Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to raise a matter of deep concern to me. It is a matter of critical interest to the coalition and, I would think, to all Australians who follow the management of the Foreign Affairs portfolio and, in particular, overseas development assistance and AusAID. Foreign Minister Bob Carr either knowingly misleads this parliament or it is totally incompetent. He is either in contempt of parliament or was installed in a job that he is miserably failing at. Those of us who participate in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Senate estimates have seen a demonstration of this time after time. At each Senate estimates, it has happened since he was installed in the job following the retirement of Senator Arbib when he was tapped on the shoulder and massaged into the role by the Prime Minister on the basis that he would be made the foreign affairs minister. I am very sad that Senator Bob Carr is not here today to personally hear what I have to say because his behaviour since he has presided over this portfolio is an absolute disgrace.

In question time on 14 March, Senator Milne asked him questions in relation to the aid budget. In one of the supplementary questions, she referred to whether there was continued government commitment to the divestment of ODA and what percentage that was. In one of those questions she asked:

…will the government be transparent in this year's budget as to what the exact dollar figure is that is already committed for climate finance in 2013-14, so everyone can see what remains for overseas aid?

Minister Bob Carr's response was:

We are on target to reach 0.5 per cent, as I said—and I have got my speech in front of me—by 2016-17. We have said that before and we say it again. We are totally accountable in terms of every aspect of the AusAID budget. As I said at the estimates committee, you can find the details online and we are proud of that level of accountability. In estimates recently, the opposition and the Green party were able to exhaust their folder of questions about AusAID expenditure, with every question being met in comprehensive detail.

Those of us who were in attendance at that Senate estimates were gobsmacked with the absolute hypocrisy and misrepresentation of what actually happened in that Senate estimates.

I have to tell you that not only did he not exhaust all the questions that were asked, not only was he not able to answer the questions that were directed at him, he answered questions with absolute rudeness and total abrogation of his responsibility to answer questions that were directed to him. In many instances he just referred the senator asking the questions to the website. His standard response was, 'Go look at the website; the details are on the website,' when in actual fact in many instances there was no information on the website. When he was questioned on what information was available on the website, he flicked it off with a very theatrical, dismissive: 'You go and do your own homework and have a look at the website.'

Not only did he not exhaust all our questions—the questions of the Greens, the National Party or the Liberal Party—but there are some 98 questions on notice, which I table here today, that he was not able to respond to. Ninety-eight questions! Have a look at them. That is how big the wad of paper is. That is what he is misrepresenting. He says that he is across it. He said that he answered all these questions. He came to question time and he either has absolutely no idea about what he is doing in this portfolio or he was intentionally misleading the parliament. Which one is it?

There are 98 questions on notice. The reporting date that the committee agreed to was 12 April 2013. I look forward to receiving every answer to every question on notice—those 98 questions—because, clearly, he either had no recollection that he did not exhaust all our questions or he, as I said, came in here and misrepresented what was fact.

I want to go to one of the issues that was raised in estimates with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and AusAID. It goes to the heart of the fact that AusAID is being managed with absolute incompetence. I am not blaming the officers in AusAID here; I am suggesting that the departmental oversight is sadly lacking. With regard to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—and I am sorry that Senator Cash has just been relieved as shadow minister on duty by Senator Mason, so I hope she is listening to this—it was through prosecution of Senator Cash that the secretary of the department, Mr Bowles, actually said that the responsibility for the $375 million that was ripped out of the aid budget and put into immigration to help plug the hole, make the paperwork look better and to pay for the asylum seekers onshore in Australia was the responsibility of AusAID.

When Senator Cash at some length questioned Mr Bowles on this, he confirmed that the department was not accountable for the recording of the $375 million and that that was actually the role of AusAID. When I pursued that in Foreign Affairs and Defence Senate estimates, I was surprised because Mr Baxter, who heads up AusAID, advised that the $375 million had nothing to do with him. If you go to the budget papers, you will see that the $375 million has come out of the number, out of the bottom line of AusAID, and been directed into DIAC so that they are not accountable for the recording of that $375 million and how it has been divested. Across agencies, we had this confusion in the same week as to who was accountable for this huge chunk of money that had come out of the AusAID budget.

For those who might understand how overseas development assistance works, the reason that ODA can apply to refugees coming here is that the definition of ODA allows for asylum seekers coming to Australia to be funded and defined as overseas development assistance for a period of 12 months. So, for a period of 12 months, this $375 million can go towards supporting them during the time when their refugee assessment is taking place.

The question was asked, 'When is the starting point for when this 12 months applies?' But that question was too hard. Further questions were asked: 'Is it when the patrol boats actually find a boat and help the asylum seekers, put them on board and bring them to the mainland? Is it at that point in time when they are identified that the 12 months start? Is it when their foot actually hits Australia? Is it when they take the first step on Australia's land? Is that when the 12-month period commences?' There was a deathly silence—like there is now.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order about accuracy. I am hearing a lot of reflections on what goes on at Senate estimates and I would be very concerned, having been at a reasonable proportion of the Senate estimates being described, about the accuracy of the senator's description of proceedings.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no actual point of order there, Senator Lundy. Senator Kroger is making some debating points and expressing her view.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is: when does this 12 months start? Does it start when the asylum seekers are picked up by our patrol boats? Does it start when they actually take their first step in Australia? Does it start when they submit their refugee application for consideration? Does it start when that application has been considered, accepted or denied? When does this period start?

The concern here is: how does this money that has been taken out of the AusAID budget and has been thrown into another bucket for DIAC, for their divestment, get recorded? There has been no answer given as to how that is accounted for. The other issue here that any layperson would consider when thinking about this matter is whether, if you are talking about ODA, and the definition of it, being able to be accessible for refugee status for a 12-month period, that means that that bundle of money is apportioned to a certain group of refugees that is no longer eligible once that 12-month—whenever it starts—has lapsed. There is a real question here in relation to competency and there is a real question in relation to transparency—questions that we could not get any responsible answer to during Senate estimates.

There is another matter that continues to be of deep concern. An independent review into the effectiveness of aid was undertaken a couple of years ago. It was a very impressive document, and I have gone on the record many times commending Mr Baxter for that document. What we are looking for is the implementation of the 37 recommendations that were in that document because they would really strengthen the way in which we can guarantee, as a parliament, that aid is deployed and divested in the most effective way possible. We asked Mr Baxter how one of those recommendations was going and the implementation of it. This was recommendation 30 of the Independent review of aid effectiveness, which essentially is the implementation of a whole-of-government approach, with universal standards across the board and across all departments for the planning, monitoring and reporting of the divestment of AusAID. When we asked about that we were told that of the 20 Australian government agencies that are responsible for administering ODA not one of them has complied with recommendation 30—not one! So whilst that review has been printed, delivered to us and circulated—and, again, I say it is a very commendable document—not one of those agencies has complied with one of those recommendations.

I am a great supporter of overseas development assistance. I am a strong advocate for our responsibility to help people of other nations who require support of civilised Western countries such as ours. But I do not support not having a transparent process to ensure that taxpayer money is deployed effectively and not wasted.