Dissenting report of Government Senators
1.1
Government members of the committee do not support the report of the
Labor, Greens and Independent majority in the conduct of the inquiry into the
payment of cash or other inducements by the Commonwealth of Australia in
exchange for the turn back of asylum seeker boats ('the inquiry').
1.2
Government members of the committee are disturbed that the Senate
Committee process, which for years has fulfilled its purpose of providing
impartial and authoritative reporting to the Parliament, has once again been
co-opted to advance the political objectives of the Opposition, the Greens
political party and some crossbench senators.
1.3
The inquiry has been based entirely on speculation and was established
to provide Greens political party, Independent and Labor Senators with an
opportunity to publish unsupported claims of conspiracy theories regarding
Operation Sovereign Borders. These claims appear unambiguously designed to
deflect attention away from the resounding success of Operation Sovereign
Borders.
1.4
On 1 March 2016 the committee sought an extension of the reporting date
for the inquiry to 22 June 2016. The committee majority's interim report that
is scheduled to be tabled in the Senate on 4 May 2016 seeks to finalise the inquiry
based on the evidence taken up to that date. Government Senators note that the
evidence before the committee has not been properly tested and that
correspondence with the minister regarding the inquiry has not been concluded.
As such the inquiry is inherently incomplete and any conclusions that are
drawn, or recommendations made, are done without the benefit of the full facts
and should therefore be treated with scepticism.
1.5
Government members of the committee also note that the evidence provided
by Amnesty International in answers to questions on notice does not offer any
certainty on the substance of the questions that were asked. The video
submitted does not show any panic at all and shows calm seas, and questions
about running aground were not answered with any particularity. In general the
answers provided by Amnesty International are evasive and fail to provide
detailed analysis which the questions sought.
1.6
The majority report places undue weight on the so-called 'evidence' of
Amnesty International which, on a reading of their submission and report, is
based on hearsay, assumption and the reports of others. Amnesty conducted
interviews of various groups, including criminal people smugglers, and
unsurprisingly the alleged conversations with illegal maritime arrivals and
criminal people smugglers are self-serving. It can only be assumed that all
groups, prior to Amnesty's interviews, were able to converse amongst themselves
and resolve to do everything possible to advance their case to settle in
Australia outside the normal rules that apply to genuine refugees. In contrast
to the questionable evidence provided by illegal maritime arrivals and criminal
people smugglers, the evidence given by Major-General Bottrell and other
Australian officials has been tested and is far superior to that of illegal
arrivals and criminal people smugglers.
1.7
The Government Senators disagree with the content and conclusions of the
majority report, and consider both to be based on incomplete, untested and
unverifiable speculation. No direct evidence, relevant in time, has been given
to the committee by witnesses who are prepared to identify themselves.
1.8
Chapter 3 of the majority report is an exercise in pure speculation
regarding the possible legal ramifications of events that have been alleged but
not proven. Government Senators are concerned that the resources of the Senate—resources
provided by the Australian taxpayer—are being used to pursue pointless and
speculative lines of inquiry that are based on inferences, not facts. If
Greens Political Party, Opposition or Independent Senators wish to engage in a
public relations exercise regarding border protection policies, they should do
so on their own time and with their own money.
1.9
The lack of any factual or even persuasive evidence of the events upon
which the inquiry was based is highlighted by the fact that the final
'Committee view' section of the majority report quotes an Opposition Senator,
not a submission, nor a transcript of evidence nor any other authoritative
source.
1.10
Specifically the Government Senators reject the decision of Labor,
Greens political party and some crossbench senators not to accept the government's
public interest immunity claim and agree that the claim is valid and should be
accepted.
1.11
Government Senators agree with the point made at paragraph 2.37 of the
report that the committee, because of a lack of evidence, could not make any
justifiable conclusion on the principal question referred to the committee.
1.12
The majority report's single recommendation is that, due to the
incomplete nature of the inquiry, this same inquiry subject be referred to the
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in the 45th Parliament.
Government Senators disagree with this recommendation and instead recommend
that the inquiry be abandoned completely and indefinitely. The parliamentary committee
process has limited time and limited resources during each parliamentary term
and the pursuit of this kind of speculative and wasteful inquiry should be
considered reckless and irresponsible. The Senate Estimates process provides a
more reliable and effective enquiry for any genuine concerns senators may have
in relation to this and any other border protection matters.
Senator the Hon
Ian Macdonald Senator Dean Smith
Deputy Chair Senator
for Western Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page