Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to start by commending the member for Petrie on his wonderful speech, but I just could not possibly do that as he did for the member for Griffith because it was a rambling tirade of irrelevance to this debate today. Anyone can submit a matter of public importance. Maybe the government should have done that today. Then it could have asked the Speaker to determine what was more important to debate today—the integrity of parliament or some rambling tirade about a road trip with Warren Truss. Maybe we could have talked about jobs. That would be good, because unemployment has risen under this government. Maybe we could have talked about debt. There has been a doubling of the debt by this government. Maybe we could have talked about infrastructure. But where is that infrastructure?

This is an absolute shame. Shame on you, government members, for not having any respect for this parliament and for not one of you treating with any dignity the actual topic under discussion today. Where is a senior minister from the Liberal Party prepared to be here today to talk about integrity and defend the Special Minister of State? This is no ordinary member of parliament. This is the member of parliament enshrined with protecting the integrity of this parliament. This is the man who was raided by the Australian Federal Police under a warrant relating to criminal offences not two or three years ago but just several days ago on 17 November 2015 when he had already been appointed Special Minister of State. All of this has been hanging over his head for a very long time.

The new Prime Minister—Abbott, Turnbull, Turnbull, Abbott, whoever we have this week or that—talked about an adult government and talked about government integrity. Mind you, the government also said, 'Good government will start today,' and a whole lot of rambling things along the way. Let's not forget that. But one of these days good government is going to start. Good governments starts with integrity. How can we have integrity and good government when we have a Special Minister of State with an enormous black cloud over him?

Let's talk about what was going on in this issue. This issue goes back a long way. I am probably more intimately acquainted with it than anybody in this room. Let's talk about how the Liberal Party denigrated the previous member for Fisher and former Speaker. Let's talk about how this all transpired. Let's talk about how those opposite were going to bring him down at any cost, how the now government and opposition of the day were going to have their way and topple a hung parliament. Let's put this into perspective. Let's talk about integrity. Let's talk about them not showing any respect for what the voting public had determined. We did not determine to have a hung parliament; the voting public gave us that parliament. It was then up to the parliament to ensure it ran appropriately—and it did. It ran appropriately. It introduced bills and passed legislation. That is unlike the current government, which has a whopping great majority but no legislation coming through. Those opposite talk about being a good government and doing things, but like what? Name one thing. I would be fascinated to hear about it.

We had the individuals in Peter Slipper's office trawling through his personal diary. We all have a great relationship with our staff, and we should. Think about this individually. Do you trust your own staff? Surely we should be able to trust our own staff, because we all choose them and employ them? Surely the former member for Fisher had the right to have trust in his own staff? His staff were asked to plot against him because those opposite believed he had been up to criminal intent. Indeed, in the last few minutes 60 Minutes has released the entire transcript about what happened on that day. They asked Mal Brough: 'Why did you do that? Why did you ask him to get the diary entries?' He answered, 'Because I believed Peter Slipper had committed a crime.' If he believed it, he should have taken it to the police— (Time expired)

See this speech in context