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

by leave—I'd like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate about a return to order relating to notice of motion 1204, requesting that the Minister representing the Prime Minister produce by 10 am today, the 26th, all documents relating to the application and the decision to award government funding to Gretals Australia. Could the minister explain why the documents haven't been provided?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe a response was provided. There you go. I certainly responded to it. It was received by the President's office on 23 November, and I table it now.

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

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, the government, in this, as in all other matters, prides itself in being open and transparent. But it is true, as Senator Carr indicated, that his motion for the order of production of documents in relation to the matters he has raised was very poorly drafted, and a very poorly drafted motion which is not clear about what it is that he is actually seeking on behalf of the Labor Party makes it very difficult to respond. However, in an abundance of helpfulness, and having made assumptions about what it is that Senator Carr was seeking—and I note that Senator Carr failed to read the material part of the letter that I wrote to Senator Ryan, the President of the Senate—I just point out to the Senate that, in relation to both grants that were raised in the public debate, which he references, I have provided very explicit advice to the Senate.

I've pointed to the response to the Senate on 13 November by Minister Canavan which, in relation to the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, has confirmed that no funds were paid from the Global Connections Funds to Gretals. That is not something that Senator Carr chose to quote when referencing the letter I sent to the Senate. The advice by Minister Canavan to the Senate on 13 November was very explicit, and I will repeat it:

… the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering has confirmed that no funds were paid from the Global Connections Fund to Gretals.

My letter also points out that the Australian Research Council grant that has been referred to in media reports and on which previous questions had been based—and this was another grant which had been referenced in public reporting when it comes to Gretals—is a grant to the University of Melbourne. I refer the Senate to my letter on 12 November, which was also copied to Senator Carr. That grant was not a grant to any company. Under the relevant grant program, universities do partner with the private sector on research projects, but that is the situation.

If Senator Carr wants to submit a further motion which is more precise and more direct and better drafted, then of course the government will do what we always do, and that is respond openly and transparently to the best of our ability.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the reasons for the government not fully complying with this order to produce documents. In fact, Senator Carr's motion calling for all documents regarding the application and decision to award government funding to Gretals Australia Pty Ltd could not be clearer. It is not for this place, necessarily, to have to decide specifically, in each and every way, who, in fact, issued this money in order to ask this place a question, because it is the right of this Senate to hold the government to account and to ask them questions. If they have made public statements about giving grants, about giving money, then they should not be hiding who and where that money came from and how. This chamber may not always know the so-called origin of a grant—or any other decision that this government might speak about—but we should not be precluded from asking the questions. So it is, frankly, absurd for the leader of this chamber to come back with weasel words about not specifying what the application refers to, or what decision it refers to, or the documents that are requiring production—because that is exactly why we asked the question. The government is being nothing other than evasive here.

Why are they being evasive? The issues behind this are very clear. The member for Dunkley, Mr Chris Crewther, is a shareholder in a company with fewer than 25 shareholders, and it was announced that this company received a $50,000 grant from the Commonwealth. This is why we're seeking answers to this question. The company, Gretals Australia, is the one referred to in Senator Carr's motion. It is a company that develops pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. Mr Crewther, the member for Dunkley, said that his company had in fact received this money. His admission is in the Hansard of the House of Representatives. This is a grave question for him and for the government's majority in the other place, because, as senators know, there is a constitutional prohibition on any senator or MP having a pecuniary interest in an agreement with the public service of the Commonwealth other than as a member of a company with more than 25 shareholders. So is it any wonder that the Leader of the Government in the Senate wants to be blissfully unaware of what the application refers to, or what the decision is, or to even recognise that what Senator Carr has raised in this place is a legitimate question that should and must be answered.

There are clear questions as to whether such a grant would, in fact, cause Mr Crewther to be a member of the other place. The grants were included in the list of recipients published by the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering in August last year, and Senator Carr referred in this place to the list of those grants. But we've seen—somehow, miraculously—that Gretals Australia were no longer included on that list, which is why Senator Carr has asked for these documents to be tabled. What led to this? What is being concealed? Was the grant allocated? Why was it withdrawn and when? Was its withdrawal something to do with Mr Crewther's eligibility? The government says that Mr Crewther was mistaken in saying the $50,000 had been received. Apparently Senator Sinodinos, who was then the industry minister, was also mistaken. How do we know that? Was the money received? Was it given back? Was his department mistaken?

I commend Senator Carr for raising this very important issue this morning. All relevant documents should be tabled before the Senate. The weasel words coming from the Leader of the Government in the Senate in relation to this matter are purely an attempt to paper over the political problem that the government has.

The government understands very well what this matter is in regard to. They understand it very well. But instead they come back with the weasel words, 'Does not specify what the decision refers to', 'It's unclear to which time frame the order applies,' and, 'What application does it refer to?' You have to go away and figure those things out in the public interest. We and Senator Carr have a right to ask these questions, because we may not always know which grant it was or where it was. But, frankly, Senator Carr does well know—he's made that very clear—and the government knows too. These weasel words won't get you through the significant problems in failing to be transparent around the grant made to Gretals Australia, the grant made where money was apparently received—but was mistaken. Was the money received? We don't know, but we have a right to know.

We know that in November this year Senator Cormann alleged that there were bush lawyers asking questions about Mr Crewther's eligibility to sit as an MP. Bush lawyer or not, this place has a right to the answers to these questions. It is a legitimate question if this money was given and received at any point in time—or given and then given back—this remains entirely unclear to this place. The simple fact is that the government has not denied the facts presented by the opposition in pointing out the problems with this grant and the very real challenge it creates to Mr Chris Crewther's constitutional eligibility to be a member of the other place.

Senator Cormann claimed that the grant had not gone to Gretals but to the University of Melbourne; but, as Senator Carr made clear, that is an entirely different grant. It is not the grant from Global Connections Fund that Mr Crewther referred to in his statements to the other place last year. Nothing has been said or done here that resolves his connection to this grant. The question remains very clearly about his eligibility to sit in that place. That is the core issue here.

The government can obfuscate all it likes with weasel words like, 'We don't even know what grant you're referring to.' It is your obligation to know. You are refusing to acknowledge these issues and to release the documents—and you know very well what they are—that would clarify these issues. You can duck and weave all you want, but it's very clear why Senator Cormann and his colleagues would be so anxious about this issue. I continue to call on the government to supply the documents that have been requested in the order to produce documents.

Question agreed to.