Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006. The bill deals with amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 concerning access to and custody of royal commission records. Whilst the genesis of this bill was the tabling last week of the report of the Cole Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in Relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Program, the bill itself is not in any way limited to this single commission. It will, in fact, have a lasting impact on all royal commissions for the future and it applies in its terms to all past royal commissions.

Among the inquiry’s extensive recommendations, Commissioner Cole proposed the establishment of a joint task force to consider possible prosecutions arising from the inquiry. The government argued that the Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006 will provide a framework for the orderly and speedy referral of records from the Cole inquiry to relevant law enforcement bodies. As far as Labor is concerned, however, this bill simply represents a hasty attempt by the government to address one of the recommendations of the Cole inquiry into the oil for food scandal.

Evidently stung by criticisms of its neglect and inaction on AWB in the past, it is clear that the government is now—finally—eager to at least look like it is doing something. Unfortunately, it is far too little, too late, from this government in this regard. Having turned a blind eye to 35 separate warnings over a number of years to AWB’s $290 million in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime, this small step cannot redeem the government. After so much neglect, the government cannot push through a poorly drafted and ill-considered law on the pretence that it is needed in order to do something urgent to handle AWB matters.

Labor, of course, stands by ready to assist with any changes that are needed to allow our law enforcement agencies to investigate possible crimes committed by AWB and staff. Labor, and our new leader in particular, have after all been at the forefront of pursuing the oil for food scandal. If it had not been for Labor’s dogged persistence, I very much doubt that the community would have understood the extent of AWB’s deceit, or the government’s neglect, apathy and perhaps more. But, whilst we stand ready to assist on the AWB specific matters, we are not going to be railroaded into making an ill-considered law of lasting consequence under the cover of that supposed pressing need.

In this respect, I note my appreciation that my colleagues were able to make constructive suggestions as to the coverage of the original bill when briefed on it late last week. The shadow Attorney-General had the benefit of being able to get information and assistance from her colleagues to ensure that they could put them to government so that government would at least have those matters before them. Labor, through the shadow Attorney-General, urged the government to adopt a different approach: to focus the bill just on this particular inquiry, as was done in the HIH matter.

The second option we urged for consideration was to give a limit to ‘custodian’ in the bill and the purposes for which records could be handed to a custodian. I am pleased to say that the government was prepared to take up the latter suggestion from Labor. As a result, the bill that is now before us is in truth a much more sensible and targeted bill than the original one that was envisaged. Despite this progress, Labor opposes in principle the government’s tendency to engage in rushed law-making. The government’s concessions to Labor’s prudent suggestions on amendments simply demonstrate the traps and risks of hastily making laws that will have a broad and lasting impact.

In the remaining time that I have available I will turn to the detail of the bill. The bill will introduce a regulation-making power to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable regulations to be made to give custody or access to records of royal commissions to other persons and agencies and to be used for other purposes. The bill was originally extraordinarily open-ended; through regulation, it would allow all records held by any royal commission, past or future, to be passed on to any custodian for any purpose.

Fortunately, I can say that, after Labor raised its objections to the breadth of the bill, the government at least came to its senses—perhaps not completely, though—and introduced some rational amendments which specifically identified law enforcement agencies and limited the purposes to law enforcement as well. This is a far more sensible approach and protects against what you might call any silly or extreme outcome that could have been contemplated under the bill.

The bill amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable regulations to be made which deal with the handling of records and documents of a royal commission. What the bill will allow is that the regulations must identify which person or organisation is to be the custodian of the records and also the use of, and access to, those records. They are valuable records and do require protection.

The bill introduced last week allowed for regulations to be made in relation to specific royal commission records. Those regulations may provide for the custody in which some or all of a royal commission’s records, including copies of those records, are to be kept; specify purposes for which a custodian of royal commission records may use, or must not use, some or all of those; provide for the circumstances in which the custodian of royal commission records must or may give some or all of those records to another; provide for the circumstances in which the custodian of royal commission records must or may allow access to some or all of those records to others; and specify the purposes for which persons or bodies to whom a custodian of royal commission records gives access to those records may use, or must not use, some or all of those records.

The government’s amendments make it clear, in some detail, that regulations made under these provisions are limited to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of administering and enforcing the law. The bill will also allow but in fact not require such regulations to impose conditions to be complied with by the custodian of the records or persons and bodies to whom the records are given or who are allowed access to the records.

The bill makes it clear that the protection against self-incrimination under section 6DD of the Royal Commission Act is maintained and that legal professional privilege is not affected by any regulations that might be made under these amendments—although this is the subject of a separate recommendation by Commissioner Cole in his commission of inquiry report.

The bill also specifies that regulations will apply in respect of the records of any royal commission, including royal commissions which have reported before the commencement of the amendments. We have been advised that this provision is required as the oil for food commission is now technically also a past commission, having completed its work and reported to government. We have been assured by the government, and I would like this to be at least clear on the record, that there is no intention for this regulation-making power to be used for any commission further back in history. It would be helpful if, during the committee stage—if time permits a committee stage—or in the summing-up of this bill, the government made that plain.

The primary feature of the bill, therefore, is to provide a framework to allow royal commission records to be used for law enforcement purposes without needing additional legislation and without any prior need to notify and consult with persons who might be adversely affected by the release and use of the records.

Regulations made under this bill will apparently assist the task force recommended by the Cole commission to investigate and consider possible prosecutions against the persons named who may have breached Australian laws. Labor supports this bill because it puts the handling of these documents beyond doubt and ensures that any task force can deal with these AWB matters expeditiously.

Having described what the bill and the latest amendments do, I also want to make it abundantly clear to the Senate what this bill does not do. This bill will not uncover the whole truth about the government’s involvement in the wheat for weapons scandal. It will not reveal the extent of the government’s cover-up. Nor will the bill uncover what Minister Downer or Minister Vaile really knew about AWB’s kickbacks to the Iraqi regime. And the bill does not rectify the government’s shameful lack of commitment to a full, open and transparent inquiry into what really happened in the Iraq kickbacks scandal.

This bill may assist those now confronting the mammoth task of investigating whether any crimes have been committed or in preparing for prosecution, but it will do nothing to hold the government to account for this whole sorry episode of scandal upon scandal. Despite the bill’s obvious limits, and following the government’s acceptance of Labor’s request to limit this bill to law enforcement matters, as I have said, Labor are prepared to offer our support for the urgent passage of this bill.