Dick Honan and Ethanol Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition

Radio Interview with Derryn Hinch

Transcript - Radio 3AW, Melbourne - 5 August 2003

HINCH: The longer John Winston has the keys to the Lodge, the less chance it seems of any muck sticking to him. The disgraceful Children Overboard lies, the deliberate ignorance did not touch him then. The jury is still out on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I think that's fair enough because the Government is entitled to patience on that one – Australia did rely on British and American intelligence. And if Iraqis could bury whole fighter planes in the sand, as was discovered this week, anything is possible.

But the latest Howard defence of an apparent lie to Parliament, I believe, is simply disgraceful and unbelievable. It concerns ethanol – that's a fuel substitute based on sugar. It's a growing industry. It's flourishing in Queensland and, perhaps not coincidentally, is thriving in several marginal Government seats in that State.

A big Australian ethanol producer – I think probably the biggest – is a company called the Manildra group. It's headed by one Dick Honan, who is a friend or at least an acquaintance of the Prime Minister.

On three consecutive days in Parliament last September, Honest John was asked whether or not he had met with Mr Honan before the Government announced excise protection and production subsidies for Australian ethanol producers, and he said he had not.

He was asked if he had been lobbied by the ethanol industry for subsidies, and the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Speaking for myself, I did not personally have any discussions, from recollection, with any of them – did not." Well, he did.

The Opposition has now flushed out the Prime Minister, and flushed out that the Prime Minister met with Honan on August 1 last year, only six weeks before the assistance was announced for the ethanol industry.

Now, he's got some cockamamie explanation about an ethanol shipment from Brazil that wasn't talked about, and going on the attack he has said, and I quote: "There is nothing wrong with a businessman coming to see the Prime Minister, nothing wrong with a businessman putting his point of view and promoting his own interests. Businessmen do that all the time."

And I would say there's nothing wrong with that at all, Mr Prime Minister, until the leader of this country lies about it in Parliament, or conveniently forgets a meeting. I'll tell you, this man is making Carmen Lawrence look like she's got a photographic memory. But from experience, yet again, the mud won't stay on the Teflon jacket.

On the line, the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Simon Crean. Good afternoon.

CREAN: Hi, Derryn. How are you?

HINCH: I'm well. Does it frustrate you that, here you seem to me on this one, you've got the Prime Minister dead to rights and nobody seems to care.

CREAN: I think they do care, Derryn. And it's a complicated issue, this one. But bear in mind it was front and centre in the public mind. Just to take you back a bit, we were arguing at the time that ethanol, based on evidence that had come from the automotive authorities and the car manufacturers, ethanol in excessive quantities mixed in fuel could be dangerous to a car's engine. It could void the warranty. What they were saying was that there should be a cap on the amount of ethanol that can be blended with fuel. We said, not only should there be a cap, there should also be the requirement to disclose the amount so that the consumer knew exactly what went on.

HINCH: At the pump, yes.

CREAN: Dick Honan argued against both of those propositions, and the Government never adopted them. What he then went and argued to the Government was that he wanted an excise on all ethanol, but a production subsidy to those that produced it here. This is where this Trafigura shipment came in, and that is exactly what the Government did.

So the Government gave him the two ticks on what he wanted, and didn't introduce what he didn't want. The Prime Minister was prepared to back his mate when it came to production subsidies but to go against the public interest for his mate when it came to protecting motorists.

But then it gets worse. When we asked him in the Parliament had he had any discussions with Mr Honan, he said no. Now we find out, of course, that he had the meeting on August 1.

HINCH: I know he has said things like, "I at no stage have denied that I know Mr Honan." That's not the point, is it?

CREAN: No, it's not.

HINCH: The point is, over three days in September last year he was questioned in the House, and he was asked had he had any meetings or discussions with him. Only six weeks earlier he had had this meeting, which he conveniently forgot about, and said no.

