Faulkner, Sen John

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (18:55): I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This document deals with the assessments made by the Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman under section 486O of the Migration Act. Of the 10 individuals who are the subject of reports by the Ombudsman, the minister's statement to parliament indicates five remain in immigration detention or a correctional facility. Of course, as I just mentioned in a previous speech, since the minister's statement to parliament Mr Asher has resigned as Commonwealth Ombudsman. I have seen the claims made that the Ombudsman's resignation was the result of a witch-hunt conducted because Mr Asher had caused the government discomfort. Senator Brown has said that the Ombudsman was a decent man working in the public interest and that he had been 'politically assassinated'. In my view, he was a decent man working in the public interest. But, as a senator who fronted up and asked Mr Asher questions at the recent Senate estimates committee hearings—proper questions, fair questions, questions that were not politically loaded—I reject totally any suggestion that I was part of an assassination squad, if that is what is being claimed. For the record, my views about this matter are my own. I say it again: I could not care less if Mr Asher, or any other statutory office holder for that matter, in conducting their responsibilities criticises or finds fault with the government, with government officials or with office holders. But I believe the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as an agency head—in fact, as the head of an integrity agency—must set the highest standards and must set the best example. In fact, at estimates I asked Mr Asher whether he thought that an integrity agency such as the Ombudsman should set an example, should have the highest standards in government. He said, 'Yes, it should.' I asked Mr Asher if he had met those high standards. He said he thought this was clearly an error in judgment, that it was clearly a mistake. My concern about this matter goes to the issues of the impartiality, independence and integrity of the Ombudsman's office. I argue for openness and transparency more than most in this parliament, and at times transparency means that people in high office will feel discomfort with certain matters being made public. Well, so be it. But in this case I am sorry to say that the test of transparency was not met by Mr Asher. I believe other avenues, more appropriate avenues—as opposed to providing dorothy dix questions covertly to an individual senator—were available for Mr Asher to raise genuinely held concerns such as with ministers, formally to a Senate committee, by press release, in an annual report or in a speech. Mr Asher has paid a heavy price for the mistake he has admitted he made, but it should not—and I believe it will not—diminish in any way the importance and independence of the Ombudsman in providing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship with their assessment of the appropriateness of detention arrangements. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.