George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

I particularly want to take note of two answers given by Senator Ludwig on behalf of the Attorney-General to questions by, respectively, Senator Kirk and me, concerning the Haneef inquiry. If you had to have a short essay on the cynicism of the Rudd government, you could not have done better than to compare the answer that Senator Ludwig gave to a dorothy dix question from Senator Kirk and the answer he gave to my question immediately thereafter, concerning the Haneef inquiry. Senator Ludwig said very grandly: ‘Australians are entitled to know what really happened in relation to the matter of Dr Haneef.’ He told us that the inquiry by Mr Clarke QC announced by the Attorney-General this morning would ‘enable all the information to be properly addressed’. That was the government’s spin. We know that in its early days the Rudd government is coming very closely to resemble the Blair government in its reliance upon spin, this shadowy world in which nothing has substance or firm meaning, in which it is—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Creating diversions—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

all a matter of illusion and, as Senator Coonan said, diversions. It is a bit like TS Eliot’s poem The Waste Land:

We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men

…            …            …

Shape without form ...

Nevertheless, when Senator Ludwig responded to my question, I had to point out to him that Mr McClelland said at his press conference this morning:

... the inquiry would not examine the flow of intelligence from overseas security agencies.

Just consider for a moment what that means. The government has announced this inquiry—it is not a royal commission, it does not have subpoena powers; it is an informal inquiry essentially established on a very limited basis. The need for the inquiry relies entirely upon the government’s own assertion that the public needs to be reassured about the operation of the counterterrorism laws. So what does the government do? The government raises a false issue and says, ‘Well, we have to set up this strange informal inquiry in order to address a concern which we ourselves have raised, and which was not there in the first place.’

Nevertheless, what the inquiry is about, as the Attorney-General announced this morning, is the case of Dr Haneef and, in particular, the role of the Australian Federal Police. This much we know, and I think it is uncontroversial. Not only the Australian Federal Police but the Queensland Police Service were in receipt of certain security information concerning Dr Haneef, and that security information concerned, in particular, international telephone calls made by or to Dr Haneef. We also know—this is also uncontroversial—that the principal source of the information was the British intelligence services and, in particular, MI5. So we know this much, and the Attorney-General must know as well: the Australian Federal Police and the state policing authorities were in possession of foreign intelligence information which identified Dr Haneef as a person of interest and ultimately they made some decisions, in relation to him, that led to his detention. So the government very grandly with great flourish announce: ‘We’re going to have an inquiry into how the AFP handled the Dr Haneef case.’ And what do they withdraw from the terms of reference of the inquiry? What does the Attorney-General specifically say the inquiry cannot look at? It cannot look at the flow of intelligence from overseas security agencies.

You do not need to be a lawyer to work out that, if the whole basis of the AFP forming the appropriate state of mind—the suspicion about Dr Haneef—was information provided by the British intelligence services that was transmitted to the Australian intelligence services and transmitted to the AFP and if you are going to have an inquiry into whether the AFP did the right thing, front and centre in the inquiry ought to be the sources upon which they relied to form the requisite suspicion that Dr Haneef was a person of interest, that Dr Haneef had done nothing wrong. Yet, that is the very thing Mr McClelland announced this morning the inquiry could not look at. (Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to take note of answers to various questions and think it is probably quite appropriate to comment on the issues raised by Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis in the opening remarks of his contribution referred to The Waste Land. One must say that that was quite an appropriate way to commence his remarks: a grey, hopeless, useless, negative wasteland. That is entirely a proper description of what has occurred in respect of this entire matter concerning Dr Haneef over the last 12 to 18 months: a person properly employed, legally going about his duties, caught up and embroiled in a whole scandal not of his own making, punished, deported from this country and denied the opportunity to earn his livelihood. What other example could you have of a grey, useless, hopeless, negative wasteland? That was a topical issue for months and months and months prior to the last election.

In all that time the former cabinet, the former responsible ministers—in particular, Mr Andrews—refused to open the files and refused constantly to disclose information which would either properly and satisfactorily identify responsibility and guilt or, on the other side of that coin, disclose what emerged latterly when Federal Court findings were made as to innocence. So we as the then opposition raised that issue prior to the election and made a commitment to hold an independent judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Haneef in the light of findings by Justice Spender which were later upheld by a full Federal Court that reviewed Minister Andrews’s decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visit. So we have committed to holding an independent judicial inquiry into the entire case of Dr Haneef.

That undertaking was honoured this morning by the Attorney-General of Australia, Mr McClelland, by the appointment of retired New South Wales court judge Mr John Clarke QC. As Mr McClelland said, quite properly and quite responsibly, an independent inquiry is needed to establish the facts and to ensure public confidence in Australia’s counterterrorism arrangements. Mr McClelland also made the point that, since becoming Attorney-General, he had been briefed regularly by the relevant intelligence agencies and he had come to the view that they were and are operating to high standards. But, because of the mire of disinformation and misinformation properly described by Senator Brandis as a wasteland, we need to assure our community that our national security agencies are functioning in the best way they possibly can at an individual agency level and collectively and on a cooperative basis. Indeed, as was referred to earlier, opposition Senator Birmingham from South Australia made that point to the AAP this morning when he said:

If an inquiry is required to ensure that faith is maintained in the community then that’s important ...

