Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 2:27:38 to 2:49:23
Questioning focuses on corporate sponsorship packages for the Osaka Expo and a factual error in a UN speech regarding displaced children in the West Bank.
Topics: Procurement, Fossil fuels, Integrity
Speakers: Hon Penny Wong, Senator James Paterson, Senator Steph Hodgins-May, Jan Adams, Dr Ralph King, Craig Maclachlan, Dr Fiona Webster, George Mina, Senator Raff Ciccone
>> Welcome back everyone. Uh now I'm going to hand the call over to Senator Hodgins
>> Thank you chair.
>> You're welcome. Uh
>> I've got some quick questions about corporate sponsorship. So DEFAT disclosed $1 million in sponsorship from Santos for the Australian Pavilion at the World E Expo in Aaka last year. Can you tell me what Santos received in return for that million dollar
>> Uh Craig McLolin, Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, thanks for your question. I'm going to have to take it on notice. I'm sorry. I
>> So you can't comment on whether there was any branding, hospitality, so on. You've got no
>> I don't have that detail with me. I'm
sorry. Um will you also then please take on notice and release the sponsorship agreement and schedule of benefits?
>> I'll take that on notice.
>> Um Minister, you were you were aware of this or would you have to approve anything?
>> To be honest, the expo was more minister >> I know that it was very the our pavilion was very successful and lots and lots and lots of people visited and he told me very proudly how many it was but I have our >> Oh, George is here. He can probably tell me >> how many did, but I um uh the >> I didn't engage as much uh as that part of the department and that part of the
>> So you didn't engage much, but were you aware aware of this million dollar sponsorship? No.
>> well, if I was, I don't recall it now. I wasn't involved in it.
would that normally be handled by a minister or department, a sponsorship of that nature? You've said Minister Farrell, but maybe Mr. Mina,
>> Senator George Mina, Deputy Secretary, Trade Investment Group. Uh, as part of uh our overall funding arrangements for the Asaka Expo and the Australian presence there. There were indeed a number of uh of corporate uh sponsorship packages. Uh, of course, um, with those were various, uh, elements provided for the the sponsors, including, uh, and we'd have to take on notice, as M. Mr. McLolin's already said, precisely what sort of profile and presence that the the companies concerned were were
>> Minister, given what we discussed in the last session around multiple, I'd wait until you finished.
So sorry
>> that's okay. Um given our earlier discussion around multiple special raper contacting the Australian government in relation to our rights and responsibilities with respect to climate change, do you think it's appropriate that DEFAT is engaging in fossil fuel sponsorship arrangements?
I I as I said um I was not the minister primarily involved in the development of the expo um uh pavilion at the expo. Um so I feel um
>> but more broadly speaking
>> yeah I look I think you [clears throat] always have to be aware of uh the implications of sponsorship uh and I'm sure that um minister the minister and department considered that um our policy positions remain the same um it is a good thing for us to promote Australia through um the expo. Uh as I said, I understand a lot of people visited um and I'm sure we can provide some further information on notice or later in the in the hearing.
Yeah, thank you, Minister. Because um looking at DEFAT annual reports over the last five years, it looks like um DEFAT has accepted fossil fuel sponsorships for events like Australia Day, celebrations in Mexico and Japan from companies like Woodside, Chevron, and I impatient security, gas policy, and the UN itself has expressed concerns around the influence of fossil fuels on government. Um it's just really puzzling that DEFAT can justify accepting this sort of corporate sponsorship or corporate investment um from corporations that are actively lobbying to protect their profits. Do you think that creates a potential conflict of interest,
Minister? uh you you've asked similar questions previously and the point I would make is um you know we we take decisions which we believe are the right thing for the right right decision for the country. Uh we make decisions including those which are opposed or which um members of you know the sector have concerns about. Um we have said for example uh we would implement a gas reservation scheme uh which I think is currently in the
>> Not yet but it will be.
