Tweet
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1476490.htm
Broadcast: 06/10/2005
Senate reports find problems
Reporter: Michael Brissenden
MAXINE McKEW: Welcome to the program. The events in Bali at the weekend and their aftermath have tended to overshadow what has been a reasonably busy week in Canberra. And it's been a week that hasn't reflected particularly well on the Government. 'Catastrophic' is how the Comrie report described the deportation of Vivian Alvarez Solon to the Philippines. Then there's been the Senate committee which has been investigating the Regional Partnerships Program as well as a Senate report into military justice. The Senate reports, in particular, could prove politically difficult. They were instigated, after all, by the Opposition and minor parties. As we know things have changed, and from now on, at least until the numbers change in the Senate again, the Government no longer faces the uncomfortable prospect of dealing with hostile reports that are beyond its own control. Political editor Michael Brissenden reports.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Senate has always been the more reflective of the two houses of Parliament, less theatrical, more considered than the rough and tumble of the House of Reps. But in its own quiet way until recently the red chamber was far less comfortable for the Government as well. Things are different now, of course, the Government's majority has made sure of that. But politics has a long lag time and this week the ghost of the Senate of old was still making its presence felt.
SENATOR MICHAEL FORESHAW, ALP COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I present the report of the finance and public administration references committee entitled Regional Partnerships and Sustainable Regions Programs, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move that the report be printed.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This afternoon, the Senate committee inquiring into the Government's controversial Regional Partnerships Program delivered its report. Who could forget the scandal that developed over the millions of dollars doled out for the regional programs in the lead-up to the last election? A good deal of it handed out in key marginals or in seats the Government was keen to win back from Independents. The committee's report found that overall the main processes for approving projects for funding were reasonably sound. Although there was scope for building more rigour and transparency into the framework. But it finds on some of the most significant and controversial projects, there was a failure of due diligence, unwarranted interference in the process from ministers and ministerial staff and in the case of the $600,000 grant for the Beaudesert Tourist Railway in Queensland, direct intervention from the PM. That grant it says was made for political purposes.
SENATOR KERRY O'BRIEN, ALP COMMITTEE MEMBER: You don't have to be Einstein to work out the degree of bias that's been in this program and that this program has been a program more about the re-election of the Coalition than it has been about the development of important community assets in regional Australia. The other thing that I should say is that we've highlighted a number of projects - Beaudesert Rail, Tumbi Creek, A2 Dairy Market as primary energy and the Atherton Hotel - in the report. The value of those five projects exceeds $5 million. That's $5 million to fund a steam train that doesn't go, a creek that dredged itself, a milk company that folded before the ink on the funding announcement was dry, an ethanol company worth a dollar that's yet to produce a drop of fuel and a hotel fund to run "Wacky Wednesdays" and stump bikini babes while other communities on the Atherton Tablelands cry out for drinkable water. So, is it any wonder we've been inquiring into this program. This is a scandal.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: As is often the case the Government senators on the committee have taken a dissenting position. This was an inquiry founded upon the most partisan terms of reference that the Senate has seen for some time, they say. Well partisan perhaps, but back then they were powerless to stop it.
SENATOR GUY BARNETT, LIBERAL COMMITTEE MEMBER: There were no findings of maladministration or wrongdoing in the management of the Regional Partnerships Program. So it can be proven that the ALP has embarked on a costly and in my view wasteful attempt to rewrite history of the 2004 federal election.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Regional Partnerships Program is probably the last of its kind we'll see for a while. An inquiry established by the non-government majority that ruled and Senate before July 1 this year. The Senate committees have been a powerful political force and for governments often an embarrassing and difficult facet of our parliamentary system. They don't always force change, but they do provide a forum for far more forensic inquiry and throw the spotlight on issues and problems governments might prefer were kept in the dark. The report into military justice reforms is another case in point.
SENATOR DAVID JOHNSTONE, LIBERAL: And I can say that Government members of the committee were disturbed and upset.
