that kind of finding available in that case, I cannot see why it cannot apply in this case. I would expect—as would every member of parliament—that matters that would prejudice the outcome of any criminal proceedings would be dealt with appropriately by Justice Callinan in this report. I have no doubt that that will occur and that he will frame the report in a way that ensures the maximum potential for the success of any criminal proceedings in the event that they are warranted. It would give much more comfort to people around Australia if they knew that the report was going to be tabled in the parliament and that they were going to have an opportunity to read the whole thing from start to finish. They will then be able to determine whether they concur and can take comfort from the fact that (a) the investigation was comprehensive and (b) they were able to make judgements having read the evidence and looked at the recommendations. That is the entirely appropriate way to go.

With the Carter royal commission, which was much more politicised than this inquiry, the report was able to be tabled and made public in full at that time. I cannot see why the same cannot apply in this case. I do not follow the government’s argument in terms of caveats. There is such huge interest in this issue that, as a matter of transparency for the Australian community, not only should the report be made available to the minister but very soon thereafter it should be made available to the parliament. I am prepared to support the tabling of the report within five days, as the opposition proposes. In the event that that is not supported by the government, my amendment seeks a period of 14 days. It is then a question of principle as to whether the government believes it is appropriate for people to read in full what Justice Callinan finds. It is entirely appropriate that, as the representatives of the Australian community, we insist that the whole community has access to the report as Justice Callinan writes it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Milne for her approach to this, which will hopefully shorten the time taken to deal with these amendments. In my heart I was hoping for a while that the Labor Party and the Greens might have a huge argument as to the difference between five and 14 days, but then common sense prevailed and I thought, ‘It will take up a lot of the chamber’s time so hopefully they will not,’ and I thank them that they did not. In announcing Mr Callinan’s appointment, the minister made it clear that the findings of the inquiry will be made public. So there is no argument or discussion to be had in relation to the findings being made public; that will occur. Mr Callinan himself has indicated his preference to conduct as many of his hearings in public as possible.

The government does not, however, support a legislative requirement that the report be tabled in parliament, and for one very important reason—and that is, it could actually narrow the scope of what Mr Callinan can include in his report. I note Senator Milne’s reference to the Carter royal commission. Whilst I have a clear memory of it, my memory does not extend to the legislation empowering that commission and whether it included a specific clause in relation to a period in which the royal commission report had to be tabled. My advice is that not a single royal commission set up has had such a time limitation put on it in relation to reporting. The reason is that the report might contain, for example, personal information or commercially sensitive material that could not be made public without unfairly disadvantaging individuals involved in the inquiry. If required to table his report, Mr Callinan would effectively be limited to including only information that could be made public.

As I said before, it has never been a legislative requirement that reports of royal commissions be tabled—and with good reason. For example, with the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the government was able to act on the commissioner’s recommendation that one volume of his report remain confidential as it might unfairly prejudice future criminal prosecutions. Of course, if that occurs, Mr Callinan may well provide his report in two volumes—one that can be made public and which contains findings, and another that cannot be made public, or at least not for quite some time.

Accordingly, without knowing the exact nature of Mr Callinan’s report, it would be inappropriate to include a legislative requirement that the report be tabled. Nevertheless, the government remains fully committed to making the findings of the report public, as Minister McGauran has indicated. Senator O’Brien indicated that it was really only an issue of public policy protocols and other matters. There is the possibility that charges may arise. I have been advised, for example, that if somebody has imported an animal in contravention of the Quarantine Act then that person may be prosecuted under section 67 of the Quarantine Act. If somebody has provided false or misleading information to the Commonwealth, that person may be prosecuted under part 7.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. As I understand it, part of the procedure includes, for example, the signing of statutory declarations. So if somebody were to have signed a false statutory declaration in relation to this issue, clearly that is a matter that could lead to prosecution as well.

