Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4:21 PM) —by leave—I move:

The opposition has moved this motion to establish a committee on what generally has been known as the `children overboard incident' that occurred during the federal election campaign. I thank the Senate clerks for helpfully removing the tabloid colloquialism and renaming the event `a certain maritime incident', which is perhaps more appropriate—but, if not more appropriate, certainly more senatorial.

Today's tabling by the Prime Minister of the internal PM&C report Investigation into advice provided to ministers on “SIEV 4” really does reinforce the need for a full parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise this matter. It does not get Mr Howard, and it does not get the government, off the hook on this issue. This report reveals an appalling lack of process and wide knowledge that what was being said publicly by ministers was wrong, and it points very strongly to a serious cover-up by certain ministerial advisers and ministers. It is inconceivable that Mr Howard did not know that what was being said publicly was just plain wrong. Look at page vii of this report. Let me just quickly quote from it:

I interpolate here that a SUNC is a suspected unlawful noncitizen. The report continues:

The issue appeared to have been clarified? What an extraordinary statement to make. This matter can be properly and thoroughly examined only by a public Senate inquiry, and the resolution that I move today enables that particular inquiry to take place. I must say that we have had a very tangled web woven on this issue. There is no doubt that the Howard government deceived the Australian people on this issue, and what the opposition says is that it is time to unravel the web. It is time that we cleared up the various versions of events that have come from ministers, from departments and from agencies to find out what happened and how it was done.

I think the report which was tabled today in the House of Representatives by Mr Howard—the political tactic is to get all of the bad news out on the first day that there is a full parliamentary sitting; it is an age-old tactic that Senator Hill knows well—has generated many more questions than it answers. It is important that many of the people who were interviewed for this Prime Minister and Cabinet report alone—not to mention all of the other reports that have been undertaken, including one in Senator Hill's own department—who were interviewed for this report by an officer of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, are interviewed by a parliamentary committee where all those who come before the committee are bound by rules on providing evidence within that forum.

There is no doubt that this report indicates that Mr Reith, and Mr Reith's staff, knew within 24 hours of his statements that elements of his original statement about children overboard were wrong. There is absolutely no doubt. Look at page ix under the heading, `Key findings regarding correction of misunderstanding about the photographs':

I have only had the most cursory opportunity—I have been stuck in this chamber since two o'clock today—to read some aspects of this Investigation into advice provided to ministers on “SIEV 4” report, but there are an amazing number of questions that just this report alone raises. I know that today in the House of Representatives Mr Howard really used every trick in the book to avoid answering the direct question, `When did you know?' When was the Prime Minister told?

Mr Howard was pressed on this but he was either unwilling or unable to name the date. He refused to tell the parliament when he knew. No Australian appreciates being misled by their government; in fact, Australians hate being lied to—they really do— particularly by people, governments and those of us in public life and in parliament, in whom they invest their trust. This behaviour in relation to this incident is, in the view of the opposition, the antithesis of proper, transparent democratic process. Using incumbency and using the reputation of our defence forces and intelligence agencies to create a grossly inaccurate perception of events that are very emotional in their nature, and to do that for political purposes, is about as low as a government can go. That is why we want to explore this issue and see how far the Howard government sank on this particular matter.

We had discussions with minor party senators, the Australian Democrats, and the Independent senators, and after those discussions the opposition agreed to extend the terms of reference that I had originally proposed for this inquiry and examine the cost and processes behind Mr Howard's so-called `Pacific Solution'. Of course, since the New Year there have been media reports of vast blow-outs in the budget covering the establishment and maintenance of offshore detention centres; we think it is appropriate that this be examined and we have accommodated the Australian Democrats, particularly, who put those views to us, and I know that they are supported by other senators in the chamber.

Before I complete my comments, because I know time is short on this, I want to very briefly address one of the amendments that will come forward in the name of Senator Brown relating to extending the inquiry into the Tampa-DSD matters which were a matter of questioning in question time today. I do understand the motivation of Senator Brown in this; I think these are proper questions to ask. But we believe that the select committee is the wrong forum in which to pursue questions about the activities of the Defence Signals Directorate and other intelligence organisations in relation to the Tampa incident.

We do welcome the fact that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has decided that he will examine all matters pertaining to the interception and processing of communication between the Tampa and others. He must examine how this material was processed, who received the information and how it was used. He must do all that. But also—and I know Senator Brown would want to do this—we have to look at what the outcome of the inspector-general's inquiries might be. Under the new security legislation that was passed by this parliament last year, it is, in the view of the opposition, appropriate not to overturn the processes that were agreed, I think without dissent, by both chambers of this parliament. We believe that Mr Blick's report should be presented to the parliamentary joint committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD. I might say that by `report' I mean `unexpurgated report'—a full report going to those issues that can be dealt with if necessary by that committee out of the public arena.

Having said that—and I made this very clear earlier today in this chamber—all those elements of the report should be made publicly available. All those elements which do not compromise national security must be provided fully and publicly on this important issue. Accepting that Senator Brown's motivation here to investigate what appears to be yet another abuse of process is proper, we will not support the amendment on the basis that the investigation in the first instance, as it should be, is being pursued by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

I urge the Senate to support this motion on the establishment of the select committee, especially in light of the new information that we know from the documents that have been tabled in the House of Representatives today. Further ramifications are revealed in this document Investigation into advice provided to ministers on “SIEV 4” that has been released by Mr Howard. These matters will not go away. It is a high priority for the Senate to deal with them, and we believe that the approach that the opposition has taken in consultation with minor party and Independent senators is the appropriate course of action. I commend the opposition's motion to the Senate.