>> I thought it was but any house only. Yeah. Uh which you know parts of industry have expressed their views about. We've done that because it's the right thing to do. So
>> I suppose it's more of this conflict of
interest that I'm I'm trying to hone in on. >> Please Senator, you do continue to interrupt me and I'm trying to be polite and not interrupt your question. >> Be specific though. No, but I'm entitled to answer it as I wish you can ask ask a follow-up question. Okay. The proposition that your party continues to put and Senator Milan put it to me. So, it is a continued position of your party is somehow we have a position because people um you know give us sponsorship. We have a position that we think is
>> So, they're doing this out of the goodwill of their heart, the goodness of their heart. These profit-driven corporations are investing a million
dollar. Senator Senator will take this country question. Please >> please let me finish.
>> It's mindboggling.
>> Well, well, Senator, I'm trying to be polite. Could you please Thank you. Could you just not interrupt me every time I speak?
>> Oh, please keep it specific.
>> You don't get to talk. You don't Senator, you don't get to decide how I answer a question. You get to answer. You get to follow up. But I get I am I I I get to speak my words and what I'm saying is we make decisions that are in the national interest. You know, you you you seem to assume that people don't agree with you are somehow corrupt. That is not the case. We just don't mouth. We just don't agree. We just don't agree. We have a different view about what is right. Now in terms of management of conflicts of interest, I'm sure others can speak to that here in the department about how that is dealt with and I'm happy for them to deal with that. But the fundamental sort of political proposition that you continue to assert uh is that somehow government makes decisions that are not in the national interest but only in the interest of particular companies. You are wrong.
>> Why do you think these corporations make these investments? >> Minister. Why do you think that they would? Why Santos would put a million dollars in towards a convention like this? Why? I'm just genuinely curious to >> how you think that is appropriate and why these corporations would make those
I could uh provide some background uh for hosting a a big undertaking like uh an exhibition pavilion at a at a global expo uh in this case with a very important partner, Japan. Uh it it it's very standard practice for government to seek sponsorship. >> I'm not saying it's not stand. So actually we sought >> so actually DEFAT
>> courtesy question
>> defat sought sponsorship from Australian companies uh with uh something to add to the themes of the expo and who were involved in the relationship with Japan. Uh so we were very pleased to have those sponsorship arrangements. Uh it was uh they were done very carefully and professionally. uh uh I completely uh well re reiterate what the minister says about our policy decision-making process is not affected by those particular uh sponsorship arrangements in any way. Uh we were very pleased to have around 3 million visitors uh through the through the Australian pavilion. It had universal acclaim and we were very pleased to participate in Japan's important expo and they were very pleased to have us there. We couldn't have done it without the sponsorship arrangements.
>> Couldn't have done
>> without sponsorship without uh a a much bigger uh taxpayer funded contribution.
I'm just thinking of that these young climate activists who don't have a million dollars to spend on a pavilion expo and I still don't really to my satisfaction have an answer about why these corporations would invest that money and what they are getting in return and whether this government thinks it is genuinely passes the pub test the public interest test for for massive multinational exporters of gas making huge mint of our resources to to get make these types of investments and and what they're getting in return I just simply don't have any clarity on that following this line of questioning. But what I'd like to request on notice,
>> you just made a political [clears throat] point, so I'm going to respond. Senator, you chose to do that. Um, these are the same gas companies we are opposing a reservation on for for
>> Maybe you're not you're not doing a gas tax. You're not raising any money for the Australian people.
>> Well, that's not correct. >> That's also not correct. This is the same this Well, Senator, do you want to go to energy export? um estimates to ask this. I mean, I know this is I know this is a setup ahead of the the press conference speech. That's fine. You're allowed to do
>> nothing to do with that. I turn up every time asking these questions of corporate capital.
>> What I would say what I would say to you >> uh is we have a a clear view about what we believe is in the national interest. You're entitled to have a different view. Uh we are proceeding with a gas reservation which will deliver cheaper gas for Australians. uh that is uh obviously has a financial effect on the companies. I understand you have a different position. You're entitled to that. That is the position that we are seeking to proceed with through the Senate and I look forward to your party voting for um a gas reservation which would enable Australians to have access to cheaper gas.
