Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to pursue this a little further. I do see the footnote and I understand footnotes. I understand tables. As I read it then and as I read it now—and nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance has said changes my view on this—the 2007-08 staff numbers, as per this table and as per the footnote, reflect the changes that have been made in the tasks that refer to outcome 1. I accept that some tasks could have been taken out and some others put in. But my assumption—and I still do not see why this assumption is not true because nothing the parliamentary secretary has said has helped to clarify this—is that the 2007-08 staff numbers would have been adjusted so that there was consistency with 2008-09. In other words, when you go to the subsequent pages which spell out the activities under outcome 1, I assume that the 2007-08 activities have been adjusted in staff numbers to reflect some consistency. So, in other words, it is a nonsense. Why have the table if 2007-08 bears no resemblance if half the jobs are being taken out and another half put in? There must be an adjustment, otherwise there is no transparency and there is no accountability; it is a mockery. And I cannot believe the department would put forward two lines of numbers that cannot be compared. If I am right, that the activities in the subsequent pages are a constant for 2007-08 and 2008-09 and staff numbers have been adjusted accordingly, then could I again have an explanation for the difference in the 305?

I would like to raise some other questions while I have the opportunity. I know the difficulty you might have, but there are still a lot of people scratching their heads that the Prime Minister could have announced an initiative of such great consequence potentially for the region as the proposal for a European Union style structure for the Asia-Pacific. This would cover half the world’s population. And this is not something off into the never-never; this is to be achieved within 12 years. I cannot believe that this could have been put out into the public arena and no work had been done on it. So, firstly, I would like to know how much work has been done and what it has cost. Secondly, what work is proposed to be done to carry this initiative of enormous consequence potentially for the region? I would like to know if DFAT was consulted before the proposal was unveiled. I would like to know where the office of the envoy will be. What is his program? What staff numbers will support the envoy? What is his time frame and will he seek to move through different stages of this proposal?

On a similar issue, with regard to the commission for nuclear disarmament, what is the nature of Gareth Evans’s role as chair? Is it a paid position? What is the payment of this? Who else will be on the commission? What is the financial commitment that will sit behind this commission? What are the staff numbers and where will they be based? Is there an international presence expected? Will Australia fund a lot of the activities of other participating countries? Will other countries participate? What are the goals of the nuclear commission? Will it start from the view that the United States and others have to give up nuclear weapons? That is a very important proposition. Is that what is being proposed? Did DFAT provide advice on the establishment of the nuclear commission?

See this speech in context