SENATOR CHRIS EVANS, ALP SENATE LEADER: Well I've described it as shambolic and dysfunctional. I think that's been our experience.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This scathing bipartisan report found serious inadequacies in the military justice system. It was established in response to claims of bastardisation and abuse that in some cases led to suicide in the military. Cases like that of Air Force cadet Private Jeremy Williams. Jeremy's father Charles was one of many who gave evidence to the committee.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, JEREMY WILLIAMS' FATHER: The discipline system, and I quote, "All recommendations are based on the premise that the prosecution defence adjudication function should be conducted completely independent of the ADF. "
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: In June, the committee tabled its report and recommended among other things that any suspected criminal activity in the military be investigated by civilian courts in the future. This week the Government handed down its long awaited response. A response that failed to act on the key recommendation. Instead, the Government has announced and establishment of a permanent military court independent of the chain of command.
SENATOR ROBERT HILL, DEFENCE MINISTER: The issue here is to make it work better. We've put a great deal of effort into refinement of the system so that it can work better. There'll never be a perfect system. The civilian alternative is not perfection, but we know that it can be administered better, the investigations can be more effective, the administration processes can be much improved and that's what will now occur and over a period of two years I hope that both within and without the force, there'll be greater confidence in the system that we're putting in place.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The new system will include the establishment of a special services investigation unit, a streamlined complaints and grievance system and a commission of inquiry into service deaths and suicides. According to some these are significant reforms, but they're not enough to satisfy Charles Williams.
CHARLES WILLIAMS: The new proposed system is once again, the military in this country investigating itself. These people are not trained extensively in investigative procedures in any case. But more importantly they have a vested interest to cover up, to conceal by any number of means the root cause of the problem, such as the bastardisation, the bullying, the beatings that were occurring at Singleton.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Charles Williams says many of the families who gave evidence feel similarly disappointed. Other critics are at least partly satisfied with the outcome. It's forced some change and it's change that was forced by a Senate committee, a democratic avenue that for the time being may no longer be available.
HARRY EVANS, CLERK OF THE SENATE: Certainly those references to committees went through the Senate and certainly they were initiated by non-government senators. Now committees only inquire into what is referred to them by the Senate. And whether those sorts of references will be made in future we'll have to wait and see.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Well it's unlikely, isn't it, for a Government to launch an inquiry into its own actions?
HARRY EVANS: Well, there was an old Senator, deputy president of the Senate for many years, a Liberal from Victoria, called Senator Hamer, who used to say that the only inquiries worth conducting are ones Government doesn't want. Certainly there's some truth in that. We will have to wait and see what the effect on these sorts of inquiries will be of the new situation.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Well no actually, we won't have to wait. There's plenty of evidence already. Here's just one example of how the new Senate is already working. Even the suggestion of an inquiry today by Family First Senator Steve Fielding was quickly dismissed.
SENATOR STEPHEN FIELDING, FAMILY FIRST: Certainly on the eve of any proposed changes it's the ideal opportunity for the Senate to look at this issue and to have an inquiry as we move even further into the 21st century about moving forward, to see how we can achieve a paid work and family balance that will genuinely help families, actually help the community and actually help employers.
SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Just to indicate Mr Acting Deputy President that the Government won't be supporting this motion. We believe the issues that Senator Fielding has quite accurately referred to are issues that are integral to the Government's industrial relations reform agenda which will be brought before the Parliament in a very short period of time.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Clearly, the Senate is a very different place. Dissent has been muzzled and even the bureaucracy is feeling the heat. Harry Evans is himself an interesting case study. For some months after the election last year he was publicly warning of the dangers presented by the Government's new powerful position. The Parliament, he said, had deteriorated into a form of elective monarchy. Here's what he told us in October.
HARRY EVANS: Well if the Government does control the Senate I think the tendency will be to suppress any committee inquiries that are embarrassing or inconvenient to governments. That's what governments seem to do nowadays.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: What role will it play then? You'd have to wonder what role there is for the Senate if it doesn't have the power to actually have inquiries or if so, they are meaningless?