CREAN: He said no, and – worse – he went and checked his records and came back and still said no. And we also asked him, apart from his meetings – which he denied and then we found out he'd had – whether his Department or his Office been contacted. He also said, to the best of his ability, and how could he answer for all of them – he didn't know. It now turns out …

HINCH: But they had meetings back in May.

CREAN: And again there was detailed correspondence on, I think it was, the 28^th of August. And that is important, because that is when the Brazilian shipment was known. The Prime Minister said this correspondence was never communicated to him.

Look, Derryn, this is the same pattern of deceit he uses every time. He either denies that he has been involved, or says he wasn't told. Now, on this occasion, he did have a meeting – so he is not telling the truth on that score. And it's not good enough to say this information was not passed on. He erects these firewalls and, as I say, it's just this pattern of deceit every time – with Kids Overboard, weapons of mass destruction, now this. We're getting to the point where you can't believe a word that the Prime Minister says.

HINCH: "Well, I, speaking for myself, I did not personally have any discussions, from recollection, with any of them." That is just not true.

CREAN: Yes. And when you look at the Freedom of Information material, you couldn't forget a conversation like that. I mean, the minute is so detailed about what they discussed. It goes to the question of specifically asking for the excise on all ethanol. It talks about production subsidy support for the local producers.

The other interesting thing in terms of your lead-in, Derryn. You said this is argued to support the sugar industry in Queensland. I've heard that argument. The interesting thing is, Mr Honan and Manildra don't produce ethanol from sugar. They produce it from wheat.

HINCH: That's right. It can be done from both. That's true, yes.

CREAN: But his isn't produced from sugar. So this argument that it's about supporting the sugar industry in Queensland is a furphy. So what he has done is protect his mate, give him what he has asked for. He hasn't protected the consumers, when automotive companies and automotive organisations have been saying, "It's dangerous. You've got to label it. You've got to limit it."

HINCH: If you put more than 10% in, it can lose your warranty, etcetera.

CREAN: That's right. And then he tries to pretend that this is done in the interests of supporting the sugar industry in Queensland. None of it rings true. He has been caught out, and he does deserve greater scrutiny on this.

HINCH: The Prime Minister is going on the attack, saying there's nothing wrong with a businessman coming to see the Prime Minister. Well, that's fair enough. But if the Prime Minister puts his hand up and says, "Yes, I did talk to him. Yes, he put a case."

CREAN: But then he has to say, he has to justify why this was done when he is not prepared to act in the public interest, but he is prepared to act in an individual's interests. That is the problem for him. It is a conflict of interest.

HINCH: It's rarely I give you a free kick, but on this occasion – I mean, I go back to my first question – it must frustrate you that it hasn't bitten. I call him the Teflon Prime Minister. A bit like they said about Ronald Reagan and guns for Iran gate, etcetera. But you keep hammering on these things, but today I doubt that anybody was giving a damn.

CREAN: I'm not sure about that. It has received important coverage today and, give that it was broken in one newspaper yesterday, it's been covered in all the news today. It think this is the area that does have to be pursued, Derryn, and I think with all of these things it takes time. It's a complicated message, but the truth of it is that he has been caught out not telling the truth. It's as simple as that.

HINCH: And you needed an FoI to get to it?

CREAN: Yes, we needed an FoI to get to it. He came into the Parliament and was asked this question three times, as you pointed out. And having checked it, he still denied he had a meeting. We now know he had the meeting. He then says, ‘Oh, yeah, but the meeting wasn't about what they asked me." Well, have a look at the questions. We asked him very general questions. We asked him specifically did he meet with Mr Honan. He said no. He did. And he should have remembered. It beggars belief that he could have forgotten a meeting as important and as detailed as that when we were asking him on the specifics of the broader ethanol question, not the question of the Brazilian imports.

HINCH: Yes. Alright, Mr Crean, thanks for your time.

CREAN: My pleasure, Derryn.

(ends)