Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, it did—we have no problem with that; that is fine. The motion continues:

(b) the investigation started with the Industrial Registrar—

Yes, that is fine; it seems to be a matter of fact to me—

… (c) Fair Work Australia representatives said the investigation would be completed by the end of 2011—

Okay, these are generally statements of fact—

… (d) the investigation remains ongoing—

A bit of a statement of the obvious, I would have thought—

despite an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor, Craig Rawson, being provided with a letter containing 'proposed findings' in December 2010—

That is a fairly big point—

… (e) the investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell has taken more than three years and is yet to be completed.

That is a statement of fact, so what are we debating here this afternoon? Are we having a debate or is this a misuse of parliamentary procedure to launch an attack on an individual who I would have thought all members in this place would agree is entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice?

I would have hoped that every member of this place accepts those principles as the golden thread which holds our legal system in this country together. If no-one on that side agrees, certainly some of their senior colleagues agree. For example, former Prime Minister John Howard in this place in 2007 with respect to an earlier investigation said:

… a lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for. It's a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course and then if it is appropriate I will have something to say.

That was a very sensible contribution by the former Prime Minister, the former member for Bennelong.

All the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his motion were dealt with very considerably and in great detail in Senate estimates just in the last sitting week. I do concede that the Leader of the Opposition lodged his motion prior to those Senate estimates processes. That is understandable. He was not to be aware that they were forthcoming. But he might have considered, given what was said in Senate estimates a fortnight ago, withdrawing the motion. That would have been the sensible thing to do.

On that, I refer the House to just one of the statements made by Bernadette O'Neill during estimates. She is the general manager of Fair Work Australia. She said:

I am aware of the allegations that there has been some political interference in the investigations and take them very seriously. I have absolutely no reason to conclude that there has been any such interference in the investigations.

We have a senior official, an independent arbiter, before Senate estimates providing us with that statement. She is a respected official. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition, seeking to make political capital, comes in here and directly challenges what she has had to say. I say to the House that that is inappropriate. I am a person who knows a little bit about trial by media. I will not say much more about that. I will let Justice Lucy McCallum of the New South Wales Supreme Court speak for herself. She said, 'People should never assume, surprisingly, that everything they read in the paper is correct.'

Most of what the Leader of the Opposition raised today was taken straight out of the countries' news sheets. He made no attempt to make any reference to what was a fairly full conversation in Senate estimates just over a week ago. Rather, he relied almost entirely on allegations and accusations, as he himself described them, rather than sticking to the facts. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition and to every member in this place to be very careful because if Mr Thomson is cleared in these inquiries—and that is obviously a possibility—he will not have been the first person to fall victim to rumour and innuendo and various media reports. The person who next becomes a victim of that might be someone sitting on the other side. Who knows? It could even be the Leader of the Opposition himself. So the Leader of the Opposition has to be careful not to get too carried away. I know he is a little bit excited because from time to time since the last election he has had visions of himself sitting in the Prime Minister's chair during question time. But I have some news for him: the sort of tactics that he has embraced and adopted today here in the House are not conducive to his aspirations and will not help him get there. For the sake of our democracy and procedural fairness, he should take a new course.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context