Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to defend the existence of the register of pecuniary interests and I rise to defend this parliament, this House of Representatives and the integrity of this House, because I find it, quite frankly, extraordinary that the government would be in a position of rejecting a recommendation from the Speaker in granting precedence, as you have.

I've been in the position of Leader of the House. I held that position for two terms of the parliament. On no occasion would I have even considered rejecting a motion that was brought forward after the Speaker had given due consideration to whether precedence should be given. I'd be interested in the Leader of the House commenting about whether there has been a time since Federation whereby we've have the circumstances that the Leader of the House is contemplating this parliament conduct, because as far as I'm aware—I've received advice—since Federation there has never been a time when the House has voted down a resolution after precedence was given. In more than 120 years that has never occurred. Why? Because the standing orders are very clear.

Mr Speaker, the standing orders, under 51(d)(i), say that in order to grant precedence you had to give consideration as to whether 'a prima facie case of contempt or breach of privilege has been made out'. And you could only consider that after you'd considered (ii), which is 'the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity'. Mr Speaker, you've given consideration to this, and there's been some commentary in recent times about the seriousness with which you take your job. I've said publicly that you are an outstanding Speaker who has raised the conduct of this House. That's in the interests of us all, but it particularly assists the government to have a Speaker who does their job independently.

The idea here that there is any doubt as to the facts is extraordinary. What this motion from the member for Watson does is just ask that the committee consider these facts—consider them and make a determination and a recommendation. It's not a conclusion. In opposing this motion, the government is saying, 'Don't even look at it; just pretend; look away,' to something that is very serious. What we have here is that on 1 June the member for Pearce said that he would withdraw a defamation case against the ABC. On 13 September the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to the defamation case. It discloses:

But it's not a blind trust. He knows where the money is being invested. It's being invested in him, in what's a private legal matter. A blind trust is what the former member for Wentworth, the former Prime Minister, did when he was in this parliament, so that investments could be made on his behalf and he wouldn't know where they were being invested. This is being paid to his lawyers for a private legal matter.

It is a nonsense that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust, because how did they know where to put the money? How did they know? As to the GoFundMe page that the minister referred to, GoFundMe pages are pages people know. They're public by definition; they're on the internet. With this you had to know exactly how to donate money to this trust to benefit the member for Pearce. But the House doesn't know where the donations came from. The Australian public don't know where the money came from. This cannot be allowed to stand. If it's allowed to stand it renders redundant the processes of this parliament whereby all of us cannot receive money from private interests for personal reasons without disclosing it. That's the basis—point 1—for stamping out corruption in this parliament. I make no assertion regarding the member for Pearce, and nor does this resolution. But if this resolution is not carried then anyone can receive money from unknown sources into a so-called 'blind trust' and never declare it. It renders all the things, including foreign donations and interference—don't come in here and talk about national security again if you don't vote for this resolution, because you won't be taken seriously. This opens it all up to foreign interference in our politics. It opens it all up for corporate interests or individual interests to buy influence in this parliament without anyone knowing.

At the moment, some people can try to buy influence, and we know that gets disclosed. People have lost their seats over those issues. We know that Senator Dastyari lost his seat in the Senate as a result of a small amount. This is up to $1 million for the former first legal officer of the land—the Attorney-General—who was responsible, while he held that title, for introducing legislation to create a national integrity commission into this parliament. You couldn't make this up! You could not make the scenario up whereby the government is going to vote against this. I say to the Leader of the House—who, at the risk of receiving substantial criticism on social media, I have some regard for—think about what you are doing with this resolution. You're saying that you are ignoring the fact that the Speaker has determined there's a prima facie case worthy of consideration. You're not pre-empting the deliberations of the Privileges Committee; you're saying they can't even look at it—in spite of the Speaker's determination and in spite of the fact that there is so much public anger about this.

The public out there—I think, wrongly—think that there is a lot more dodgy activity than there is. I think most people go into parliament—overwhelmingly, on all sides—out of the public interest. That's why they do it. But I have to acknowledge that one of the reasons I support a national anticorruption commission with teeth is that a whole lot of the public are really angry about these issues. This will make them damn angry. And they have every right to be damn angry if this parliament is saying that someone who was the first law officer of the land received donations of up to $1 million, that he must know where they're from but that no-one else has a right to know where they're from, that we won't even give consideration to that, and that that's okay. It is not okay! No-one made the member for Pearce engage in this legal activity against the ABC. That was his decision. He's entitled, I guess, under the rules of the parliament, to seek donations, but he's not entitled do it anonymously and he's not entitled to pretend that it is a blind trust when it is not.

There is an absolute responsibility of every member of this House to support this motion to refer the member for Pearce to the Privileges Committee. It's consistent with every single decision that has been made in this House since Federation. Don't set a new precedent which opens us up to corruption in 2021. (Time expired)

See this speech in context