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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Prime Minister is called on by the House to make a statement immediately to reconcile her:

(1) statement that Fair Work Australia ‘will be independent of unions, business and government...Labor will remove all perceptions of bias’ with the fact that Fair Work Australia’s investigation of the Member for Dobell is now in its fourth year with seemingly no end in sight and may not even be released to the public; and

(2) assertions that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation of the Member for Dobell with the fact that her Chief of Staff contacted Fair Work Australia at the beginning of its investigation, one of the staff of the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations colluded with Fair Work Australia over the media management of statements to the press and she is unable to rule out that the Member for Dobell has been in communication with her or her office over the investigation.

There is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and we all know why: it is not to keep him in his job, it is to keep the Prime Minister in hers.

There is a smell about this government that reminds me of the smell at the back of a fridge full of old food and the smell is not going away, it is going bad and it is getting worse. It is a smell that is only going to get worse unless the Prime Minister ends the culture of cover-ups, half-truths and dirty tricks that characterises this government. The Prime Minister is damned in this matter by her own words about the Fair Work Australia investigation. Today she had a chance to reconcile them by supporting this suspension of standing orders and speaking to this motion, passing the motion and then debating in the House her previous statements about perceptions of bias and about no political interference. Instead the Prime Minister has left the chamber yet again. She has scurried out of the House to the Chief Government Whip's office to have a cup of tea and eat a Tim Tam to avoid answering questions that the public wants answered about this very grubby matter.

In the parliament today we had the very unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister being clearly on edge, being clearly rattled, being clearly incapable of telling the truth about the investigation by Fair Work Australia and about the member for Dobell. If she had told the truth she would have had to mislead the parliament and so instead she refused to answer the question. The Prime Minister has refused to answer question after question, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, from the member for Farrer and from me as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And we know it is because if she answers them truthfully she will damn herself and she will damn her government.

In 2007 the Prime Minister said that Fair Work Australia must get rid of all perceptions of bias. The Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell is now in its fourth year. It has taken longer than the Watergate inquiry into President Nixon, longer than the Korean War took from start to finish, longer than it took to build Sydney's Olympic Stadium, longer than the Rudd government's duration, even longer than it took Pat Farmer to run from the North to the South Pole! If you want some examples of royal commissions that were wrapped up earlier than this inquiry into the member for Dobell, we have the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the HIH Royal Commission, the Fitzgerald inquiry into Queensland police corruption and the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Even the royal commission into the Chamberlain case and, in the United States, the commission into the 9/11 bombings were completed in a shorter period of time than this investigation and we know why. It is because there is a protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell and it is run out of the Prime Minister's office.

There is an old mafia saying, 'A fish starts to stink from the head.' If the Prime Minister wants to avoid the perception that this government stinks from the head she must act now. She must act to give confidence to the Australian people that her office is not run on the basis of half-truths, that it is not run on the basis of cover-ups and that it is not run on the basis of dirty tricks. Far from avoiding the perception of bias, there is now a very real concern amongst the Australian public and amongst the press and the political fraternity that there is a deliberate, institutional go-slow about this investigation. But don't just take the opposition's word for it; people who have been personally involved in this case and people who know how these cases run have got plenty to say about it.

Take Mr Doug Williams, the former Commonwealth Industrial Registrar. He said it was difficult to comprehend how a regulator could be seen to be properly regulating when such an inquiry was so protracted.

He is absolutely right. John Lloyd, the former head of the ABCC said:

You have to do things expeditiously. That is the basic good service you have to give when you are using taxpayers' money.

Finally Kathy Jackson, who is very much at the centre of this controversy—she had the courage others in the Labor Party and the Labor movement did not have, the courage to take these matters to Fair Work Australia and to New South Wales Police, and my how she is paying a price as the Labor movement closes around her and tries to shut her down, but she will not be shut down—said only recently:

Why has it taken so long? Why are we still waiting for answers? And why are we in this position? We need this to end.

