Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I made some remarks on the document last week and I want to put on the record a more complete explanation of my remarks, as they appear to have been taken out of context. Basically, I made some remarks singling out Senator Reynolds because of her conduct throughout the inquiry. I said:

It was totally partisan, totally political and less than objective conduct.

I want to put forward some further and better particulars in respect of that.

By way of background, I have, prior to coming to the Senate, some experience as a chair and some experience as a member of a committee. For example, I spent 16 years as the secretary of a branch committee of management of a reasonably sized union. I spent 10 years as the chair of an investment committee on a reasonably sized superannuation fund. I chaired the complaints and appeals on that superannuation fund. I was a director of the Motor Accident Commission. I chaired the marketing and sponsorship committee. So, when I say something is partisan and purely political, I am coming from a very technical background.

The Senate passed a resolution. I was minding my own business. I knew little or nothing about Nauru. I just knew, anecdotally, that it was an area where superphosphate was mined and had historically been extraordinarily wealthy and had some reasonably good investments in the city of Melbourne. When I came to the first meeting, which was a telephone conference, we had a resolution of the Senate which basically said the composition of the committee—so the office bearers of the committee, the deputy chair and the chair. The resolution was fairly simple: the chair would be a member of the opposition and the deputy chair would be a member of the Australian Greens.

At that very first meeting, it surprised me when the coalition senator present, Senator Reynolds, moved that Senator Bernardi would be the deputy chair. It was contrary to the resolution of the Senate, so it did not cause all that much disquiet or discomfort! But it did pose the question: either Senator Reynolds did not read the resolution or did not understand what the Senate had determined. That is, there would be a committee and there will be a chair and deputy chair from the respective groups. Either she did not read that or—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I would hope that Senator Gallacher is not going to raise matters that were discussed during private meetings of the committee, because I think that would be clearly in breach of standing orders.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, unless those deliberations of the committee have been made public—I will seek further advice—I think you would be advised not to reveal confidential discussions of a committee .

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that your position is correct: the minutes of the committee are confidential. I am not reading from those confidential minutes; I am simply telling you what happened. There was a telephone conference and a member of the coalition made a nomination of a coalition senator who was not there to be deputy chair—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I took your previous ruling there to be that if the matters discussed in the committee were confidential, then confidentiality should not be breached. I do not see the distinction between the minutes of the meeting and the actual goings on of the meeting. If the meeting is confidential, then surely both the minutes and the discussion held in the meeting should be confidential and should remain so.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallacher, I have just had the advice that I gave you confirmed by the clerk. You have to be careful about what you do say about the confidential deliberations of the committee and matters that are not on the public record that were discussed in the committee in an expected closed environment. With that proviso and that advice, you may continue.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to put on the record the further and better particulars, which I am attempting to do, to explain my statement about partisanship and about totally political and less than objective conduct. In the course of the work of the committee, it became very, very clear. There were a number of contributors: there were contributors from the Australian Greens, there were contributors from the Australian Labor Party and there were contributors from the coalition.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I think you have directed Senator Gallacher as to what is appropriate and what is not. I do not believe that these matters that are being raised now are in the public domain and I ask you, please, to again insist on Senator Gallacher listening to and abiding by your ruling in relation to this. These are clearly matters that were private discussions in the committee.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening to Senator Gallacher's continued contribution. He is okay at the moment and he is aware of the provisions.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My comments are in the public domain. They are on the record and they are on the Hansard. Anybody who wishes to read them, they are on the Hansard. What I am attempting to do is give further and better particulars about my statements, because my statements have been taken completely out of context and used in a different way. I am attempting, careful as it may need to be, to put the—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. If Senator Gallacher believes that he has been misrepresented and he wishes to make a personal explanation, then he can do so. But this is not the forum for that to be done. I am quite happy for Senator Gallacher to give a personal explanation as to where he has been misrepresented. That is an entitlement of senators. I am happy for it to be done now, although it was not done at the start of the senator's contribution. I am happy for that to occur as to where he has been represented, but not as to general matters discussed by this inquiry.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallacher is entitled to incorporate any speech if it relates to the topic and it does—that is, matters that he is raising. You are correct, Senator Ronaldson: there are other opportunities to raise matters where he believes he has been misrepresented, but he is also entitled to do it within this speech if it fits within the topic matter.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contributions were generous from all quarters and rightly so: it was important series of committee hearings. There was an abundance of evidence and there was a huge amount of reading and work undertaken by all members of the committee. What I am stating in my assessment is that people took a different attitude as to what this committee is all about. My view is that the Senate gave us a task. People had their opportunity to vote for or against the inquiry and the majority of the Senate gave a task to the opposition, the Australian Greens and the coalition.

