Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Special Minister of State, Mr Gary Gray, I table a ministerial statement relating to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The reason for the Special Minister of State's statement in relation to the Ombudsman yet again confirms, when you read the statement, that the Australian Greens party see themselves as an elitist party with absolutely no regard at all for the practices and procedures of this parliament, let alone the Australian Senate. If you read the ministerial statement, at page 5 the Special Minister of State says:

An office such as that of the Ombudsman, a key part of our system of government and Parliamentary accountability, cannot function effectively in that compromised environment.

That is exactly what the Australian Greens did and in particular Senator Sarah Hanson-Young did to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. They completely, totally and utterly compromised the independence of the Ombudsman. But that is what you get when a senator comes to this place and continues to play university politics when that particular person should be representing the Australian people in the Senate, should have an understanding of the practices—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The senator is reflecting on another senator in this place and I would ask her to keep her remarks within the rules of the Senate.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening quite closely to this and, Senator Cash, you would appreciate that you are not to bring anyone's character into disrepute.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Nothing should surprise those on this side of the chamber. The Greens demonstrate on what has now become an almost daily basis that they are only interested in observing the rules of the Senate when it suits their own particular political advantage. Yet day after day, and in particular in relation to the current debate that we have before the Senate, they confirm that they see themselves as nothing more and nothing less than an elitist group who believe that they are so important that the rules and regulations of the Senate should not apply to them. That is the reason that the Special Minister of State has had to table a statement in relation to the resignation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Again I go to the Special Minister of State's statement, in which he says:

… Mr Asher's actions in dealing with an individual Senator and framing questions as he did, were not on the public record or otherwise apparent to other members of the Parliamentary Committee, and the questions themselves were far from neutral. He offered briefing on legislation that has not been introduced and on other matters that would have been of interest to all Members and Senators.

But not all members and senators were offered that courtesy, because Senator Hanson-Young was having a private meeting with the Ombudsman in which they developed questions to be raised in the estimates process that ultimately compromised the Ombudsman, the most independent office in the land, and led to his resignation. Again, you would expect nothing less from a member of the Australian Greens.

As each day goes past Australians are now waking up to the fact that the Greens are quite possibly nothing more and nothing less than a party of complete, total and utter contradictions. Who can forget the hours over many years that the Greens have stood in this place and told the rest of us that the guillotining of bills is an abhorrent political practice? Why? Senator Bob Brown is on record as saying this: it prevents minor parties from engaging in proper political debate. Then what do we have? We have the Greens supporting time and time again under this new, unholy Labor-Greens alliance the guillotining of debate in this chamber. The vote that will be taken tomorrow in the chamber is the perfect example of that.

Another example: on one hand the Greens garner votes by pretending to be a cuddly, benign environmental party who are holier than thou. Yet what did we have the other day? Instead of taking over the chair of the environment committee, what committee did they want to take control of and what committee did they indeed take control of? The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. This again confirms that they are not the cuddly, benign environmental party that they want the Australian people—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. We are now commenting on the ministerial statement on the Ombudsman. I fail to see the connection between what Senator Cash is now shouting about and the actual ministerial statement.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the point of order myself. It was not a point of order from Senator Milne because Senator Milne clearly has not read the ministerial statement. If Senator Milne had, she would have understood that the entire ministerial statement, while it does not use the word, confirms without a doubt the complete, total and utter hypocrisy of the Australian Greens party. That is the point of my speech right now, which I will now elaborate on to ensure that what I am saying does have a direct link to the ministerial statement. Let us talk a little bit more about the complete, total and utter hypocrisy of the Australian Greens. Let us talk about their holier-than-thou approach to political parties other than the Australian Greens seeking financial donations. Their approach to financial donations is they are not okay for the ALP and the coalition. They say if we were to take a political donation there is something wrong with that. But who can forget the donation that the Australian Greens received from Graeme Wood, who gave them $1.6 million?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$1.6 million which, Senator Williams, is a record donation for a political party. But they are opposed on principle—the Greens allegedly have some principles—to corporate political donations, unless, of course, that donation is going straight into the pockets of the Australian Greens party. What about this hypocrisy? When a coalition member misses a division, we are all subjected to a missive from the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown; but, when Senator Bob Brown gets caught out doing the exact same thing, what happens? Nothing. Absolute silence. Deafening silence. That is complete, total and utter hypocrisy.

