John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

It is now widely known that the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Allan Asher, in whose name most of these reports under section 486O of the Migration Act stand, developed serious concerns about the resources available to his office to investigate such matters. I note with particular interest the Ombudsman's assessment and recommendations in report 643/11 of 5 September 2011, paragraphs 25 to 31; report 652/11 of 5 September 2011; and, report 654/11 dated 20 September 2011. I have no concerns about a statutory office holder making such matters public. I have no concerns about a statutory office holder questioning or criticising government policy, and I have no concerns about a statutory office holder mounting a robust case for greater resources. I have seen suggestions that the government found Mr Asher's criticisms in his role as Immigration Ombudsman unacceptable. For the record, I could not care less about Mr Asher or any other Commonwealth Ombudsman highlighting matters that might make a minister uncomfortable or embarrass the government of the day. I am one who will defend the right of any Ombudsman to report on their concerns with absolute frankness, in unvarnished truth, however disturbing such views may be to a government or any office holder in government. But I also believe the public and the parliament are entitled to expect the highest standards of behaviour from the Ombudsman and his office.

When Mr Asher appeared at Senate estimates two weeks ago, I asked him questions about his role in writing questions and providing them to a senator for the budget estimates round this year. I asked Mr Asher:

Do you think that an integrity agency such as the Ombudsman should set an example, should have the highest standards in government?

Mr Asher responded:

Yes, it should.

I then asked:

Have you met those highest standards?

Mr Asher:

I think this was clearly an error in judgment. It was clearly a mistake.

It is important for us to acknowledge that Mr Asher said to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee that he considered his actions to be an error of judgment and a mistake. He apologised to the committee and said it would never happen again. As I am sure all senators are aware, Mr Asher has since resigned—a decision he made and a course of action he was not questioned about. Nor was it suggested to him at Senate estimates. It was not suggested that might be an appropriate course of action. It is my intention to address some important issues surrounding these events when further opportunities allow in the Senate's very full program. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This document deals with the assessments made by the Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman under section 486O of the Migration Act. Of the 10 individuals who are the subject of reports by the Ombudsman, the minister's statement to parliament indicates five remain in immigration detention or a correctional facility. Of course, as I just mentioned in a previous speech, since the minister's statement to parliament Mr Asher has resigned as Commonwealth Ombudsman.

I have seen the claims made that the Ombudsman's resignation was the result of a witch-hunt conducted because Mr Asher had caused the government discomfort. Senator Brown has said that the Ombudsman was a decent man working in the public interest and that he had been 'politically assassinated'. In my view, he was a decent man working in the public interest. But, as a senator who fronted up and asked Mr Asher questions at the recent Senate estimates committee hearings—proper questions, fair questions, questions that were not politically loaded—I reject totally any suggestion that I was part of an assassination squad, if that is what is being claimed.

For the record, my views about this matter are my own. I say it again: I could not care less if Mr Asher, or any other statutory office holder for that matter, in conducting their responsibilities criticises or finds fault with the government, with government officials or with office holders. But I believe the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as an agency head—in fact, as the head of an integrity agency—must set the highest standards and must set the best example. In fact, at estimates I asked Mr Asher whether he thought that an integrity agency such as the Ombudsman should set an example, should have the highest standards in government. He said, 'Yes, it should.' I asked Mr Asher if he had met those high standards. He said he thought this was clearly an error in judgment, that it was clearly a mistake.

My concern about this matter goes to the issues of the impartiality, independence and integrity of the Ombudsman's office. I argue for openness and transparency more than most in this parliament, and at times transparency means that people in high office will feel discomfort with certain matters being made public. Well, so be it. But in this case I am sorry to say that the test of transparency was not met by Mr Asher. I believe other avenues, more appropriate avenues—as opposed to providing dorothy dix questions covertly to an individual senator—were available for Mr Asher to raise genuinely held concerns such as with ministers, formally to a Senate committee, by press release, in an annual report or in a speech.

Mr Asher has paid a heavy price for the mistake he has admitted he made, but it should not—and I believe it will not—diminish in any way the importance and independence of the Ombudsman in providing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship with their assessment of the appropriateness of detention arrangements. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.