In Abbott's Australia the Hansard record can no longer be relied upon

The original question and answer which revealed that the Abbott Government was improperly altering the Hansard record:

The alterations to what is supposed to be an accurate historical record of what was said in the Australian Parliament:

BEFORE - ORIGINAL TEXT 

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:32): I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He would be happy to know that over 4,000 applications have been approved for the farm household allowance. This is a substantial amount of money. This means that they are receiving between $900 and $1,000 a fortnight. We have actually changed conditions so that we can bring dignity back into these people's lives. We have actually made it happen. You would be happy to know, Madam Speaker, that we approved $280 million in our drought package and concessional rates of four per cent. We have put money on the table—over $22 million for other water infrastructure. These are the sorts of real outcomes that we are providing…..

Mr JOYCE: I am happy to announce that when we arrived in government they had not signed up all of the states and territories, so we actually got the conditions in place for the concessional farm finance package, which they might have started but could never actually finish. We actually got those conditions in place so that we could start getting that money out. We actually approved $280 million to add to that, so we got $700 million of available finance. We actually changed the conditions of the farm household allowance so that we could have a higher net asset test so more people could actually get access to the money. We are happy with the fact that over 4,000 applications have been through and that you actually get the money until the department decides that you are not allowed to get the money. So you keep on getting the money until such time as, on the application being assessed, they decide you are not eligible for it. But it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved. You actually get the money straight away. So this is part of a process that is helping us look after the farmers that you left behind.

AFTER - ALTERED TEXT 

Mr. JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:32):

I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He would be happy to know that nearly 4,000 applications have been approved for the farm household allowance. This is a substantial amount of money. This means that they are receiving between $900 and $1,000 a fortnight. We have actually changed conditions so that we can bring dignity back into these people's lives. We have actually made it happen. You would be happy to know, Madam Speaker, that we approved $280 million in our drought package and concessional rates of four per cent. We have put money on the table—over $22 million for other water infrastructure. These are the sorts of real outcomes that we are providing….

Mr. JOYCE:  I am happy to announce that when we arrived in government they had not signed up all of the states and territories, so we actually got the conditions in place for the concessional farm finance package, which they might have started but could never actually finish. We actually got those conditions in place so that we could start getting that money out. We actually approved $280 million to add to that, so we got $700 million of available finance. We actually changed the conditions of the farm household allowance so that we could have a higher net asset test so more people could actually get access to the money. We are happy with the fact that nearly 4,000 applications have been through and if you were also a recipient of the Interim Farm Household Allowance you actually get the money until the department decides that you are not allowed to get the money. So you keep on getting the money until such time as, on the application being assessed, they decide you are not eligible for it. But it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved unless it is a new application. You actually get the money straight away. So this is part of a process that is helping us look after the farmers that you left behind.

House of Representatives Hansard for 22 October 2014 in which Barnaby Joyce gave an additional answer to the original 20 October question:

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (18:39): On indulgence—I have the following additional information for the House: 4,957 applications have been received for farm household allowance, with 4,551 fully processed; 4,098 applications have been approved for farm household allowance to date, with 4,011 recipients currently receiving payment. According to estimates—which is the best we can do—3,500 recipients have transitioned from interim farm household allowance payments. Payments to farmers who had been in receipt of interim farm household allowance and had applied for farm household allowance continued without interruption until their applications had been assessed by Centrelink. Further specific inquiries on this should be directed to the department that actually administers this, which is the Department of Human Services.

House of Representatives Hansard for 27 October 2014 in which he sidesteps the issue and muddies the waters by limiting his answer to figures in his later statement to the House on 22 October:

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer him to the drought related answer he gave on Monday and corrected in the House late on Wednesday. I also refer him to Hansard, in which the final paragraph of his answer carries the qualifying statements: 'if you were also a recipient of the Interim Farm Household Allowance' and 'unless it was a new application'. Does the minister acknowledge he never used these words, and what role did he or his office play in doctoring the Hansard record?

The SPEAKER: I will ask the member to rephrase that question, because at the moment it is a serious allegation and other forms of the House are used for that purpose. He may rephrase his question, otherwise he can use other forms of the House.

Mr FITZGIBBON: Can the minister explain the inconsistencies between what he said in the House and the Hansard record?

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question and reiterate the answer that was given. At present 4,957 applications have been made; 4,098 have been granted. Four hundred and fifty-three have been rejected and 411 customers are receiving payment. This is exactly the same as what I said when I came into the chamber and proceeded to give exactly the numbers that were given to us at 3.30 pm that day.

House of Representatives Hansard for 27 October 2014 in which a little over one hour later Barnaby Joyce seeks to blame his staff:

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:56): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JOYCE: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

Mr JOYCE: I answered a question on Monday, 20 October 2014 from the member for Hunter in relation to drought assistance. Further to my answer to the House on Monday, 20 October 2014, I provided additional information to the House on Wednesday, 22 October 2014.

On 20 October 2014 I understand a request for minor edits was made to Hansard by my staff without my knowledge. My staff have been counselled. Consistent with standing orders, I have asked that the changes requested by my office be removed from the Hansard before the Hansard is finalised.

House of Representatives Hansard for 28 October 2014 in which Liberal MP for Mackellar and The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop refuses to review the record:

The SPEAKER (15:18): Yesterday, the Manager of Opposition Business raised with me, as a potential matter of privilege, whether the Hansard record of an answer provided by the Minister for Agriculture, last week on 20 October, had been changed in a way that amounted to 'misconduct'. The Manager of Opposition Business asked whether such changes might relate to 'deliberately misleading the House, conspiracy to deceive, falsifying documents or disobedience to the rule or orders of the House'. For this to be considered it is necessary for there to be evidence of a prime facie case that the alleged misconduct is conduct which, and I quote section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, 'amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member or the member's duties as a member'.

I note that the Minister for Agriculture attended in the House shortly after the matter was raised with me, and explained to the House the circumstances around the changes made to the Hansard record of his answer in the House, including that he had counselled his staff about their actions and requested the Hansard record to be corrected. Given the minister's explanation I have not reviewed the tapes. In light of the minister's explanation, it does not appear that a prime facie case as intimated above has been made out and I consider that the matter is now closed.