The Australian Greens protested about the standards of parliamentary behaviour by attacking the sentiments expressed by 'no carbon tax' protesters outside Parliament House. But then, during a visit by the President of the United States, they interject whilst he is addressing our parliament. Again, that is rank hypocrisy from the current government's coalition partner.

The Greens accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from construction unions, and then what do they do? They come into this place and they profess to support the abolition of the ABCC, but then Senator Bob Brown stands up and tells the people of Australia, 'But the Greens are not influenced in any way at all by political donations.'

Let us talk about the further hypocrisy of the great Australian Greens. The Greens promote themselves as being the great defenders of democracy; but, in every doorstop interview that Senator Brown has done of late, he has had to point out why we need an inquiry into the Australian media—because God forbid that a journalist in this country actually exposes the Greens for what they are. I cannot wait till I have finished because I am quite sure that one member of the party is going to jump up and defend the Australian Greens, because I have said something bad about them and we all know that in this place nobody is allowed to say anything bad about the Australian Greens.

But the Australian people are well and truly waking up to the way the Australian Greens operate. They are waking up to their gross hypocrisy, and it is clearly outlined in the statement by the Special Minister of State to the other place and now tabled in the Senate in relation to why the Commonwealth Ombudsman—the most independent office in this land—had to resign. It is because the Australian Greens colluded with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Deception, dishonesty and duplicitous behaviour: they are the words that the Australian public are now using to describe the Australian Greens. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, that was a pretty silly submission from Senator Cash, and she knows it, but that is the nature of the opposition in this place.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator Cash interjecting—

You see? We listened to her submission in silence, but they are right into it now, breaking standing orders, as the conservatives do so frequently because they simply do not want to give a fair and even go, not even in this chamber. 'Born to rule' is a dangerous feeling to have in your ranks. The coalition have it. It is infesting them badly, and they are hurting and do not know why. The reason is pretty simple: they are in opposition—because the people put them in opposition.

We in this corner of the Senate have enormous respect for the position of Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that includes Mr Asher, who recently resigned from that position. The story is well known. He approached Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to ask some questions about immigration but not to have his formulating of those questions revealed to a Senate committee. In later papers, Senator Hanson-Young asked some questions and, indeed, I put a couple of questions on defence matters, as we routinely do. Every member of this parliament who is worth their salt in a committee has received information from somebody on which they base the questions that evince information.

Senator Cash interjecting—

Senator Cash, you really do not do yourself much good.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just ignore the interjections, Senator Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is pretty easy to ignore, thank you—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, then why did you take my bait? You are doing it again!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, it would also be helpful if you would not interject.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You must be so proud, Senator Faulkner, of your coalition colleagues, destroying Labor—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

destroying the Labor Party that you represent.

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash is extraordinarily rude, but it is a pattern of behaviour which is consistent here.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will proceed when the interjections cease on all sides. Senator Brown, would you like to continue speaking?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, and I thank you for pulling Senator Cash up. As a consequence of those events, there was an article in the Canberra Times by Robin Brown, who is a Canberra consultant in effective governance and market regulation, and John Braithwaite, who is an Australian Research Council Fellow and founder of RegNet at the Australian National University. They wrote:

As the media cycle moves on from the demise of former ombudsman Allan Asher, the Parliament must now repair the institution its members have damaged. Many MPs say Asher had to be pressured until he jumped to preserve the integrity of his office. We take the opposite view.