As I have said in my earlier contribution, I was then tapped on the shoulder—for want of a better word—and asked to chair. I knew little or nothing about Nauru. I had no preconceived political agenda. Despite the claims of the minister of the day, labelling it a witch-hunt before it started, and despite the statements in the media about how we had orchestrated a situation where the department did not get to give evidence on a day of inquiry, the actual truth of the matter was that the timetable for that inquiry was set by Senator Reynolds and her good and honest reason of wanting to get back to Perth. I accept that. I know people who live in Perth, and I accept that it is extremely difficult travelling to and from Perth.

So we set an agenda. The agenda ran over and we were called out by the minister for not allowing the department to give 'inconvenient truths' to the inquiry. Well, the department had their day before the inquiry, and there were no inconvenient truths. In fact, as I stated in my early contribution, we actually had to write to the department reminding them of the standing order, and they said, 'Yes, we accept that we haven't been quite as forthcoming as we should, and we will do better.' So it was a partisan effort by the coalition outside of the committee.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had the majority on the committee.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Outside of the committee there was a clear partisan view by the minister. His public statements and his press releases say all of this. I am saying that that contagion came inside the committee. From doing clear thinking and an evaluation of the circumstances relating to the situation at Nauru, the committee became partisan. My simple contention is that the coalition senator who was partisan in that was Senator Reynolds. Whether that was the task given to her, I do not know, but she was clearly partisan. Senator Bernardi is renowned in this chamber as being a chair of an extremely high standard. As a chair of a committee, he sets really high standards. Senator Johnston's contribution was analytical, deliberate. He cross-examined with purpose and prosecuted his position, as he always does, very well.

That was not true of the contributions from Senator Reynolds. That is why my statement came to bear. My statement came to bear because, clearly, the agenda that she was running was not the agenda that was set by the Senate. As I say, I have had enough experience to know when people doing things—and they can do it; there is no issue with that—that frustrate the normal working of a committee. In normal meetings you have an opening and you have apologies and you have the acceptance of minutes. If someone moves that the minutes not be accepted, you ask why. Clearly, they have an issue with the minutes—but all of the minutes; every set of minutes? My instruction to the secretariat who drafted the minutes was, 'Please take them to Senator Reynolds and have them fixed, and whenever she is happy, I will sign them.' I had no problem with the minutes.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Gallacher. You are now delving into deliberations of the committee and workings within the committee. You are getting into too much detail again. So I just draw your attention to that.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I accept that admonishment. I accept that the minutes are confidential. That was my advice before I came in here. My advice was that I could refer to matters pertaining to the minutes—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but you are starting—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but I could not refer to the actual minutes.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few short seconds I have left, I want to say that I do not cast any aspersions on anyone's character. That is not my role. That is not the way I do things. That is not the way I live. I am not the judge and jury of anyone's character, compassion or humanity. But I do know partisan political behaviour when I see it—and, from my experience as a chair, it was present. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This inquiry was another attempt by the Labor Party and the Greens to blame the coalition government for a situation which evolved during the time of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—in fact, during the second Rudd government. This was a references committee set up inappropriately. It was about the fourth committee that the Greens and the Labor Party had set up. It achieved absolutely nothing, except to show that Mr Kevin Rudd, as the Labor Prime Minister, set up this regional processing centre without proper thought in a matter of weeks before the election to try to overcome a political problem he had with the unregulated entry of illegal arrivals into our country. Mr Rudd had eventually worked out that Mr Howard was correct and that the proper process was to set up these regional detention centres. Mr Rudd did that but, unlike Mr Howard, he did it within a matter of days and without proper consideration. Of course, those opposite were part of that government. If anyone had given it any thought and if they were seriously looking at the issue, they would have said to Mr Rudd at that time, 'You can't set this up in a matter of minutes because it will end in tears.' And in tears it did end.

