Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to require the member for Dobell to make a statement to the House.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt from moving forthwith the following motion: That the Member for Dobell attend this Chamber without delay to make a personal explanation for a period not exceeding ten minutes with respect to the following matters:

(1) reported widely in the press but claimed by him to be misrepresentations, that:

(a) during the period he was national secretary of the Health Services Union he misused the union's funds to purchase airline tickets, accommodation, restaurant meals, electronic goods, liquor, artworks, running shoes and escort services and took cash amounts totalling $101,000;

(b) during the period he was national secretary of the Health Services Union he misused the union's funds to pay for his campaign in Dobell in 2007, spending $39,454 that he then failed to declare to the Australian Electoral Commission in breach of the Electoral Act; and

(c) he misled Fair Work Australia in relation to the misuse of the Health Services Union funds by creating an alibi that a third party was responsible for the misuse of the union's funds and by failing to reveal the extent of the misuse;

(2) to provide the factual basis for his statements on 1 August 2011 in the press that these allegations are a misrepresentation because while he had authorised payment of these transactions he did so on behalf of a third party who had stolen his credit card, his driver's licence, his mobile phone and forged his signature; and

(3) to explain to this House why he did not register the payment of a substantial gift to him by the NSW Branch of the Australian Labor Party, reported as being either $40,000, $90,000 or $150,000 towards the costs incurred in abandoning defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media Ltd in the Register of Members' Interests until at least 77 days after his receipt of those funds.

The motion speaks for itself.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: that was like the motion that was read out the other day. Firstly, I move a point of order relating to the length of the motion. Motions should not be written in a way as to subvert the standing orders. In the past, motions which have been overly lengthy have been ruled out of order by the Speaker.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! First of all, no other motion is being considered by the House and, secondly, that was a much shorter motion than was in the previous procedure. The length would not be something that would trouble the chair; it would be the amount of argument and material. In this case, it would be something that would be allowed.

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

Mr Speaker, on another point of order going to a matter already determined by the parliament: the Manager of Opposition Business moved a very similar motion just two days ago. I would ask you to consider that the government has not been given the benefit of having access to the motion. It appears that the Manager of Opposition Business is conceding that it is the same—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. As I stated earlier, there is no decision by the House on this matter. We will attempt to circulate the terms of the motion as soon as possible. Is the motion seconded?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

It is somewhat difficult to speak to this motion, not having a copy of it, but—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was actually difficult for me to make learned rulings to your point of order without a copy as well.

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

Nonetheless, Mr Speaker, your ruling might change when you read the motion.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—I doubt it.

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

The hypocrisy of those opposite in coming in here and moving this motion, which directly contradicts everything that they said when they sat on the government benches, is just extraordinary. I have already indicated the examples of the member for Moreton, the member for Bonner and the member for Bowman. What they said then—the former Prime Minister, the shadow Attorney-General and the now Leader of the Opposition—was that it was entirely inappropriate for the parliament to consider matters which are under investigation. They could not have been clearer. The shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said:

I think people who let us remind ourselves [that we] are entitled to the presumption of innocence ...

Particularly since these people are Members of Parliament ...

I ask you to compare that rhetoric with what is in the motion moved by the member for Sturt. It has argument and it purports to find outcomes relating to the member for Dobell without any process whatsoever. We in this country have a separation of the judiciary from parliamentary processes. It is a very dangerous slippery slope when the parliament sets itself up for the sort of engagement and grubby behaviour that we are seeing here.

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Slow learners! Worry about what is important.

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

The fact is that former Prime Minister John Howard had this to say about the investigation into his three MPs, one of whom, the member for Bowman, is back in the chamber today, having been investigated by the police, who found no findings against him, and then running for parliament and being duly elected—he had proper process—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the Leader of the House to relate his remarks to the suspension.

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

I will, Mr Speaker. He said:

A lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for.

…   …   …

It's a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course, and then, if it is appropriate, I will have something to say.

If this suspension motion is carried, it throws that process out the door completely.

We know, of course, that the mob opposite were involved in many issues that were raised over the years, but nothing happened in terms of sacking them even from senior frontbench positions. Wilson Tuckey used a ministerial letterhead to ask the South Australian police minister to review his son's conviction on a traffic charge. Do you remember Peter Reith's $50,000 phone card bill? The family and friends were making thousands of phone calls and taxpayers' money was being used, but he was not sacked over that; he was allowed to sit there. This is what Peter Reith had to say at the time on the ABC PM program: 'I did give the card to my son and I should not have done so.' And John Howard did not sack Peter Reith for misleading the public about 'children overboard'. There is a bit of a history of cards and issues being debated in the parliament. Peter Reith was allowed to sit here as a minister in the cabinet—indeed, as the Leader of the House in the cabinet—but that did not seem to matter. Also, when he was Prime Minister, John Howard did not sack someone for setting up a farm accommodation business at their original Malanda cattle farm just two days after the then Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Mr Hockey, launched a taxpayer funded ad campaign for farm stays. That was back in May 2004. Now the member for North Sydney has sought to engage in this debate. We had Alexander Downer. He said that he was ignorant about kickbacks with regard to the AWB scandal. We know that the member for Wentworth handed out $10 million to the speculative Australian Rain Corporation whose chairman, Matt Handbury, was a member of Mr Turnbull's fundraising body.

