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.

Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie's speech in the Senate considered by Standing Committee of Privileges

Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie rose to her feet in the Australian Senate and revealed the substance of a rather strange letter she wrote to Prime Minister Abbott calling for a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian management of indigenous affairs'

She also revealed that her staff taped a telephone call from a person she characterized as a "whistleblower". 

On 2 October 2014 Senator Lambie found out that voters have a right to hit back when unsubstantiated claims are made them in the Senate.

Australian Senate Standing Committee of Privileges 158^th Report, 2 October 2014:

1.1  On 1 October  2014 the President of the Senate, Senator the Honourable Stephen Parry, received a submission from Ms Heather Sculthorpe, Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc., seeking redress under the resolution of the Senate of 25 February 1988 relating to the protection of persons referred to in the Senate (Privilege Resolution 5).

1.2 The submission referred to a speech made by Senator Lambie in the Senate on 23 September 2014. The President accepted the submission and referred it to the Committee of Privileges.

1.3 The committee met on 2 October 2014 and resolved to recommend that the response be incorporated in Hansard without change. In considering the submission, the committee did not find it necessary to confer with the person making the submission.

1.4 The committee draws attention to paragraph 5(6) of the resolution which requires that, in considering a submission under this resolution and reporting to the Senate, the committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Senate or in the submission.

1.5 The committee recommends:

That a response by Ms Heather Sculthorpe, in the terms specified at Appendix 1, be incorporated in Hansard.

                                                     

Senator the Honourable Jacinta Collins

Chair

Reply to speech by Senator Jacqui Lambie 23 September 2014

One of life's little Canberra mysteries

Apparently bohemians are persona non grata in Abbott's Australia, even when endorsed by an apparently chest-beating, weapon-toting attorney-general such as 'Lord Brandis of the Bookshelf' .....

@samdrummond 25 September 2014

This is the club in question:

Welcome to the Melbourne Savage Club

Established in 1894, the Melbourne Savage Club is one of Australia’s oldest and most atmospheric private members clubs.

The clubhouse is an historic 19th century mansion right in the heart of Melbourne.

The club’s name reflects the desire of the founders to encourage a flowering of Bohemian tradition, like the London Savage Club, by taking the name of Richard Savage, a free-spirited 17th century English poet. 

These origins are expressed today through club members who engage in a broad range of interests across the arts, literature, science and sport. 

A diverse mix of academics and artists, lawyers and judges, businessmen and journalists is to be found behind the clubhouse’s scarlet doors, enjoying one another’s company amid classic décor and furnishings, fine art and exotic artefacts. 

Hospitable rooms provide a rare ambience for the many member performances showcasing their musical, theatrical and artistic talents, and for wonderfully eccentric social occasions. 

Membership is offered to gentlemen only, based upon the criteria of good fellowship and shared interests.

The shared interests of these clubbable males became a Question Time subject for discussion in the Senate at 2.47pm on 25 September. During which the Opposition taunted the Government with this line; Which institution is harder for a woman to get into in 2014: the Savage Club or the Abbott cabinet?

However it appears to have been Labor Senator Doug Cameron's observation that this club had bizarre rituals that require members, when they are greeting a new member or when a new member is being initiated, to make guttural noises and to beat their chests which saw Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan lose his cool and approach his fellow senator too closely:

The Sydney Morning Herald 25 September 2014

The 'discussion' was finally laid to rest with this from Senator Cameron at 3.04pm; The Savage Club has also said that it is 'the more sozzled alternative to the genteel Melbourne Club'. That is why they have got to lift the handrails up! This is really bizarre. It is a club that is based on 'bohemianism, free love, frugality and voluntary poverty'. I will not go into the first point in relation to Senator Brandis but I certainly know that frugality is not one of his main games. And they all have their own titles when they go to the club. Senator Brandis has picked 'Lord Brandis of the Bookshelf'! That is his title when he goes to the club. He will be beating his chest and making guttural noises and making sure women have no place at the Savage Club. What an absolute disgrace from a frontbench minister in this government. 

The mystery of which weapons owned by the Melbourne Savage Club have resulted in its website being blocked remains unanswered.

As does the question of why the club still retains that bizarre and implicitly racist logo/watermark on its website.