She is absolutely right. But we all know why it cannot end: because, should it end, should an adverse finding be made against the member for Dobell, and should he face any charges, the Prime Minister's survival will be at risk, the Prime Minister will be the one who will be in trouble, her government will come to an end—and that is why this will never end.

The Prime Minister must also reconcile her continued assertions that there has been no political interference with the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell with what we already know. In 2009 her chief of staff contacted the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar to inquire about the investigation they were doing into the Health Services Union. Quite properly, he was rebuffed at the time by the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar—and all of that comes from the record. But Fair Work Australia knew from that moment that they were on notice, that they were being watched by the Prime Minister. The red flag went up in Fair Work Australia—and that was the purpose of the call. The call was not to inquire about the investigation into the Health Services Union; it was to let Fair Work Australia know that the Prime Minister's office new about it and they were watching Fair Work Australia.

And the warning shot that was fired across the bow of Fair Work Australia had its effect. What happened? An institutional go-slow happened. That is what happened. Almost four years later we are still waiting for the completion of that investigation. The Prime Minister's office's phone call had the desired effect: it stopped the investigation dead in its tracks. It did not matter what the conversation was about; the point was that the Prime Minister's office wanted Fair Work Australia to know, 'We are watching'. That is why there is a smell that hangs over this government like bad food getting worse, and it will continue to hang over this government and be a stench until the matter is dealt with.

We also know there was collusion between the then minister's office and Fair Work Australia about massaging the media. The phrase was used: 'Awesome, that should ensure it doesn't get any run in the morning'. That was a clear indication again, from the government, that they were pleased with Fair Work Australia's work, they were pleased that Fair Work Australia were running it the way they were—they ticked off the media statement; they were colluding with Fair Work Australia to ensure this matter went away.

If it is not bad enough that the Fair Work Australia investigation is perceived to be in institutional go-slow, to sandbag the government in power, it is even worse that claims of political interference hang over the investigation and taint the government. But the worst aspect of this is that the interests of 170,000 workers in the Health Services Union, who are members who pay their dues, are not even being considered. These are amongst the poorest workers in the workforce—170,000 Australians want answers to what happened to their money when the member for Dobell headed up their union. Those 170,000 people deserve answers to how their money was spent when the member for Dobell headed up the Health Services Union.

And there are members on that side of the House who I know agree with me. There are good Labor members from old union backgrounds, like the minister for resources, who must cringe at having to defend the member for Dobell in this place and having him as part of his government—and worse, having to rely on the member for Dobell to stay in government, because without his vote the government will fall. That is what this is all about: protecting the member for Dobell in order to protect the Prime Minister.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason this House needs to suspend standing orders and debate this matter is that it is of monumental national interest. The gossamer thread that holds this government in office is provided courtesy of the member for Dobell. Without his vote the government could fall, Australia would be heading for the polls—and what a relief that would be. So it is massively important in terms of the government of this country that the Prime Minister be called to account over the legitimacy of the member for Dobell remaining in this House. And her implausible explanations of her government's involvement in this investigation must mean that she comes into this House and explains.

The Prime Minister has a credibility problem. We know that courtesy of her colleague the member for Lyons. He said she has a credibility problem, and my God she does. Her string of broken promises, her shredding of written commitments, her repeated betrayals—her words mean so little that no-one believes her. When I was in question time, when she was standing up there saying that her staff did not ring the registrar when her staff did ring the registrar, I was reminded of Richard Nixon—'I am not a crook'! I accept that the comparison is unfair to Richard Nixon. Her answers in question time just add to her credibility problem. When she accused me of misleading people by suggesting there had been contact between her chief of staff, Mr Hubbard, and the registrar, Mr Williams, she said I was misleading people. In fact, she could not reconcile the words of the industrial registrar that he received a call from her office. The Prime Minister must explain that lapse to this House.

