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

Perhaps I can assist the Parliamentary Secretary by reading to him the terms of Dr Henry's employment as Special Adviser. Of course, it is the most unusual appointment under section 67 of the Constitution—by Her Excellency's command, signed by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister—and I do not accept that it is usual practice to have directors of public companies, who are also appointed under section 67 of the Constitution, working directly to the Prime Minister. It says in this agreement, under clause (c):

iii.      for any period that the Special Adviser performs the duties of that office on a full-time basis (40 hours per week), the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment for the Special Adviser be the same as those that apply to the person who holds the position of Secretary of the Department of the Treasury at the relevant time—

who, I am sure, works more than 40 hours a week. It continues:

iv.        t he Prime Minister may agree that the duties of the Special Adviser are to be performed on a part-time basis …

We have never seen any evidence that the Prime Minister has so agreed. Finally, it says:

v.        f or any period that the Special Adviser per forms the duties on a part-time basis, the remuneration referred to in clause (c)(iii) above be payable, and other entitlements accrue, on a pro-rata basis.

However, I take it from the answer that you previously gave me that, if Dr Henry is travelling overseas and is away for a week, then that presumably will be deemed to be 40 hours a week and he will be paid a week's salary from the $615,000 a year that is attracted by this agreement because that is now the salary paid. I would like those things confirmed.

You mentioned that you thought the conflict-of-interest situation could be dealt with by declaration. I would like you to inform the parliament whether or not there have been any such declarations made or, indeed, any such declarations sought.

I go back to the question of the actual time that Dr Henry has spent on the white paper. I do not think it is unreasonable, when dealing with the amounts of money we are talking about, to ask that the parliament be informed of precisely the number of days per week that have been worked by Dr Henry since 5 January.

I also note from other answers given that work on the white paper was only one of a number of vague discussions that took place, and then suddenly this was the job of work. But I am really quite alarmed that we are now coming up to 30 June—the reporting time for the Asian century white paper is the middle of the year—but there has been confirmation that Dr Henry's position will continue at this hugely expensive salary, yet there is no apparent work for him. So, I again ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell the House precisely what discussions have taken place on what work he may or may not be doing and whether there is a break in the period between finishing this job and beginning a next assignment, and will he continue to be paid? It would seem that under this agreement he will be. But I would think that the people of Australia would think that was totally unreasonable.

Thirdly—I do not know the answer to this—does a section 67 appointment affect Dr Henry's entitlement to draw his pension, which from memory I think would be two-thirds of his previous salary, or of the current salary? If it is not affected, that means he would be getting his retirement pay, a pension, plus his entitlement to whatever proportion of $615,000, plus his NAB director's salary. He is indeed a very well-endowed former public servant. I would be pleased if you would answer the specific question: does an appointment under section 67 disqualify him from taking his pension that is payable under the defined scheme?

See this speech in context