This motion before us also speaks about payments from the Labor Party to the member for Dobell. That is what this motion says.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Again, I remind the Leader of the House—

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

That will be debated if this suspension motion is carried. Yet I am surprised, actually, that there is nothing about the payments this year by the Victorian Liberal Party to one of their senior people, who is now a minister in the Victorian government. He had his legal fees paid for by the Victorian Liberal Party. What did the parliamentary Liberal Party of Victoria, of which the shadow finance minister is a prominent member, have to say about it? 'Oh, that's normal.'

I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has not moved this suspension motion, and that is not surprising. To have the Leader of the Opposition stand up and move a suspension of standing orders to speak about late declarations would indeed be problematic for the Leader of the Opposition, because we know that the Leader of the Opposition was also twice extremely problematic with his late declarations about a range of issues, and just said, 'Oh well, don't worry about that.' We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a great deal of form when it comes to these issues, because he established a fund when he was part of the government. This is what he had to say about where the money, the $100,000, came from to go into that fund. Did he come in here and give an explanation to parliament? Did he say that everyone should have a right to know? No. The Leader of the Opposition told the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 September 2003 'there are some things the public has no particular right to know'. That is a mantra he lives his life by. But we also know that he told the ABC that he did not give Terry Sharples a loan guarantee for his costs, even though the Sydney Morning Herald had a copy of a note witnessed and dated 11 July 1998, which had the statement 'My personal guarantee that you will not be further out of pocket'. We never found out where all that money came from or what it was used for. The Leader of the Opposition thought that was fine. But it has carried on.

On 20 June this year the Australian newspaper ran a story about jeweller Peter Dracakis, a shop owner in Mr Abbott's electorate, who was complaining about having to pay workers overtime rates—this is something I have raised in parliament before. Peter's father, Paul, was listed as the President and Financial Controller of the Warringah Club, which is the Leader of the Opposition's personal fundraising group, the same group that has raised $110,000 for the Leader of the Opposition since August 2008, probably something that he thought no-one needed to know about. Certainly the Australian newspaper was not told about this before it was splashed on the front page of the newspaper—this innocent small-business owner just having a view out there, not connected to the Liberal Party, not connected to the Leader of the Opposition whatsoever. Once again, this shows the Liberal Party's response and hypocrisy.

This is a very dangerous road that the opposition go down. They go down this road because they are absolutely desperate to trash any convention whatsoever. This is not a conservative leading the opposition; this is a reactionary who is prepared to tear up due process, to tear up our parliamentary conventions and to tear up the principles of innocence which everyone is entitled to under the rule of law. As he said himself: 'You do not have to judge me by my words; you can me judge by my actions.' (Time expired)

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the call as Deputy Leader of the House. The issue before the House is whether standing orders should be suspended to enable the member for Dobell to address the House. That is in the context of two very important factors which the House needs to bear very carefully in mind. Firstly, there is a Fair Work investigation under way with respect to those matters. Secondly, the New South Wales Police have indicated that they are contemplating an investigation in this respect. That must cause the House to proceed very carefully so far as a suspension is concerned. For the reasons that the Leader of the House has outlined, any number of executives in this place have always cautioned the House that when an investigation is on foot, when an investigation is under way, when an investigation is possible, the House must proceed very cautiously and very carefully before inveigling itself into such a matter.

This is not the first occasion this year that this parliament has had to consider such a matter. We know in the other place there is a senator who is the subject, firstly, of a criminal investigation and, secondly, of criminal charges. The parliament, generally and quite rightly, has been respectfully silent about that matter because the senator concerned is entitled to the presumption of innocence and is, of course, entitled to see those processes go to their logical conclusion. The same should occur here. When the House knows that an investigation is underway it should be cautious and very careful about suspending standing orders to inveigle itself into those procedures.

