Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would remember that at the conclusion of question time I tabled the Review of place allocation decision—2006 aged care approvals roundQueensland south coast region. At that point in time, I was going to speak briefly to the report, but was very rudely not granted leave by the opposition. I was told that if I came back in two hours they would grant me leave. I have come back two hours later to speak to this report.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not make a fool of yourself.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not making as big a fool of myself as you made supporting Kim Beazley’s leadership before he was finally rolled by Kevin Rudd. That was a particularly foolish act on your part, member for Perth.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister seeking leave to make a statement?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sought leave at the end of question time, and he granted it to me. But I will seek it again if it makes it easier for the House. I seek leave to speak briefly to this report.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any objection to leave being granted?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis that this is a new minister, we are prepared to now grant him leave.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the opposition is happy. With respect to the report that I tabled today, I wish to make a few comments. The first is that the report entirely exonerates the former Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. The second is that the government has absolutely nothing to hide in relation to this matter, so we have tabled the report for the elucidation of the House and the public. We will be happy to answer any questions that the opposition chooses to ask about it. We have absolutely no reason to hide any of the facts in relation to this matter.

As I said last week in the House, the government has no reason to believe that anything untoward occurred with respect to the allocation of beds in the Queensland south coast region in the last ACAR round. No evidence has been adduced of any wrongdoing at any point by the former minister. I would like to quote the salient finding in the conclusion section on page 2 of the report:

On the question of alleged influence by Senator Santoro, I have found no evidence of any attempt to exert influence either directly or indirectly over any officer of the department in any way materially connected with the relevant decision.

I also note for the benefit of the House that they will find that annexure A of the report has not been tabled and is not to be publicly released. It is protected information under the act and is therefore not being released. I am happy to explain that to the shadow minister privately if she wishes to have such a discussion. The report has been tabled. I end the matter by saying that, as far as we are concerned, we can draw a line under this controversy and get on with governing for the good of older Australians and not reach back into the mud bucket like the Labor Party has on this matter over the last week.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—It may be that the new Minister for Ageing does wish that this report will underwrite and rule a line under the controversy that has dogged this government for the last couple of weeks, but it is extraordinarily difficult to believe that this almost excuse of a review that the government has tabled today will draw a line under anything. In fact, I think this report does no credit to the new minister. It asks more questions than it answers. It makes it perfectly clear that there was no intention on the minister’s part to in any way actually conduct a thorough, detailed, independent review of his former minister’s activities.

For example, there is going to be a separate review that deals with a whole range of probity issues. We do not know why the government has not rolled these two reviews together. We do not know whether there are any questions that came to the minister’s attention with respect to these allegations. We do not know why he has taken no external advice on this issue. On the questions that have been raised, which make it quite clear that former Minister Santoro and his staff met with affected people, we have no assurances of whether or not that is the sort of procedure that was available to all other people who were tendering for these same allocations.

The report is absolutely full of all sorts of legal protections that the new minister might want to provide to us: ‘On the evidence available to me,’ ‘In the time available to me,’ ‘Without any expert advice’—there are a whole range of protections to give this minister wriggle room in the future if anything more comes out with these dealings that is untoward. Minister, if you expected this report to rule a line underneath the controversy that has dogged your government for the last few weeks, you will need to do a lot more than this. This report does not adequately answer any of the questions that have been raised.

My Senate colleague Senator McLucas, who is the opposition spokesperson on ageing, has made it perfectly clear that this report has not answered a whole range of questions that have been raised about other applications that have been made. As she states, quite rightly, the review is predictably a whitewash. We have an investigation—the most interesting point that the minister does not address at all. The new Minister for Ageing, who is investigating his former colleague’s activities, who did not even interview his former colleague and did not interview Mr Egan jnr, the other person involved in these allegations and these claims, is prepared to come into the House, is prepared to hold a doorstop and say,  ‘This is the end of the matter for us. I am entirely confident that there has been no wrongdoing.’ He has not even interviewed the two main players in the whole scandal. That is not going to wash, Minister. You know that, while it might be a bit of a thankless task to get a new job like this when you first come into the ministry, doing this in a week and just saying that it is adequately going to rule a line underneath it all is just beyond belief. You are not going to be able to sell that to the public. You are certainly not going to be able to sell that to the Labor Party. There are many more questions that are going to be asked.

In tabling this report you have probably caused yourself more grief than you have satisfied any questions. For example—and I have said this already—you do make sure that this report protects you in a number of ways. You are at pains to say, ‘On the evidence available to me’, but you are not very careful in asserting that all of the evidence has been presented to you. You have not spoken to the two key players. You have not answered the questions about why there were meetings with this particular person but not with others who might have been seeking the same allocation of places. We do not understand how it is that the conclusion is reached that there was no exertion of influence when the report itself actually talks about interactions between the staff and the person making an application, Mr Egan Jr, and the minister himself. We do not believe that this is going to be an adequate way of dealing with this issue, Minister. It is just a cover-up. Trying to do it so quickly with no evidence and without answering all these other questions that are available is just not good enough.

Minister, when even in your own report you are prepared to say, ‘This is all I’ve been able to do based on the evidence I’ve got and without any external advice,’ it does not exactly fill us with confidence that this has been taken seriously. Why, Minister, didn’t you take the time to do this properly? Why didn’t you set up a proper, independent, rigorous process that was going to interview your former colleague, was going to make sure that someone at arm’s length from government was taking this seriously? That would have been a more credible process. Instead, we still have no answers. You can go and do a doorstop and say that this rules a line under it from the government’s perspective, but that is not going to rule a line under it from our perspective. It is not a credible and independent review.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did that before it started.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleague reminds me, you were confident before you even started that there was nothing untoward. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory or independent process to be moving in this House. You expect us to just take it and accept that that is actually the end of the matter. We will not leave it at that. We regard it as serious and we expect the government to be able to actually explain all of the questions that have been raised, not just flounce in here, forget to ask for leave—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing is in the report—and you know, Minister, that that is just a ridiculous assertion. It is not all in the report. It does not even answer the questions that have been raised. So I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gellibrand from moving the following motion:That this House rejects the inadequate and rushed report of the Minister for Ageing into the allocation of aged care beds in Queensland by the former Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, and calls for a proper independent inquiry which investigates the probity of the allocation of bed licences and receives appropriate external advice.

That, Minister, is one way, if you want to, to rule a line under this: have a proper investigation and be prepared to put the former minister’s integrity properly under the spotlight—not have some sort of mates review that is going to cover up any allegations made. You cannot simply stand up in here, Minister, and suggest that that is going to be adequate.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, and I do so because this is a hopelessly inadequate report. This is a whitewash from a minister who indicated before the inquiry was even conducted what he would find in it.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move that the question be put.

I think the motion is that the member be no longer heard.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

The member be no longer heard.

I rise on a point of order. The minister asked that the motion be put. That is what he moved and it should be put that way.

There is no motion before the chair. The member was seconding that motion. An amendment would be appropriate at the end of that. The question is that the member be no longer heard.

Question put.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the member of Gellibrand for the suspension of standing orders and sessional orders be agreed to.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The motion is that the question be now put. All of those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

The noes have it, just to show him up.

Division required. Ring the bells for one minute.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of the new minister, I understand that you were about to put the question, and you should be allowed to put the question without him interrupting you. It would save this division if he would be prepared to withdraw the motion that he just put.

Whilst there is no point of order, I understand the point that the member is making, but I will not be put in the position of making advisory rulings. Lock the doors!

Question put.