HARRY EVANS: That's a very good question.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: It's fair to say Harry Evans has come under considerable pressure himself of late. The Government has made its displeasure known and these days he's a little more careful with his words. He's been knuckled but not yet completely muzzled. Basically the premise we could assume now is that there will be less Senate inquiries than there has been in the past when you've had a Senate that's been basically aggressively anti-government?
HARRY EVANS: Well less in number, I don't know. But certainly, as I say, inquiries don't get conducted unless they go through the chamber and they get referred to the committees. Now you can draw your own conclusions about what sort of inquiries are likely to be conducted in that sort of condition.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: What would they be? They wouldn't be critical inquiries, would they?
HARRY EVANS: Well, I can only refer you back to Senator Hamer's comment.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Not all reports are forced by the Senate, of course. Sometimes things just get so embarrassing the Government has to simply assuage public concern with an inquiry it instigates itself. These can provide helpful cover for a while too but eventually they have to report and their findings are not always comfortable either. The Government didn't need a recalcitrant Senate to push it towards an inquiry into the mess that is the Immigration Department, for instance.
SENATOR AMANDA VANSTONE, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: I've got a job to do and that's to fix it up and that's what I'm going to do.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Unlike the previous Palmer report, this one from former Victorian police commissioner Neil Comrie investigates just the circumstances surrounding the deportation of Vivian Alvarez. He says, "Her treatment was catastrophic." The Minister has responded with a plan to spend $230 million over the next five years on training for immigration officers. This will include a college of border protection and better information management systems. We can only imagine what conclusions a Senate inquiry might have come to.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1476490.htm
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1476490.htm
Broadcast: 06/10/2005
Senate reports find problems
Reporter: Michael Brissenden
MAXINE McKEW: Welcome to the program. The events in Bali at the weekend and their aftermath have tended to overshadow what has been a reasonably busy week in Canberra. And it's been a week that hasn't reflected particularly well on the Government. 'Catastrophic' is how the Comrie report described the deportation of Vivian Alvarez Solon to the Philippines. Then there's been the Senate committee which has been investigating the Regional Partnerships Program as well as a Senate report into military justice. The Senate reports, in particular, could prove politically difficult. They were instigated, after all, by the Opposition and minor parties. As we know things have changed, and from now on, at least until the numbers change in the Senate again, the Government no longer faces the uncomfortable prospect of dealing with hostile reports that are beyond its own control. Political editor Michael Brissenden reports.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Senate has always been the more reflective of the two houses of Parliament, less theatrical, more considered than the rough and tumble of the House of Reps. But in its own quiet way until recently the red chamber was far less comfortable for the Government as well. Things are different now, of course, the Government's majority has made sure of that. But politics has a long lag time and this week the ghost of the Senate of old was still making its presence felt.
SENATOR MICHAEL FORESHAW, ALP COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I present the report of the finance and public administration references committee entitled Regional Partnerships and Sustainable Regions Programs, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move that the report be printed.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This afternoon, the Senate committee inquiring into the Government's controversial Regional Partnerships Program delivered its report. Who could forget the scandal that developed over the millions of dollars doled out for the regional programs in the lead-up to the last election? A good deal of it handed out in key marginals or in seats the Government was keen to win back from Independents. The committee's report found that overall the main processes for approving projects for funding were reasonably sound. Although there was scope for building more rigour and transparency into the framework. But it finds on some of the most significant and controversial projects, there was a failure of due diligence, unwarranted interference in the process from ministers and ministerial staff and in the case of the $600,000 grant for the Beaudesert Tourist Railway in Queensland, direct intervention from the PM. That grant it says was made for political purposes.