For those reasons, and because it is a precedent which has been followed by every single royal commission that has been established, the government will oppose the amendment in relation to tabling, whilst absolutely guaranteeing that the findings will be made public and that whatever can be made public of the report will be made public as expeditiously as possible.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so that we are clear on this, we do prefer our amendment, but in the event—and we know that the government has the numbers in the chamber—that it does not succeed, is the minister assuring the committee and the Australian public that only those matters contained in the report pertaining to identifying individuals who might be prosecuted will be withheld from publication, or is the minister saying something less than that?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said two things. One was in relation to prosecutions and the other was that the report—and I will repeat this word for word—might contain personal information or commercially sensitive material that could not be made public without unfairly disadvantaging individuals in the inquiry. If required to table his report, Mr Callinan would therefore effectively be limited to including only information that could be made public. We do not want to see such a restriction being placed on the report to government which may in fact be very helpful in undertaking any changes. At the end of the day, what we want is the best possible advice arising out of this inquiry to ensure that we get quarantine in relation to this matter as correct as possible. Given those circumstances, we would want the greatest amount of flexibility given to Mr Callinan so that he can be full and frank in his report without having to constrain himself because of the considerations that I have outlined.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem I have here is that the minister is saying he wants Justice Callinan to bring down a full and comprehensive report. Everybody here is in total agreement with having that kind of inquiry and a report of that kind. My concern is that the minister is saying that the findings will be made public but not the report. The findings could involve 10 points at the end of the report in terms of recommendations about what may or may not happen. That is not going to give comfort to people who want to go through, blow by blow, what actually occurred during a time sequence, who was responsible and how it worked out.

Many people will be concerned about this and will even suggest that there is a cover-up, unless the government releases the report. Otherwise they are going to say: ‘That’s what the findings were but what did they base those findings on? Did they take this or that into account?’ So there must be a way of presenting the whole report. Justice Callinan could decide to have part of the report remain confidential on the basis that it covered incriminating evidence against an individual, but the bulk of the report would cover the detail of what occurred—and that is what the Australian people want to read, not just a two-pager at the end of 10 or 20 recommendations coming out of the report.

That is why both the Labor Party and the Greens are pushing here to have the report tabled in parliament so that the community has access to it, and not just to the findings or the recommendations contained in the report. You are not really giving us much comfort, Minister, and I do not think you are giving any comfort to people who want to know the sequence of events, by telling us that we will only have the findings publicly available. I would like to know how you intend to provide the material I am talking about—the day-to-day sequence, from the beginning, when we knew and what we knew, through to the end. That is what people want to know. Everybody would respect the fact that some information would need to be privileged in the sense that it might influence court cases or incriminate people. That is understood. But there must be a halfway house between having nothing on the table and just having the recommendations made public.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I understand Senator Milne’s comments correctly, we are in heated agreement. She has also—and I do not want to be provocative here—possibly spoken against her own amendment. What is being required in both these amendments is that the report, and you can only read that as ‘the full report’, be tabled within five or 14 days, depending on whether you go with Labor or the Greens. But the report would have to be tabled.

What I have been trying to say—possibly not very well, and so I will try again—is that we as a government will definitely make the findings public. We also want to make as much of the report public as possible. It is fair and reasonable to say that we will be guided by Mr Callinan. A good example was the building royal commission. A number of chapters were made public and one chapter was withheld because of prosecution and other reasons. I would imagine that if Mr Callinan’s report neatly fell into those sorts of categories—and with his judicial mind I am sure he would be able to separate and deal with those matters in an appropriate way—then that is what would happen here as well. What I do not want to do is predict what Mr Callinan might report or how he will report to government.

I think we do need to take into account the considerations that Senator Milne herself acknowledged should be, and would need to be, taken into account. Therefore just the bland amendment of saying that it has to be tabled within five days or 14 days would not cover off the sensitive areas to which Senator Milne herself has alluded. I can say and I can guarantee that this government, as always, is willing to be open and transparent, but there are considerations that sometimes militate against full disclosure, as in the case of the building royal commission. We as a government want—as does the community, of course—to get to the bottom of all the matters to ensure that that which has occurred will not occur again. In those circumstances I think everybody would be well served with as much being disclosed as possible, and that is the government’s intention.

Question negatived.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5392:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 16), at the end of section 66AY, add:

        (5)    The Minister must cause a report presented in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 14 days of receipt of the report.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.