Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I draw the Senate's attention to the government's response to this return to order. In relation to this motion for a return to order moved by me and agreed to by the Senate on Wednesday, 14 November, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, has indicated that the government is not able to respond to the request for documents concerning Gretals Australia, claiming that the return to order was not specific enough, in that the government didn't understand what the word 'application' meant, what 'decision' meant or what the documents were that we were referring to, and that it was unclear what the time frame was. So we have a real Sir Humphrey Appleby response from the government when it's quite clear that, in terms of the context of the matter that's before the Senate, the member for Dunkley, Mr Chris Crewther, is a shareholder of a company with fewer than 25 shareholders which received a $50,000 grant from the government.

On previous returns to order, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to provide all the documents relating to the matter, and this particular matter was admitted from that original return to order, so a subsequent return to order had to be dealt with. It was in the context that I had asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology about this $50,000 grant, and it was indicated that the reason the government was not willing to refer to that is that the application for this money had been withdrawn. The application in question was the application for moneys under the Global Connections Fund, which was an initiative of the Australian government under the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is funded by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, which is the basis of the question actually asked of the minister and was, in fact, referred to by the member for Dunkley himself in the House of Representatives on 23 October 2017, when, of course, he revealed that the moneys had been received.

Of course, subsequently, the minister at the time, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, also referred to this grant in a press release. In fact, if I recall rightly, the grant under the Global Connections Fund had been referred to on two occasions. It was referred to in a list published by the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering on their website, with associated paperwork identifying the grant, identifying the program and identifying the department of industry as the source of that money. And, of course, it was referred to in a copy downloaded on 2 November of this year. However, when we returned to that website on 13 November this year, that reference had been removed. It struck me as passing strange that this had occurred, and I'm wondering why this concealment occurred. It is apparent on all of these various public references that a $50,000 grant had been received by Gretals, a company with less than 25 shareholders of which the member for Dunkley had been a shareholder. This raised questions about section 44—that is, the constitutional prohibition on someone becoming an MP or senator if they have a pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. Given the clear statements by the government, by the minister himself on a number of occasions, by the department, by the body that was actually undertaking this work for the department, the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, and by the member himself, I want to know why all of those references do not appear to constitute a confirmation that the moneys have been received. And why was the website changed sometime between 2 November and 13 November? That's why I think the Senate is entitled to these documents.

Minister Cormann, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has chosen to call me a bush lawyer for asking questions about the member for Dunkley's eligibility to sit as an MP. Minister Cormann doesn't deny the facts in this matter, but he does try to evade the obvious questions that arise about whether this grant has been issued and at what point this grant was issued. And then he sought to talk about another grant—an ARC grant, which was made to the University of Melbourne. They are, of course, entirely different matters under different programs. The grant under the Global Connections Fund, which Mr Crewther has received, was referred to specifically by the member himself. The government, of course, says, 'That was just a mistake.' If that was a mistake, it's the same mistake the minister himself made on, I would suggest, two occasions. If the minister made the mistake, so did the department and so did the academy. I find it extraordinary that the government continues to duck and weave on this issue when it's clear there is much more to be explained about this $50,000—when it was received, whether or not an application was rejected, or, more to the point, whether or not it was withdrawn, which is what I think the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science put to this chamber when this matter was presented in question time in the last sitting period. I think we are entitled to answers to these questions.

The government's explanation on these matters demonstrates a slipperiness that really can't be explained by this flippant Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to politics—by suggesting that the order does not specify what the application was or provide sufficient detail of the decision that we're referring to or suggest the limit of the provenance of the documents that were being sought under the terms of this return to order. Senator Cormann asks what time frame applies. These are the sorts of devious means by which a government seeks to avoid accountability for what is a perfectly straightforward matter, a matter which has been the subject of quite considerable public interest. The government, of course, is vulnerable in the other place because it's suggested that there is an issue of confidence. The member concerned has himself raised these matters. The government now understands that, with its minority status, it simply can't behave in this way in the House of Representatives, let alone in the Senate. And I think the government is now trying to avoid answering some pretty basic questions.

I think the government should respond properly. If necessary, we'll move another return to order, and I trust the government will find that a little easier to comply with, because the answers are very, very clear. The government should provide the documents, which will reveal what actually happened, given the statements that were made by the previous minister, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, by the department, by the academy and by the member himself, all of which suggest that a grant of $50,000 under the Global Connections Fund was, in fact, issued by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to a Dr Christopher Richards for medical technologies and pharmaceuticals for the purposes of combatting resistance—normal and natural compounds for use in animal health—in China. It was an Australian company working in China.

That's the circumstance, Minister, and I would've thought you would've been properly briefed on this, rather than being required to come in here and utter the nonsense that you've been asked to and issuing a letter such as you've been required to, when, in fact, the evidence is very, very clear that the government itself is now seeking to hide the facts in this matter.