SENATOR KERRY O'BRIEN, ALP COMMITTEE MEMBER: You don't have to be Einstein to work out the degree of bias that's been in this program and that this program has been a program more about the re-election of the Coalition than it has been about the development of important community assets in regional Australia. The other thing that I should say is that we've highlighted a number of projects - Beaudesert Rail, Tumbi Creek, A2 Dairy Market as primary energy and the Atherton Hotel - in the report. The value of those five projects exceeds $5 million. That's $5 million to fund a steam train that doesn't go, a creek that dredged itself, a milk company that folded before the ink on the funding announcement was dry, an ethanol company worth a dollar that's yet to produce a drop of fuel and a hotel fund to run "Wacky Wednesdays" and stump bikini babes while other communities on the Atherton Tablelands cry out for drinkable water. So, is it any wonder we've been inquiring into this program. This is a scandal.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: As is often the case the Government senators on the committee have taken a dissenting position. This was an inquiry founded upon the most partisan terms of reference that the Senate has seen for some time, they say. Well partisan perhaps, but back then they were powerless to stop it.
SENATOR GUY BARNETT, LIBERAL COMMITTEE MEMBER: There were no findings of maladministration or wrongdoing in the management of the Regional Partnerships Program. So it can be proven that the ALP has embarked on a costly and in my view wasteful attempt to rewrite history of the 2004 federal election.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Regional Partnerships Program is probably the last of its kind we'll see for a while. An inquiry established by the non-government majority that ruled and Senate before July 1 this year. The Senate committees have been a powerful political force and for governments often an embarrassing and difficult facet of our parliamentary system. They don't always force change, but they do provide a forum for far more forensic inquiry and throw the spotlight on issues and problems governments might prefer were kept in the dark. The report into military justice reforms is another case in point.
SENATOR DAVID JOHNSTONE, LIBERAL: And I can say that Government members of the committee were disturbed and upset.
SENATOR CHRIS EVANS, ALP SENATE LEADER: Well I've described it as shambolic and dysfunctional. I think that's been our experience.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This scathing bipartisan report found serious inadequacies in the military justice system. It was established in response to claims of bastardisation and abuse that in some cases led to suicide in the military. Cases like that of Air Force cadet Private Jeremy Williams. Jeremy's father Charles was one of many who gave evidence to the committee.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, JEREMY WILLIAMS' FATHER: The discipline system, and I quote, "All recommendations are based on the premise that the prosecution defence adjudication function should be conducted completely independent of the ADF. "
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: In June, the committee tabled its report and recommended among other things that any suspected criminal activity in the military be investigated by civilian courts in the future. This week the Government handed down its long awaited response. A response that failed to act on the key recommendation. Instead, the Government has announced and establishment of a permanent military court independent of the chain of command.
SENATOR ROBERT HILL, DEFENCE MINISTER: The issue here is to make it work better. We've put a great deal of effort into refinement of the system so that it can work better. There'll never be a perfect system. The civilian alternative is not perfection, but we know that it can be administered better, the investigations can be more effective, the administration processes can be much improved and that's what will now occur and over a period of two years I hope that both within and without the force, there'll be greater confidence in the system that we're putting in place.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The new system will include the establishment of a special services investigation unit, a streamlined complaints and grievance system and a commission of inquiry into service deaths and suicides. According to some these are significant reforms, but they're not enough to satisfy Charles Williams.
CHARLES WILLIAMS: The new proposed system is once again, the military in this country investigating itself. These people are not trained extensively in investigative procedures in any case. But more importantly they have a vested interest to cover up, to conceal by any number of means the root cause of the problem, such as the bastardisation, the bullying, the beatings that were occurring at Singleton.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Charles Williams says many of the families who gave evidence feel similarly disappointed. Other critics are at least partly satisfied with the outcome. It's forced some change and it's change that was forced by a Senate committee, a democratic avenue that for the time being may no longer be available.
HARRY EVANS, CLERK OF THE SENATE: Certainly those references to committees went through the Senate and certainly they were initiated by non-government senators. Now committees only inquire into what is referred to them by the Senate. And whether those sorts of references will be made in future we'll have to wait and see.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Well it's unlikely, isn't it, for a Government to launch an inquiry into its own actions?
