Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

Yes; he agreed with that statement that he would have. This is new information which we have not had previously in terms of the deliberations that he conducted over those days prior to granting the motion of precedence.

Members on both sides of this House have spent the last two days praising the member for Casey and the deep integrity he brought to the role of Speaker. Now we have, for the first time on record, that the member for Casey himself believes the member for Pearce should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This is the strongest statement in this matter we have had to date, which is why I believe this House deserves another opportunity to consider this matter given this new information.

I remind the House why, in the first instance, the matter should be given precedence by our new Speaker. If this matter is allowed to stand, we might as well not have a Register of Members' Interests at all. The facts are these. On 1 June, it was announced that the member the Pearce would withdraw a defamation case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His costs are undisclosed. The member for Pearce has stated: 'My lawyers, whilst they are very good, are very, very expensive.' And I will table that transcript.

On 13 September, the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to his defamation case, and I will table that document. The member for Pearce lists:

Part contribution to the payment of my fees by a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust. As a potential beneficiary I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust.

But what the member for Pearce describes as a blind trust is in fact nothing like the blind trusts which have previously been registered. In every other blind trust which has appeared on the register, it has been clear whose money was being managed. On this occasion we have no idea. A central purpose of the register is to manage and disclose interests and potential conflicts. It beggars belief that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust. It is incomprehensible that there is a new breed of philanthropists who could donate to any cause or charity in the world but would choose this otherwise secret trust to pay legal bills in a private defamation case and then have no desire for the member for Pearce to know that they had helped them.

Let's think about what this means. If what the member for Pearce has done is allowed to stand, it means any MP can set up a trust and instruct the trustee to accept donations on a confidential basis only, and then rake in the cash from any source, all the while saying, 'I couldn't possibly tell you where my donations are coming from, because they were given on the basis of confidentiality.' What the member for Pearce has done renders the Register of Members' Interests completely worthless. If permitted, this behaviour empowers other MPs to create such a trust as a means of escaping their disclosure obligations as an elected member of the House. At its worst, it provides a means for MPs to get around laws that prohibit foreign donations. In fact, the only assurance we have that the member for Pearce has not done this is because he tells us he hasn't.

In a statement by the member for Pearce on 19 September, which I will also table, we learn two things. The first is that, despite the member for Pearce's statement on his register, he actually was able to uncover information regarding the donors to his trust. His statement says:

… on my request the Trustee provided me an assurance that none of the contributors were lobbyists or prohibited foreign entities.

The second thing revealed is that the member for Pearce has made a choice not to uncover further information about the identities of the donors. I quote:

Ultimately, I decided that if I have to make a choice between seeking to pressure the Trust to break individuals' confidentiality in order to remain in Cabinet, or alternatively forego my Cabinet position, there is only one choice I could, in all conscience, make.

He also states:

I could not assist any process that would ultimately allow people who have done nothing wrong to become targets of the social media mob and I would continue to respect their position.

So either the member for Pearce does know who the donors to his legal trust are but is refusing to disclose them or he has chosen not to take steps which are available to him to determine their identities. Either conclusion raises doubts as to whether the member has committed a serious contempt under part (5)(c) of the additional resolution adopted on 13 February 1986 regarding members' interests, which I will table. That resolution provides:

(5) any Member of the House of Representatives who

…   …   …

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly.

This is a serious allegation that must be investigated by the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This is not a case of an MP making an honest mistake. This is not a case of carelessness. This is a deliberate and calculated attempt to evade the entire purpose of the register, and we now know the results of the careful and deliberate consideration of the former Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider granting precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests regarding whether the precedent the member for Pearce has set threatens the integrity of the Register of Members' Interests, whether the member for Pearce has wilfully refused to take reasonable steps available to him to identify donors to a trust which has part-paid his legal fees; whether this constitutes a breach of part (5)(c) of the additional resolution on the registration of members' interests; and whether members receiving anonymous gifts beyond the threshold set in (2)(k) of the House resolution on the registration of members' interests constitutes a contempt of the House. I thank you for your consideration and table the documents that I referred to.

See this speech in context