There is, of course, an appropriate action which the member for Dobell has already taken. The member for Dobell has made a change to his declaration of interest to reflect a contribution made to his lawyers by the New South Wales branch of the ALP. On his own acknowledgement he has said that in making that declaration he was late. As members know, he is not the first person in this place to be late with the declaration. That is regrettable. It is not the first time it has occurred. I suspect it will not be the last time it will occur. The Leader of the Opposition well knows the regret which comes from being late in a declaration or disclosure. That is an appropriate parliamentary response which does not require the House to suspend standing orders, and that has already been effected.

Secondly, the member yesterday indicated that it was appropriate for him to resign from the position of chair of a committee of the House of Representatives so as to ensure that the deliberations of that committee would not be caught up in any controversy. So the two appropriate parliamentary responses have already been effected: firstly, a change to the register of interests and, secondly, a resignation from the relevant House committee that the member chaired.

The suspension of standing orders suggested by the Manager of Opposition Business would take the House into very risky and dangerous grounds, which previous occupants of high office, in particular former Prime Minister John Howard, have made crystal clear in the past to the House. We have two investigations clearly underway: firstly, an investigation by Fair Work Australia looking at the issues which relate to a registered organisation under the Fair Work legislation—namely, the Hospital Services Union; and, secondly, an indication yesterday by the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police that the New South Wales Police were contemplating whether an investigation was warranted in these circumstances. In that context, as the Leader of the House has outlined, it is very dangerous for the House to seek to inveigle itself into these matters.

When the House comes to contemplate whether standing orders should be suspended or not, we need to look very carefully at precedents and practice in the past. I regret on this occasion that what motivates those opposite is not respect for the standing orders, it is not respect for the practices and the procedures of the House, it is not respect for the presumption of innocence, it is not respect for the separation of powers and not seeing a merging between the parliament, the executive and the judiciary; it is crass political opportunism. Why would that surprise us? For the reasons that I have outlined, which reinforce submissions made by the Leader of the House. The House should not suspend standing orders on this occasion and should let those investigations underway or contemplated by the New South Wales Police take their natural course.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many things about the so-called new paradigm that make this chamber a more challenging place. Some of them are interesting in a positive way. For example, the additional time private members in this place have available to them to make important contributions—not only about important matters of national policy but also about matters in their own constituencies. There are other aspects that are dragging this chamber down. You have to be asking yourself what those in the electorate are thinking about the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition today. Some of those changes, of course, include the denial of question time, for example. These days we have fewer question times because of the Leader of the Opposition's propensity for stunts. Question time is the most important feature of this chamber. It is the period each day when members of the executive are held to account. The Leader of the Opposition does not think that is all that important any more. He prefers the sound bites; he prefers his 10 minutes on ABC television every day. He takes the view, and uses that opportunity to promote it, that if he cannot run the country then no-one can. If he cannot be in charge, he will simply wreck the place and therefore, by definition, wreck this country.

This matter before the House today is about the member for Dobell. The member for Dobell is entitled to natural justice, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. We should not sit here as a Star Chamber, particularly given that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House have pointed out this has not been the approach of oppositions in the past and, of course, this was not the approach of former Prime Minister John Howard. It was not his approach when the member for Moreton was in trouble, it was not his approach when the member for Bonner was in trouble and it certainly was not his approach when the member for Bowman was in trouble.

The Australian people expect high standards of us. They expect us to behave in this place, they expect us to maintain legal standards and they expect us to respect one another. More particularly, they expect us to run this place in the interests of the country. No-one on the other side—and I note so far we have not heard from anyone on the other side on this matter—could possibly argue that what is being played out in this place this morning is in the national interest. But the Leader of the Opposition sees another political opportunity. This is one of the great features of the so-called new paradigm. Every time the Leader of the Opposition sees an opportunity to muster 76 votes in this place, to wreck this place and to get his political message out there to promote his political message, he does so despite the consequences.

On this occasion, the consequences are very grave indeed. They set a very dangerous precedent in this place. I note the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to speak on this matter—not surprising—has chosen not to cast judgment on the member for Dobell—not surprising because he does not know what is around the corner. On many occasions, members of his party have been in trouble—sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent. The fact is you do not know until the court has come to its conclusions. In this case, Mr Thomson has a number of legal processes under way. He maintains his innocence. It is a very dangerous game for this place to sit as a star chamber, as I said, and to begin to cast judgment on those processes before they have run their course.

I am not surprised that Leader of the Opposition is not on his feet this morning. I am not surprised the Leader of the Opposition has not cast judgment, very wisely, on the member for Dobell. Having said that, it is not surprising he has come in here once again and used this place as a way to promote his stance. They say people in glass houses should not throw stones. The Leader of the Opposition should be reflecting on that old adage. He should start looking behind him and think what might be sitting behind him now and in the future. Mr Thomson paid a heavy price yesterday when he stood down as Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion ( Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [09: 52 ]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.