Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak in this cognate debate on the appropriations bills, I recognise that this is the one debate where one can range very broadly and widely across many issues in the course of the debate, not having to adhere strictly to the substance of the bills. It is very interesting: sometimes we hear people continue to refer to the bills of supply, which, of course, these bills are not. The bills of supply were a mechanism we used to use when we had budgets in August rather than in May and they were needed to tide over money until the appropriations bills were introduced, debated and passed. So, when I hear Independents say they will not deny the government supply, I wonder sometimes what it is they are promising to do.

The fact of the matter is that this government is held up by three Labor Independents: Mr Thomson, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor. Why do I use the term 'Labor Independents'? It is because of the support that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor continue to give to the Labor Party. Mr Thomson, who is often referred to as having been expelled from the Labor Party, of course has not; he has merely been suspended. They are the three people who hold this government in office.

I listened intently today to Mr Thomson, in his address to the parliament, and take much succour from the fact that he thought the report from the Australian Electoral Commission had in fact exonerated him of all wrongdoing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Electoral Commission, which I note from the bills is going to get additional funding and, I think, 14 extra people, is being rewarded when in fact it has failed to carry out its task in relation to the matters concerning Mr Thomson.

In Senate estimates again and again, Senator Ronaldson would question particularly Mr Pirani from the Australian Electoral Commission about what action he was taking to investigate whether or not proper disclosure had been made concerning the Health Services Union and credit card usage by Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell, and whether or not the AEC had conducted proper investigations to find that out. Again and again, I can only describe the answers as being of an avoiding nature. At one stage, I think there was an indication given that, 'She'll be right, mate, we're looking at it.' But, of course, the Electoral Commission was well aware that their power to have prosecutions would run out and the date on which it would run out, and if they had not commenced any prosecutions by that stage then under the act they would have no power to investigate at all. So I am rather amazed to hear that Mr Thomson says that this is an investigation and a report from the AEC which exonerates him, because on 23 August 2011 I wrote to the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn, asking the AEC to investigate allegations that Mr Thomson had misused his HSU credit card to pay for electrical expenses which were not declared. Two days later Mr Paul Pirani, the chief legal officer of the AEC, said on 25 August 2011 in reply to my letter:

There is no power contained in the Electoral Act that would enable the AEC to investigate the allegations concerning donations and expenditure relating to Mr Thomson that took place in the lead up to the 2007 general election.

Quite clearly the AEC report was not an investigation. It was merely a set of observations about the Fair Work Australia report. The AEC had made it perfectly clear numerous times that they did not seriously investigate matters surrounding Mr Thomson. Indeed at all occasions when I asked them, they explained they had refused to use their powers under section 316 of the Electoral Act and particularly subclause 2A subclause 3 because they did not, they said, have sufficient evidence to exercise those powers. Of course the whole nature of those investigative powers are to enable the AEC to gain evidence to see exactly what the situation is. There was a report from a well-known accounting firm that had been made into the affairs of the HSU and the AEC did not even ask for a copy of the report because Mr Pirani did not think it would be useful.

At all times when I listened to Mr Thomson, he did not address any of the serious allegations about refusing to properly declare expenditure. It does seem—

See this speech in context