Senator Birmingham was right to say that this morning, Mr McClelland was right to repeat it in his press conference and it is right now on the issue raised by Senator Brandis of the wasteland that exists surrounding, and which has become part of, the case involving Dr Haneef.

The Clarke inquiry will be an opportunity to obtain a factual account of the matter, which still has not been disclosed and was not disclosed by the previous government, from an independent and former experienced judicial officer. Mr Clarke no doubt will conduct a rigorous and independent inquiry that will result in informed consideration and informed conclusions of the lessons to be learnt from the Haneef case for judicial officers, for intelligence officers and for intelligence agencies and undoubtedly will be able to assure the Australian community as to the veracity— (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say, in relation to Labor’s backflip on the access card, that the stumbling, bumbling performance today by Senator Ludwig should be ringing alarm bells in the community that the Rudd Labor government is incompetent and has no plan whatsoever to deal with welfare fraud. Just one month ago, on 13 February, Senator Ludwig was actually boasting about scrapping the coalition’s access card and crowing that it was the financially responsible thing to do. He said that Labor had better priorities than saving taxpayers from being the victims of fraud, such as the education revolution. He said:

We are focused on the practical things ... rather than a card.

So, as of 13 February, Senator Ludwig was very clear that Labor would not have a smart card. Today, of course, he could not rule it out. So, within the space of four weeks, what has been revealed is that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has put it back on the table. This is a backflip of spectacular proportions, and the public are owed an explanation. Either Senator Ludwig has been reversed rolled or gazumped by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister has finally woken up to the fact that there is a need to reduce fraud on the Commonwealth and to reduce the complexity of there being 17 different payment cards to access Commonwealth benefits and has woken up to the fact that the Medicare card is 23 years old and the Australian Federal Police have said that it is more often than not enabling fraud rather than preventing it.

It is interesting that Senator Ludwig said, in a press release on 1 March:

... welfare fraud is a significant problem and ... the ultimate victims are ordinary Australian taxpayers.

His solution—and I do not think this is a joke; I think he meant it to be taken seriously—was to announce a ‘Fraud Fortnight’, an initiative which sounded like an extended Halloween trick or treat session lasting two weeks, which was supposed to raise awareness of welfare fraud. You have to say to Senator Ludwig: that really does not cut it. Fraudsters are getting away with ripping off welfare and Labor are going to have to do more than trick or treating.

So what did Mr Rudd come in and say to the minister? He said, ‘Look, we’ve got a fraud problem which we’ve got to fix.’ What was Senator Ludwig’s response? He said, ‘We’ve got a sort of trick or treat, Prime Minister; that should scare off the fraudsters.’ Mr Rudd was not happy with that. He preferred to do what he does best; that is, to look at coalition policies—which, of course, he could copy.

This might sound like a case of deja vu, because we know that this me-tooism has become something of a habit for the Labor government. When they do not have a plan of their own, when they do not know how to deal with any of the really difficult problems—the heavy lifting that is necessary in government—they seem to be coming round to the idea that the coalition’s ideas were not too bad after all. You only have to look at Senator Conroy’s pathetic performance on trying to roll out a broadband network. He has adopted the same expert taskforce, with much the same members, as the coalition and he has already broken an election promise in allowing it to slide beyond the promised time frame. As Senator Ludwig’s answer makes very clear today, you can see very clearly that Labor are desperate to find some answer to the problem of welfare fraud. The Australian people are not that dumb that they cannot see that this is a direct and obvious steal from the government’s access card.

The coalition government was already well advanced in the design and implementation of a smart card to address these problems, and yet Labor, as opportunistic as ever in opposition, could not help themselves. They decided to chuck it out, waste a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money; and now, in government, Labor realise that Australia needs to use technology to address welfare fraud. They want to develop a consumer friendly and useful smart card to address fraud. What is clear from this display and Senator Ludwig’s complete inability to rule out an access card is that is what they are going to do. They know they should not have ditched it in the first place and they have simply adopted ours. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a disparate range of issues raised today by the opposition, but I would like to take note of the answers regarding the economy and the budget. There were several which touched on this dominant theme of recent debate, which was also a theme of the election. It has been a strong focus for this government since coming into power. They have focused on the economy and the budget process and fulfilled an election commitment to be conservative fiscal managers. Naturally, and the Prime Minister has already signalled this, that will result in a bit of pain during the budget process. The Labor government have a commitment to rein in the problems that were created by the former government not addressing a number of threats and a number of opportunities in the economy in the recent past. It is true that Australia has had a strong economy over the past decade or two. Australia has made good use of favourable world economic conditions and favourable terms of trade conditions to put many of the indicators in a good position. But whether it made the former government lazy or whether they were simply incapable of dealing with the issues, they ignored a number of threats that were apparent over the last few years. In particular, they did not make use of a number of opportunities presented by the economic conditions at the time.

