Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the matter of public importance put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in the following terms:

The failure of the Government to establish an immediate and full judicial inquiry into the OzCar affair.

The Leader of the Opposition has legal training; he is most famous for the Spycatcher case. So he understands the rule of law. He understands that the golden thread that runs through our system is: he who asserts bears the onus of proof. You cannot just get up and huff and puff, like the member for North Sydney, and engage in smear and innuendo, and expect everyone to respond to your proposals unless you produce evidence.

In relation to the matters that have been raised by the opposition, there are three inquiries currently underway. There is an Auditor-General’s inquiry—an Auditor-General who is independent and beyond reproach. There is an inquiry by the Australian Federal Police as to whether there were serious criminal offences committed in relation to a particular email. And we know that the Privileges Committee of the Senate is looking into the evidence that was given at the Senate hearing last Friday.

The problem for the opposition and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition is that he cannot run or hide from the fact that he knows what our system requires: put up or shut up. Nothing of substance has been put up by the opposition in relation to either the Prime Minister or, indeed, the Treasurer. And, in relation to the Prime Minister, the AFP quite properly came out early and said that it was a forged document, to lay it to rest because it was having an influence in our national and political affairs. If the AFP had remained silent—as some on the other side have wanted and have asserted—and we did not know it was a forged email, can you imagine where we would have been for the whole of this week of parliament? These are very serious matters.

The problem for the Leader of the Opposition is that he thought he had a smoking gun. Why do we know that? He approached a staff member of the Prime Minister at the Midwinter Ball and the conversation he had was that of a man possessed who thought he had a smoking gun. As time has unfolded—and a week is a long time in politics—that smoking gun has blown his brains out. He has been acting like a man possessed ever since, trying to ratchet up the debate, which is why we are now seeing the call for a full judicial inquiry. Why? The Leader of the Opposition has said that he and the opposition will give full cooperation in the investigation of these matters. What does that mean? I will tell you what it does mean. It means that he has volunteered that, if required in relation to either inquiry, the emails of members of the opposition and others should be thrown open. He has laid the challenge down. You cannot go out and make the concession and then walk away from it. I am worried: what does it mean?

But I will tell you what his allegations mean to date: he has lost all credibility because he has not been able to substantiate them. At their highest they generate a political debate. We know that; we are big enough and ugly enough, those of us that have been here, to know that it will generate a political debate. But what does a full judicial inquiry warrant? It actually warrants evidence of conduct that brings it into that scope, because they are not easily granted—not when you have got an Auditor-General’s inquiry and an Australian Federal Police inquiry.

In relation to judicial inquiries, which carry with them, in effect, the Royal Commissions Act power to compel witnesses, on my quick count only five were granted in the 11½ years of the Howard government, and they were for substantially different affairs. And what have this government done? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have opened up; they have allowed a full investigation of emails in their departments, and what is relevant has been produced. They have not obfuscated and hidden and walked away, as the former government did on a number of occasions. So I think it is just a nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition does himself and the opposition a disservice, because the way they are carrying on is all about the internal workings of the Liberal Party. Ratcheting up for a full judicial inquiry is about covering his back with his caucus.

See this speech in context