It is senior politicians and public servants who have now damaged the office by leaving the public asking the question: "Will the next ombudsman be their patsy?" Will persons of integrity want the job? Will whistleblowers lose confidence in baring their souls to the next ombudsman?

Asher's error was to push too hard on defending the rights of those in immigration detention centres. His email of questions to a Greens senator was the pretext for his demise. It was not the reason.

Further on they said:

The problem here was that neither the Government nor the Opposition liked Asher's interpretation of the public interest on immigration detention.

What they are pointing to is that Mr Asher's valiant, intelligent and humane role, given to him by government, was to investigate immigration detention. Thousands of people are held in detention who, the Greens maintain, ought to be much more quickly released into the community, because that is where they, in the main, end up, and some are held to the point of mental breakdown and indeed, far too often, of seeking to commit suicide. But Mr Asher and his office were not given the wherewithal to undertake the extraordinary new load that was put onto his and his staff's shoulders, and he sought to get that information out into the public arena.

In the wake of Mr Asher's very valiant resignation to protect the position that he upheld, the Greens have not simply come to get into a debate with the opposition, or the government for that matter, but instead have drawn up an alternative which will help fix the problem, to ensure that no future Ombudsman is put in the impossible position that the good Mr Allan Asher was placed in. We are proposing to give a parliamentary committee oversight of the Ombudsman's office and, therefore, give the Ombudsman a parliamentary advocate for review of his funding and work levels. He will not have to go to another member of parliament to get the information out. Our proposal will assist in ensuring the executive remains at arm's length from the Ombudsman but will, simultaneously, give that Ombudsman an assurance that they are able, if they do not get adequate resources, to make that known and to appeal for them.

Under the Australian Greens' proposal, the parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit will have its duties expanded to be able to examine the receipts and expenditure of the Ombudsman; to examine the Ombudsman's reports that are tabled in parliament; to report to parliament on any matters within those receipts, expenditure or reports that the committee thinks should be drawn to the attention of parliament; and to report to both houses any alteration the committee thinks desirable. The Public Accounts and Audit Committee already performs a similar role for the Auditor-General.

So we are not only defensive of the honour of and the sterling work done by Mr Asher in the office of Ombudsman; we have also moved to respond to an obvious oversight in not providing the Ombudsman—that is, the office of Ombudsman; it did not matter which one was there—with a natural and easy facility to have information brought to the attention of parliament about the running of the Ombudsman's office and its needs. We will be looking to support from both the government and the opposition in having this positive change made.

To go back to the Ombudsman himself: I am hoping to catch up with him in the near future to go over the matters that caused him extraordinary pain. They must have; no human being could go through that without extraordinary pain. I may be wrong about this but I do not think I have ever sat and had a talk with him, so I am looking forward to doing that. I think he has served this country well. He is an experienced officer who has worked in the UK and elsewhere in the world, as well as in Australia and for this nation, and I think he needs to know that that service is being recognised and that there is a hope that he will be able to continue that service without the events of recent times cutting across his ability to do that.

Finally, the question I have asked myself through this episode is: what if he had not gone to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young? What if he had gone to an opposition backbencher, or frontbencher for that matter, or, indeed, to a government backbencher, and they had sought out the questions? He would still be in office. So, when we hear the sort of diatribe we just heard from Senator Cash about the Greens, you see a different way of treating the political connections that arise from time to time. I think the Ombudsman's downfall, if I can call it that, was very highly politically charged, and I think it was a sad day when he left office. However, he has been prepared to do that, and it was a mark of this man that he was prepared to do that, to prevent an ongoing furore over the office, to defend that office which he had served so well. I for one thank him for the service he has given this country.

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

The ministerial statement that the Senate is debating this afternoon is about the resignation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Asher. One could be forgiven for thinking, listening to Senator Cash's speech, that this might have been a ministerial statement about the Greens political party. But this is an important issue. And I think that, frankly, it warranted a more serious and considered contribution than the intemperate one that we received from Senator Cash on this issue.