My colleague Senator Reynolds assiduously tried to participate in this, as did I. I was asked to participate in this. But with this committee—as with a similar committee—the times for hearings seemed to be set up when they knew coalition people could not be there. I suspect that it was not often that the two coalition members we able to be there. There were only two coalition members on this committee. Notwithstanding that the coalition has the majority of senators in this chamber, the coalition was only given two out of six or seven positions on this committee. That is the way the Labor Party and the Greens attempt to run these dodgy committees—hoping to get a result that attacks the coalition government for something the Rudd government did with the support of the Greens political party.

Senator Reynolds, in senators' statements just yesterday, actually gave a very detailed response to the matters that Senator Gallacher has just, again, raised. Senator Gallacher, in previous contributions—six times, I am told—has tried to defend this committee and has personally attacked Senator Reynolds. Senator Reynolds has responded, and if anyone is interested in this debate I would urge them to look at Senator Reynolds's statement in senators' statements yesterday, or the day before, to see the real truth of the matter.

As I said, this is the third or fourth or fifth inquiry that the Greens initiated—and the Labor Party goes along with them—trying to—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order: the honourable senator opposite is referring to five or six reports into Nauru—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I do not think there have been five or six reports into Nauru.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point. There is no point of order.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order—he can misrepresent the position?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can address that in a different forum. A point of order relates only to the conduct in this debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand that Senator Gallacher is trying to stop me, because I know people listen to this on a Thursday afternoon. Senator Gallacher and the Labor Party will do anything to stop the people of Australia understanding how the Labor Party and the Greens political party have wasted taxpayers' money on many inquiries into the same issue. They call them different names. They set them up in different committees. But it is the same old same old. And I say to—well, I will not mention names—one of the participants from the Greens political party who has a standard set of emotive words to put to these inquiries, and usually a tear or two to go with it, that this is an absolute disgrace. It is a farce of the Senate committee system, and the sooner senators understand this the better.

But I will conclude on this point: if Senator Gallacher has a problem with the conditions and circumstances at the regional processing centre in Nauru, he needs to look at the root cause of that. The root cause of it was the hurry in which his Prime Minister, the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, set up these regional processing centres, without proper thought, without care, without any consideration of what might happen if he did this without proper support. All of these inquiries have shown, when the departments have been able to give evidence, that things just were not set up before these illegal arrivals were sent to these regional processing centres. They were not properly prepared. There were not the proper facilities. There were not the proper staff. The staff who worked there had not been properly trained. As a consequence, there were problems at these institutions, but they are all problems that were of Mr Rudd's making when he was the Labor Prime Minister. I look forward to Senator Carr's contribution to this debate, because he was a minister in Mr Rudd's government, which set up these regional processing centres. I would like to hear from Senator Carr his lame excuses for why they did that the way they did. After years of saying Mr Howard was wrong, suddenly, with an election approaching in 2013, Senator Carr and Mr Rudd thought, 'Gee—Howard was right after all; we'd better re-establish these things.' But it was done in such a short time, just because there was an election coming up, and all these problems evolved.

I want to congratulate Senator Reynolds for the sterling effort she and her colleagues put into this dodgy inquiry, if I can call it that. It was very difficult for Senator Reynolds or any of us on this side to attend, because that is how these committees seem to run these days: 'Find out when coalition senators are not available, notwithstanding the fact that they represent most of the citizens of Australia in this chamber; make sure that they cannot be properly represented so we can ask all the dodgy questions of public servants and try to browbeat and bully public servants fortuitously.' I saw a bit of that and have read some of the transcript. The public servants were up to the task. I want to congratulate the public servants who have done a wonderful job in trying to fix the problems created by the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. They are very professional. They worked under extremely difficult circumstances. Having done what they could to help Mr Rudd through his stupidity, they then get attacked in these sorts of committees for their alleged breaches. They have done a wonderful job, and I congratulate them.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru arose following the intervention of the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Morrison, who acted upon what he said were intelligence reports when the government sought to sack a number of employees of a contractor to the Save the Children Fund who were alleged by the government to have acted improperly in that they had been orchestrating complaints by asylum seekers on Nauru. The government, through the minister, unilaterally removed those people from the Save the Children Fund from Nauru and from their responsibilities to provide welfare services for the detainees on Nauru. A subsequent report was produced by the department following the commissioning of an independent investigation into the affairs of the Save the Children Fund. It was found that those people who had been deported from Nauru—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you talking about?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the basis for this report, Senator Macdonald. If you are a member of the committee, if you actually attended, you would know the circumstances of why this select committee was established. These were not the actions of a previous government; these were the actions of this government. This is a centre that has been administered by the current government, not the previous government. This was a matter that came about as a direct result of the allegations made by the minister in this government into the activities of one of the government contractors. As a result of the independent investigation, it was subsequently found to be baseless. Those persons have never received an apology, not even recognition, that the claims made against them were ill-founded, intemperate and, of course, predicated on false reports by the contractors.