There is a foul odour around the Prime Minister's office, from her media unit in particular, over its grubby act of inciting a racial riot on Australia Day—one of the lowest acts of a Prime Minister's office in living memory. And it is rivalled by the collusion from another government minister's media unit into the Fair Work Australia investigation into the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell. I note that the member for Dobell denies the allegations. I also note that he is yet to give the full explanation to the House that he promised he would give months ago of allegations that relate to the misuse of at least $100,000 of union funds for the procurement of prostitutes—never specifically denied. This is $100,000 of funds of lowly-paid workers of the Health Services Union. After the member for Dobell parted from his job at the Health Services Union, the allegations were referred to Fair Work Australia in 2009—over three years ago. And yes, the hierarchy of Fair Work Australia has some explaining to do, and no doubt Justice Giudice will do that. I remind members that Fair Work was set up under legislation personally drafted by the Prime Minister as the responsible minister at the time, legislation that requires Fair Work Australia to act in a manner that is fair and just, quick and informal, avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent. Just what is quick, open or transparent about this investigation and the government's role needs to be explained.

Members will be interested in this web of intrigue. This chart shows the Labor Health Services Union family tree. We have the Prime Minister. We have Tim Lee. We have Craig Thomson. We have the connections between Labor, the Health Services Union and Fair Work Australia. With apologies to Sir Walter Scott, Albo, Labor's mission statement is:

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

That is the Labor Party.

This House must be concerned about the part the Prime Minister's office played in the delay of this investigation. We know that the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, Ben Hubbard, had contact with the registrar. We know from the words of the registrar. The Prime Minister must come clean. Once upon a time, back when she was in opposition, she would set standards for the government. I recall her words in 2004: 'There is an obligation of honesty and probity in public life that makes the minister responsible for the conduct of their staff.' This Prime Minister can live up to the standard that she set for others by revealing all contact of any nature between any member of the government or any staff in relation to the scope of this investigation and the time it has taken. (Time expired)

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

This is the 37th failed suspension from the opposition in the 43rd Parliament. Of those, 22 have been to suspend standing orders to allow a motion critical of the Prime Minister to be moved. Up until this week, 20 out of 20 of them had been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. But today, just like earlier this week, this is based on such a flimsy approach that he has not had the ticker to move it himself. He has had the Manager of Opposition Business stand up and do it for him. And then they have the gall to say, 'Where's the Prime Minister?'

The Prime Minister has been in here this week answering question after question about the economy, because that is what we are interested in on this side of the House. But it is no wonder that again today, after a couple of questions up the front to talk about the economy, the opposition went straight in the gutter, straight in the dirt, because today their plan in terms of surplus is in shreds. Today, indeed, they have the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow finance minister, the shadow Treasurer and Senator Abetz, the leader over in the Senate, all saying different things. Senator Abetz now calls surplus 'an extravagant promise'. They have a Leader of the Opposition whose policy is down to 'aspirations'.

They are happy to ask question after question. I will tell you what. I would like an answer to this. Maybe someone will ask them whether the office of this Leader of the Opposition has ever told anyone in the media the whereabouts of the Prime Minister. I would be very interested in the conduct of the office of this Leader of the Opposition, because if it is good enough to go down these roads then we will go down these roads. This Prime Minister showed the standards that she had and that she expected of her office when she took action against Mr Hodges. So I look forward to an answer about that—just like we know they have the hide to come in here and ask about contact with regard to the investigation into the member for Dobell. We all know—have they forgotten?—what they were doing at the end of last year, ringing people in the police, ringing New South Wales ministers and interfering in investigations directly. The shadow Attorney-General was ringing New South Wales officials in a completely inappropriate manner—and they have the hide!

We would be really interested in the contact they have had with Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart about giving them a tax break. We would be very interested in that, because we know that the LNP fly around in Mr Palmer's jet during election campaigns. We know about the record amounts of donations that go in there. We would be very interested in all of those questions.

They will do anything but debate the economy and jobs. At the beginning of this year—after last year, when the Leader of the Opposition was parodied as the walking vuvuzela, the bloke who stands for nothing, who just makes one noise, who has turned the coalition of yesterday into the 'noalition' of today—I think we could have expected that there would be some change in strategy when we came into the first week of the parliament this year, but we have had nothing but the same old muckraking over old issues. We have had nothing but the same old personal attacks against the government and, in particular, the personal attacks against the Prime Minister. We have had nothing but the same old negative approach of all those opposite.