First of all, let me, as I have previously in this chamber—and also, of course, I have asked questions at the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—put on the record that I have absolutely no problem at all with any statutory officer of the Commonwealth, be it the Commonwealth Ombudsman or any other statutory office holder, making their concerns clear and public. There is no problem, in my mind, with a statutory officer questioning or criticising government policy, and there is certainly no problem with any statutory officer making a strong case for increased resources for their office. I have seen suggestions that the government has found the criticisms of the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Asher, as unacceptable. I hope that is not the case. I have no reason to believe it is the case.

The fact of the matter is that, from time to time, statutory office holders are going to make statements that are critical of governments, that are embarrassing to governments of the day and that give ministers and officials discomfort. That is life. I am one person who, in this chamber, will always defend the right of any Ombudsman or other statutory office holder to report on concerns with frankness and, as I have described before, with unvarnished truth, how ever uncomfortable these concerns might make a government feel. This, of course, does not relate at all to the expectations that each and every one of us should have that a statutory office holder, particularly one holding an office as important as the Ombudsman, must always exhibit the highest standards of behaviour. It is absolutely true that the head of an integrity agency must set the highest example. I certainly asked Mr Asher questions at a Senate estimates committee. It was not a fix by the government, but I did inform both the opposition and the Greens that I intended to ask Mr Asher questions. 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?

He said in response to my question:

Yes, it should.

I then asked him:

Have you met those highest standards?

He said:

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

It is important that the public record here shows that Mr Asher said that he considered his actions in relation to the issue of the provision of questions to a senator to be an error of judgment. He considered his actions to be a mistake. He apologised to a Senate committee for his actions and he made it absolutely clear that it would not happen again.

Of course there is a question about whether this is a resigning offence. I have seen the comments that have been made, including by Senator Brown and Senator Hanson-Young, that the Ombudsman's resignation occurred as a result of a witch-hunt, conducted allegedly because he had caused the government discomfort. I reject that absolutely. Senator Brown has said, and I have quoted this previously in the chamber, that the Ombudsman was a decent man, working in the public interest and that he had been politically assassinated. I agree with all of what Senator Brown said about the decency of Mr Asher—he is a decent man; there is no question about that. He is a good man, but he made a serious mistake. He made a very serious mistake, in my mind, as the head of an integrity agency. The critical thing here is that he has to be able to justify that he is acting in an impartial way. He has to be able to defend the integrity of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. He has to be able to assure all of us, from every political party, and those who do not represent a political party in this parliament and beyond, that he is acting in an apolitical way. Integrity matters. Independence of the office matters. Impartiality matters. That is the problem that we face in this regard.

We are entitled to expect more from the head of an integrity agency than we expect from others. We are entitled to expect that the head of an integrity agency sets the highest of examples for us all to follow. I asked Mr Asher at Senate estimates:

Do you think 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 him:

Have you met those highest standards?

He said that he thought this was clearly an error of judgment, clearly a mistake. The issue is not that there is any lack of acknowledgement that an error was made; I suppose that, given the concerns about this affecting the impartiality, independence and integrity of the Ombudsman's office, the issue is: should the Ombudsman have resigned in this circumstance? That is a matter for him. I have made no judgment about that. I certainly did not ask at estimates whether he considered offering his resignation or not, though I have asked that at times of other Commonwealth officials. This is a serious point that all senators, regardless of their political party, ought to take account of. I do not accept what Senator Brown said when he asked, 'What if those questions had gone to an opposition senator?'. I do not care whether they go to an opposition senator, a Greens senator, a government senator or anyone else. I do not think it should have happened, because I personally believe there are more appropriate avenues available to an ombudsman or statutory officer to raise genuinely held—very genuinely held—concerns. You can do it more formally to a Senate committee—by communicating not just to one senator but to the whole committee in an opening statement or in another formal communication—or with ministers, by press release, in an annual report or in a speech. There are plenty of opportunities, and I believe that is what the Ombudsman should have done in this circumstance. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.