Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Prime Minister:

(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';

(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and

(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;

(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:

(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and

(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and

(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.

Leave not granted.

I move that:

So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable the leader of opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Prime Minister:

(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';

(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and

(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;

(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:

(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and

(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and

(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.

We know two things. We know—and this is an important point to establish—that Arthur Sinodinos is entitled to the presumption of innocence. We understand there is a process underway, and the process should not target unfairly someone's innocence or pre-presume the outcome. Labor supports that principle. I might add personally that my dealings with Arthur Sinodinos have always been professional, pleasant, civil and decent. But there is a second principle which people want to know.

The people of Australia are entitled to know what has gone on here. It is not enough for the Prime Minister not to tell us what he has done. It is not good enough for him not to tell the Australian people what he knows, when they say, 'We asked the Prime Minister on 20 occasions what he knows.' It is not enough for a Prime Minister of Australia to brush off the Australian people with a reference to private conversations about ministers in government not being worthy of being answered in question time. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister of Australia to talk about the standing aside of a minister and provide to not only the opposition but the people of Australia only the information that it is a private conversation and that he does not need to explain his actions to anyone.

What the Prime Minister has actually answered in no fewer than 26 or 27 questions over the last two days is that the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, does not want the Australian people to know what the Prime Minister knows and to know when the Prime Minister learnt of certain key information. We have heard unanswered questions in this parliament today. That is why we should suspend standing orders. We asked the Prime Minister today: was he aware of the remarkably large $1 million amount, which would raise eyebrows in every lounge room in Australia—an informal $1 million success fee—and what did he know about it? We asked the Prime Minister today: what was the role, and what did he know about the role, of Senator Sinodinos in arranging a letter from Premier Barry O'Farrell to help secure a large contract? He said that he knows and that he will not tell us when he knew it or what he knows. We asked today: what is the knowledge that the Prime Minister has about one of his ministers being involved with facilitating a $20 million windfall fee? These are not ordinary amounts of money. These are not ordinary goings on. Most Australians would understand that if someone says, 'If you can arrange a contract, you will get $20 million,' it is not business as usual. What we want to know and I think what the Australian people want to know—and the one thing we know that the Prime Minister is not telling us, in fact—is his awareness or state of mind on these matters.

We have asked questions about what Senator Sinodinos has done. The Prime Minister said that the reason he has stood aside is not that he has done anything wrong—the Prime Minister is entitled to say that. But what the Prime Minister is saying is that the ministerial conduct standards of this Abbott government are that if a minister becomes a sideshow or a distraction they must move sideways—whatever moving sideways means, which is a point I will come to. That is why we must suspend standing orders—to deal with this issue. The Abbott government's ministerial standard for accountability is that if you become a sideshow—this must be worrying, Mr Joyce—or a distraction, this is the standard that the government will apply to their ministers. The standard the Prime Minister will not apply to himself is his willingness to be transparent with the Australian people.

It is a fairly made question, I believe: what has changed? ICAC said they were going to investigate Australian Water Holdings in December 2012. Senator Sinodinos appropriately made a statement in February 2013. Then the Prime Minister, upon appointing Senator Sinodinos to the outer ministry, said that there was no cloud and that he wanted to scotch the rumours of a cloud. Yet well informed sources in the Liberal Party tell us the reason the remarkably well-credentialled Senator Sinodinos was not appointed to the cabinet—which I think most people thought was a likelihood—was that there was a cloud.

I actually admire the Prime Minister's commitment to Senator Sinodinos—I admire that on a personal level. What I do not admire is his unwillingness to be transparent about what he knew. There may not have been a cloud over Senator Sinodinos, but there are smoke signals coming from the Prime Minister's office that he knew more than he said. It beggars belief. I have heard the almost eulogistic comments from those opposite about Senator Sinodinos—that in fact he is a great fellow. I too have found him reasonable to deal with; I say that. Therefore, why wasn't Senator Sinodinos appointed by the Liberal Party to the cabinet, which is what everyone expected? Of course, there were the rumours—probably not from allies of the Prime Minister within the Liberal Party—that there were concerns raised. But when we have asked the Prime Minister just to come clean—Prime Minister, just come clean and tell us what you know—what he says is: 'I do not have to tell you. That is a matter that will be at ICAC.' But we are not asking about Senator Sinodinos; we are asking about what the Prime Minister knows. That is why we should suspend standing orders.

What happened to the famous due diligence process at the Prime Minister's office? We understand that the chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health slipped through that until the chief of staff became a distraction, not Assistant Minister Nash. But what happened to the due diligence process? I do not think anyone seriously believes—and that is why we should suspend standing orders—that there was a due diligence process. I suspect that there was a chance the people just sort of hoped—there was more hope than due diligence—that this matter would go away. How on earth can a prime minister say that he will not tell us what he knows at any point, when there are clear signposts that these matters have been discussed with the Prime Minister's knowledge and within his orbit of influence? Does the Prime Minister know anything that the public does not already know? This is a fundamental question. The first question is: why is it, and what changed, materially, from September last year to now that has led to a minister standing aside? The second issue is that surely we saw in September last year issues that raised concern and commentary then, but what we do ask now is: does the Prime Minister have any knowledge of any matter with Australian Water Holdings?

This Prime Minister is being shifty. I get that he does not want to tell Qantas workers about their future. I get that he does not want to reveal the Commission of Audit to Western Australian voters before the election—I get that. It is shifty, but I get that. What I do not understand is that there is no way he can simply say it is someone else's issue when it comes to the conduct of his own ministers. I get that he has contracted out the Commission of Audit to the Business Council of Australia, and he says, 'I don't know what they're doing'. I get that he says, 'I have not read a 900-page report'; I get that he does not know anything about manufacturing or fighting for jobs. What I do not get is question after question in this place—legitimate question after question: what did you know, and when did you know it? And what I really find uncomfortable about the Prime Minister's shifty conduct is this: what is it that he knows that the public does not? At the very least, he should come clean and say it. If he knows nothing else besides the public reports, so be it—end of matter; Labor will leave this question alone. But if it emerges that the Prime Minister is aware of more than he has revealed to the Australian parliament, to the Australian people, to the opposition, to the Australian media, then that is a problem for this Prime Minister. It is not the standard he sets for everyone else.

And indeed the final, most frustrating issue in this whole standing aside issue is that we know that the act of parliament governing ministerial conditions does not allow for this sort of half-pregnant proposition that the government has advanced about Senator Sinodinos. His label is still on his office—he has still got his office! Does he get his superannuation? He is going to forgo it—he will probably give it to charity. Fair enough. The Prime Minister needs to come clean with what he knows, when he knew it, and whether he knows anything that he has not told the rest of Australia. (Time expired)

See this speech in context