Senator Evans spoke about the balance of trade being stubbornly and consistently negative for Australia. In opposition, the Labor Party warned about the problems that might result from this and some of those problems are coming home to roost. Successive Liberal governments did not deal with a number of these issues, and now the incoming Rudd government has the difficult task of addressing a lot of those threats that are apparent, and becoming more apparent. The Labor government is looking to the future; it is looking to provide a stable and solid economic platform for the future. It does have to deal with the problems of building capacity and building up skills and addressing infrastructure needs while fulfilling its commitments to deliver a good budget surplus and rein in spending to ensure that inflation is contained in our economy. All of these things impact on the Labor constituency, those working families that are affected by interest rate rises, by inflation, by price increases—as was outlined with petrol prices, grocery prices and so on.

We in the Labor Party are determined to make sure the economy is right because we are interested in working families and making sure that those working families benefit from the strength of the economy. We are making sure that it is not just chief executives and senior executives of large companies that benefit, but that the benefits of a strong economy are also felt by working families in Australia. From time to time those opposite make fun of the phrase ‘working families’, but it is a serious issue for us in the Labor Party because that represents a fundamental constituency of ours. We have a strong connection and a strong loyalty to make sure that any benefits of Australian wealth created through our primary industries or through our manufacturing or services are felt by those Australians and that their work is well rewarded. That is what drives the Labor Party and will continue to drive the Labor Party and guide our examination of the budget processes and, where the pain might be felt in that budget, to ensure that spending is properly targeted and focused. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For as long as I can remember, Labor has talked down the economy. In 1996 the then shadow Treasurer, Gareth Evans, condemned the then government’s savings measures—our efforts to balance the budget. He likened our efforts to taking a baseball bat to the economy. They were not. In 1998 the then shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, said that the new tax system tax cuts would overheat the economy. They did not. Around the same time, the then opposition leader, Kim Beazley, said that the GST would king-hit the economy. It did not.

To be fair, you do expect oppositions, particularly Labor oppositions, to be negative. But usually, with a change of government, the parties reverse roles. You would expect that a new government would embrace its role to talk up the economy. But, no, we have seen the bizarre situation where the new government is actually talking the economy down; the bizarre situation where the new government is not seeking to defend consumers. Since Mr Swan has been Treasurer we have witnessed him give the green light to banks increasing mortgage rates independently of Reserve Bank decisions. We have seen him give the green light to banks to increase their mortgage rates over and above Reserve Bank decisions. Even worse, we have seen him, the Treasurer of Australia, fuel inflation expectations by declaring, irresponsibly, that the inflation genie is out of the bottle. Those are not the words of a responsible Treasurer. Those are the words of an economic vandal.

Inflation expectations are, in a sense, self-fulfilling. That is why his comments were so dangerous. If consumers think inflation is going to rise they will more readily pay higher prices for goods and services. And if businesses think inflation is rising they will act by lifting their prices to cover anticipated extra costs. That is not just my view. That is not just the view of economists. It is the view of the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, who recently said, ‘Undoubtedly, the state of inflation expectations greatly influences actual inflation.’ It is a fact, and it was irresponsible for Wayne Swan to declare the inflation genie is out of the bottle. Also, in talking up inflation, the Treasurer has been increasing the likelihood of further interest rate increases.

Labor cynically want inflation to rise and rates to rise. In Labor’s view, the quicker rates rise the sooner they will fall—they hope before the election. They do not care that rate rises which occur too quickly will kill the economy and cost jobs. There is clear evidence already that their plan is working. The Westpac Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index, which was released recently, showed that there was a 21 per cent fall during the last three months. It is the biggest quarterly slide since the series began in 1975. And the Sensis consumer report released today found that 24 per cent of households felt they were worse off, due mainly to cost of living concerns. Petrol prices were their main concern—top of the list. So the Labor plan that we are seeing is: let’s talk up inflation, let’s talk up rates, let’s kill the economy and let’s hike up unemployment. High unemployment? Well, that solves the skills crisis. Rates hiked high and fast? Well, there is a chance they might come down before the election. The only price is more jobless.

I have a bit of advice for the Treasurer: accept the role that you have and master your brief. The job of the Treasurer is to defend the economy; it is to point to the positives; it is to build local and international confidence in our economy. I said yesterday in the chamber that, if Mr Swan does not master his brief very shortly, he will go the way of John Kerin, who, we will all remember, delivered just one budget, in 1991, after serving as Treasurer for only six months. I was a junior opposition staffer at the time and I remember being in the queue at the House Table Office waiting to get my budget papers and seeing, two in front of me, the man who the year before had delivered the budget lining up to get his budget papers. If Wayne Swan does not master his brief soon, he will be in that queue next budget and it will be Mr Bowen or Mr Tanner standing at the dispatch box delivering the budget. This government has to stop complaining about the economy and accept the responsibility. They were elected to govern. They were elected to rule for all Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.