What has been discovered as a result of that independent inquiry is that there had been repeated instances of mistreatment of detainees at the hands of the contractors, including widespread sexual abuse. Senator Macdonald, you and I might have substantial differences on most things, but one thing I would not accuse you of is condoning that action. The purpose of Senate inquiries such as this is to actually protect the human rights of people. That goes to the issue of when people are detained as a direct result of government policy—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was your government.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not care which government. If people are detained as a result of the actions of any Australian government and they are subjected to sexual abuse, to torture or to mistreatment—and we are financing that—as a parliament we have a responsibility to do something about it. Senators have many great illusions as to what their powers are, but they have one substantial power—which we would all have to concur with—and that is the power of exposure. In reality, that is the only real power we have. The work of the Senate committees is vital to carry out that function. Has anyone said that the results of this committee inquiry have been proven to be wrong? No, because they have been demonstrated to be supported. A further non-party, non-political, non-parliamentary inquiry demonstrated the widespread abuse of detainees at Nauru and at our other detention centres.

You asked: did I, as a cabinet minister in the previous government, sign up to offshore detention? The answer is unequivocally yes. I will say this: never, ever was there a proposition put in any part of any government that I participated in that we would brutalise detainees as part of the offshore detention system and that is something that this parliament should turn its back upon. The proposition that the brutalisation of detainees was an inherent part of any detention is of course a proposition that I thoroughly and completely reject.

In relation to the conduct of this inquiry, what I can say is that I participated in the inquiry and I sought to participate properly. I freely concede that Senator Gallacher has not chaired many Senate inquiries but I cannot fault his behaviour. In the 23 years that I have been a senator here, I have seen quite a few chairmen of committees. You, Senator Macdonald, were one of the worst committee chairs I have ever seen. What I say about Senator Gallacher is that he acted courteously, he acted properly and he acted consistently with the advice of the secretariat on all occasions. He provided opportunities for witnesses, no matter what their position, to be heard properly.

Is it true that the government did not like this inquiry? Yes. Were they opposed for political reasons to this inquiry being established? Yes. It does not change the fact, in any regard, that there were coalition senators who behaved properly on this inquiry—Senator Johnston being one of them. Senator Bernardi behaved entirely differently, from my direct observations, to the way in which Senator Reynolds behaved. There are some fundamentals about how this Senate operates—a recognition that there may well be substantial differences of opinion, but when it comes to the procedures and protocols there is a standard of behaviour we expect, particularly on committee business. Senator Macdonald, that is something you have ignored for a long time and as a chair you behaved appallingly. Senator Gallacher, as far as I am concerned you behaved professionally, properly and in the very best traditions of this Senate.

This report itself is important. Do not detract from the substance of this report because there have been human rights abuses that have occurred under our name. The Parliament of Australia has been funding programs that led to circumstances which are simply unacceptable. The point of this parliament as far as I am concerned is to expose such injustice and to have it stopped. I think this report will go a substantial way to seeing that happen. You may not like every recommendation and you might want to rely on the legal fiction that this is happening in a foreign country and therefore it is not a matter of our concern. I put to you that that position is completely wrong. The conservative government in New Zealand does not share that point of view. The conservative government in New Zealand says that what happens on Nauru in regard to the human rights abuses is of importance to them. We have seen the sacking of the chief magistrate and the sacking of the police commissioner. We have seen operations on Nauru, and that is something that we should not condone, particularly when this parliament is paying for it.

Senator Gallacher, I commend you for the work that you have undertaken. I wish there were more opportunities for backbench senators to be able to present a proper view of how this parliament should operate.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr, your time has expired.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.