HARRY EVANS: Well, there was an old Senator, deputy president of the Senate for many years, a Liberal from Victoria, called Senator Hamer, who used to say that the only inquiries worth conducting are ones Government doesn't want. Certainly there's some truth in that. We will have to wait and see what the effect on these sorts of inquiries will be of the new situation.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Well no actually, we won't have to wait. There's plenty of evidence already. Here's just one example of how the new Senate is already working. Even the suggestion of an inquiry today by Family First Senator Steve Fielding was quickly dismissed.
SENATOR STEPHEN FIELDING, FAMILY FIRST: Certainly on the eve of any proposed changes it's the ideal opportunity for the Senate to look at this issue and to have an inquiry as we move even further into the 21st century about moving forward, to see how we can achieve a paid work and family balance that will genuinely help families, actually help the community and actually help employers.
SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Just to indicate Mr Acting Deputy President that the Government won't be supporting this motion. We believe the issues that Senator Fielding has quite accurately referred to are issues that are integral to the Government's industrial relations reform agenda which will be brought before the Parliament in a very short period of time.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Clearly, the Senate is a very different place. Dissent has been muzzled and even the bureaucracy is feeling the heat. Harry Evans is himself an interesting case study. For some months after the election last year he was publicly warning of the dangers presented by the Government's new powerful position. The Parliament, he said, had deteriorated into a form of elective monarchy. Here's what he told us in October.
HARRY EVANS: Well if the Government does control the Senate I think the tendency will be to suppress any committee inquiries that are embarrassing or inconvenient to governments. That's what governments seem to do nowadays.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: What role will it play then? You'd have to wonder what role there is for the Senate if it doesn't have the power to actually have inquiries or if so, they are meaningless?
HARRY EVANS: That's a very good question.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: It's fair to say Harry Evans has come under considerable pressure himself of late. The Government has made its displeasure known and these days he's a little more careful with his words. He's been knuckled but not yet completely muzzled. Basically the premise we could assume now is that there will be less Senate inquiries than there has been in the past when you've had a Senate that's been basically aggressively anti-government?
HARRY EVANS: Well less in number, I don't know. But certainly, as I say, inquiries don't get conducted unless they go through the chamber and they get referred to the committees. Now you can draw your own conclusions about what sort of inquiries are likely to be conducted in that sort of condition.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: What would they be? They wouldn't be critical inquiries, would they?
HARRY EVANS: Well, I can only refer you back to Senator Hamer's comment.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Not all reports are forced by the Senate, of course. Sometimes things just get so embarrassing the Government has to simply assuage public concern with an inquiry it instigates itself. These can provide helpful cover for a while too but eventually they have to report and their findings are not always comfortable either. The Government didn't need a recalcitrant Senate to push it towards an inquiry into the mess that is the Immigration Department, for instance.
SENATOR AMANDA VANSTONE, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: I've got a job to do and that's to fix it up and that's what I'm going to do.
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Unlike the previous Palmer report, this one from former Victorian police commissioner Neil Comrie investigates just the circumstances surrounding the deportation of Vivian Alvarez. He says, "Her treatment was catastrophic." The Minister has responded with a plan to spend $230 million over the next five years on training for immigration officers. This will include a college of border protection and better information management systems. We can only imagine what conclusions a Senate inquiry might have come to.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1476490.htm
Australia is somewhat like India of the olden times, when jusat before the elections, money was distributed for projects so that the voters could be wooed!
Fortunately, it is passe since once the elections are announced no major policy decisions can be taken nor postings or things like.
One has problems in Counter Insurgency area of a few cases of soldiers doing irrational things under stress, but one wonders what are the stresses in the Australian Military that led to the airman to commit suicide! I hope some Australian could throw some light!
Though I wonder if the suggestion carried in the report that criminal activity should be tried in a civil court maybe taken transparency too far since it suggests that the military cannot be trusted. If that be the case and they are partisan, then how can one trust them with the defence of the nation?
What is this "bastardisation" that the report talks about that afflicts the Australian military?
What were the the circumstances surrounding the deportation of Vivian Alvarez?
Comment