>> We've been very clear that the Australian people want to make re revenue off this. Um, final question just I'd like to request on notice an outline of all sponsorship agreements entered into by defat with fossil fuel companies over the past decade and if any risk assessment was completed for each.
>> I'm not doing it over the last decade.
>> 5 years then. Let's say 5 years.
>> Well, Senator, I will see if
>> since you've been in government then let's do that.
>> Well, I will see I will consider the resource implications of that, but I'm certainly not doing it for previous governments.
>> Okay. For your government, I will phrase it.
>> We'll have a look at that. Absolutely.
Okay. and any if any risk assessment was completed for each any conflicts of interest identified as well as DEFAT sponsorship policy or guidelines if that exists. Thank you.
>> Well, we we have I mean we are always aware of conflicts of interest and this comes back to the same point you make which is your assertion is that um well I think the implication is that the government changes policy because we get a million dollars for an expo. I mean it's this is in a multi-billion multi-deade or generational reform. That's what it's >> really an extraordinary proposition.
>> All right. Thanks a lot, Senator. Now, Senator Paterson.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um I have some questions about the foreign minister speech to the United Nations in Thank you, Dr. King. Um, did the department provide an initial draft of the speech to the foreign minister's speech then edited by the foreign minister's office before delivery or was it delivered as drafted?
>> My understanding is senator was delivered as drafted.
>> Okay. Um in the draft provided to the foreign minister's office uh what uh number was used in relation to children displaced as a result of settler violence in the West Bank?
>> Uh the figure Senator was over 15,000.
>> Right. What's the source of that claim?
>> First, I should say, Senator, that well, first I'll give you the source of that is an OCH document. We use reports by UN O is the office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs because they are figures are widely relied on in the humanitarian system reflecting their central role in coordinating data analysis and response. In this instance, the figure given uh was for the wrong period, Senator.
>> Okay. Could you table that document?
>> I certainly could.
>> Um, and when you say it was for the wrong period, what does that mean?
>> It means it was from 18 month period rather than the six-month period. And to be specific, Senator, >> um, it was for the period for January 2025 until July 2026.
>> Right.
>> That's that's something for which um I accept responsibility. Wasn't provided an error.
>> Okay. because the speech referred to the number of displaced people over a six-month period, >> but the figure was actually over an 18-month period.
>> That is correct. The figures for the figure was from UNLA, and it said over 41,000 Palestinians, including over 15,000 children, were displaced in the West West Bank over 18 months as a consequence of settler violence, security operations, and a range of punitive measures. So, yes, you're right, and I take responsibility for the error. Well,
>> it's very good of you to um do that. Um, h how did was it just a kind of transposition error or how did it how did it occur?
>> Um, Senator, believe me, I'd like to know, right? >> But I take responsibility.
>> We are all human and we all make mistakes. So, um, it's very decent of you to take that responsibility. Um, because I note that the there are UNICEF figures which are similar uh in that they say between January and June of this year 1,500 children were displaced. But you're saying it was a different data set. It wasn't the UNICEF data set.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. Um when did you realize the error
>> Uh after unfortunately the minister had delivered it.
>> Right. And as I understand it, the speech is on the website, the DEFAT website. Has the number been updated to reflect or the time period been updated to reflect the accurate data?
>> The speech is on the website, Senator as delivered.
>> Right. So you haven't added a note or anything to clarify it?
>> Not as far as I understand.
>> And has um this been uh communicated or clarified in any by any other memes on on the ex account of the department or >> platform.
>> Uh if I can make a couple of comments um as you're as you indicated the 15,000 displaced children in fact should have been between January 2025 and July 2026 and I think you would agree that that's also um not acceptable that however many however many other period >> um what um and obviously um the website reflects um what I said very conscious that there's also been criticism ism of other ministers for socalled doctoring of transcripts. So you know it's a record of what I said. Um I think we were contacted by the media. I don't remember how many days after. Sorry. Um but and we corrected the figure then or the the underlying time frame for the figure. Um uh and we've done so again today.