You get a few interjections. There has been a bit of an issue, Mr Speaker—you might have noticed—about American presidents. Certainly I am now aware of the movie, but I have also been aware for a longer period of time about American presidential campaigns. I have been an observer of them. I note that it is not unusual, as you look at the Republican contest that is going on here, a fight between the extreme Right, the very extreme Right and the completely-off-the-planet Right. There is precedent for that. There is precedent for these conservative campaigns.

Barry Goldwater was an extreme right-wing candidate in 1964. He went around and appealed to fear. He ran a campaign trying to divide the great nation that is the United States of America. He did that under a slogan, trying to appeal to all the worst elements. He never appealed to the better that mankind is capable of. His slogan said: 'In your heart you know he's right.' That was the slogan when appealing to that sort of prejudice, just as the current Leader of the Opposition tries to do, pressing every button that he can on every single issue. The Democrats very successfully parodied the Goldwater campaign, and it is something that I think fits with this Leader of the Opposition. Their response was: 'In your guts you know he's nuts.'

That is exactly what this Leader of the Opposition shows himself to be in the way that he conducts himself in public life. He has indeed done for public discourse in this country what the vuvuzela did for World Cup soccer in South Africa. He runs around, he says no to everything, he tries to divide the community, he tries to scare people, he has nothing positive to say whatsoever. You would have thought that they had three months after we finished in November, right through December, right through January, through February, to come up with an alternative plan. Anything will do, anything at all—an alternative plan on the economy, on trade, on infrastructure, on health, on education. But what they have is a blank sheet, the blank sheet that we saw with the Fix the Bruce plan. That would apply to every one of their policies. Their fix the health system plan is the same—a blank page. Their plan to fix the education system is the same—a blank page.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House ought not to depart too far from the substance of the motion to suspend standing orders.

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

Indeed, Mr Speaker. The reason why the suspension should not be allowed is because we want to debate issues of substance. What they are doing in moving this motion today is knocking off their own MPI again because they are not interested in debating any real policy issues.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go on, knock it off. It is on the economy.

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

Then he has the hide to say we do not want to talk about the economy. I have got news for the shadow Treasurer: the debate finishes at 4.30 when we go to adjournment. They are not aware of that; they are not too good on standing orders. Old or new, any of them, they do not seem to get it. They come in here and they just have one policy. I will say this: on this side of the House we are the builders, we are the nation builders; they are the wreckers. We are the people who are interested in enhancing opportunity; those opposite are only interested in entrenching privilege, entrenching privilege of the big end of town. That is who they represent. The Leader of the Opposition runs around and says he is the friend of the workers but he is trying to smash the auto industry, he is not prepared to support the steel industry, he is not prepared to support the changes to the economy that we need as we move to a carbon constrained future that will ensure that we continue to be the envy of the industrialised world. Those opposite have a $70 billion black hole. Those opposite cannot talk about anything positive because they do not have any money: they are at minus $70 billion before they start. And that is before you take into account all the other commitments that they have made. The fact is that it is only this side of the House that has a plan to govern. We are getting on with the job of governing. Those opposite just have hissy fits, complaints, negativism and no plan for jobs, no plan for the economy, no plan for social policy, no plan for infrastructure, no plan for the nation. The Australian nation is better than that and it is a lot better than those opposite, which is why we remain on this side of the chamber and why in the lead-up to 2013 we will still be on this side of the chamber, and after the next election, because you stand for nothing. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to—that is, the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.

In division—

While the tally is taking place, I have noticed, progressively, with motions to suspend standing and sessional orders speakers on both sides have tended to address the issue rather than the reason for a suspension. I would like to give the House notice that hereafter I intend to strictly enforce the standing orders. So, if there is a motion to suspend, the speaker supporting that will support that motion and the speaker opposing it will oppose that motion.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.