>> Sorry. Corrected it how or corrected it where? To to the media.
>> To the media. So we get a meter inquiry and we indicated to them the correct time the time what the time frame should have been for the underlying time frame for the figure
>> because there was an article by Matthew not on the 30th of September that might be the one you're recalling minister
>> I'm sorry so much has happened this last few weeks but yeah um that may be the one but I know that we provided when asked we explained what had occurred. I
>> I don't remember I'll stand to be corrected but I don't recall reading that article there being a correction in it. I think the um the journalist summised that an error might have been made, but it certainly didn't say that the government or the foreign minister or the department had conceded there was an error.
>> I think we we indicated that what the time period should have been. I I haven't got the article in front of me, but that's my recollection.
>> Okay.
>> Because the the the relevant fact is not the 15,000 figure. Um it's the time
>> Indeed. I I take your word on that. I'd accept that evidence. I don't have the um other data set with me, but accept that. Um the Israel's foreign ministry has publicly asked where this data came from and and uh for it to be corrected. Have you had any engagement with the Israeli foreign ministry or the embassy or any other arm of the Israeli government to clarify the remarks?
>> Um well, I haven't been it hasn't been communicated with me directly. >> Yeah. >> I that I know of. by it hasn't been >> And Senator, can I also say to you >> as you said, well, I'm advised by the office by the way that >> I think we did indicate to the journalists there had been an error. I don't have the article in front of me we can have a discussion about time frames and I I accept what um was in the speech should have had a different time frame except that was an error but um we are talking about the context of 15,000 children being displaced over a very short period of time. I'm sure you would agree it's not acceptable.
>> I do agree. Um there's no debate about that. But it's also important that you know when the foreign minister speaks particularly at highprofile international forums like the United Nations that uh it's it's accurate and that if an error is made that that's I think promptly, clearly and transparently acknowledged. And I mean this evidence to me today is the first I've heard of it being very clearly clarified on the public record. um particularly given a foreign government has asked for it to be publicly clarified. Was there any consideration of either clarifying it with the Israeli government or clarifying it publicly prior to now?
>> Well, as I said, we did correct the record when asked by the media.
>> Well, I'm not sure. Certainly, it was not clear to me and I don't think it was clear to others that that that correction had been made. Um it it it just there's nothing on there's no on the record comment from you in this story. I'm advised uh perhaps your staff provided something on background to the journalist. It the article simply states and I quote, "Wong is believed to have mistakenly used a figure referring to a longer time frame and more causes of displacement, clarifying to a journalist on background the source of the error is not the same as publicly uh identifying the mistake because it's not just a journalist that's interested in these things. Other people are
I think that's a political comment. What do you want me to I mean I I we corrected the the officials have indicated what occurred. I've indicated what occurred. When a journalist asked us, we indicated what occurred. I mean, I think that's pretty transparent.
>> Well, there's a there's a factual error on a speech on the department's website that has not been u notified in any way. So, let me be, you know, I've made errors before in interviews. And typically what we do is we put a parenthesis around it and or ask and have the updated figure so that anyone who comes to look at the website later and look at it can see what the original version of it was, but also that the error is acknowledged. And as I say, we're all human. We all make errors. But in this instance, a visitor to to the DEFAT website would be none the wiser, but the information in that speech is
um I think Dr. King indicated what occurred. I think you've conceded it is 15,000 children displaced. Should have been over 18 month not a six-month period. Um when we were asked about it uh we indicated and the error had been made and indicated what it should have been.
>> We're in agreement that whatever the number it's not acceptable. Um but just to clarify when we do say it was over 18 months is it 15,000 displaced in the [clears throat] West Bank or does it include the Gaza as well? Senate West
Bank.
>> West Bank only. Okay. Thank you. Uh all right. Uh thank you chair.
Okay. I'll keep rotating the call around now. Senator Payman, I understand you've got some questions.