Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union and Member for Dobell commenced in 2009;

(b) the investigation started with the Industrial Registrar in January 2009 and was taken over by Fair Work Australia when it commenced operation in June 2009;

(c) Fair Work Australia representatives said the investigation would be completed by the end of 2011, with Fair Work Australia Director Terry Nassios telling a Senate Estimates committee in May 2011 that the investigation should be completed by 'the latter half of this year' and Bernadette O'Neill, the Acting General Manager, saying in October 2011 that 'Mr Nassios has advised me that he still expects to complete his investigations by the end of this year';

(d) the investigation remains ongoing despite an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor, Craig Rawson, being provided with a letter containing 'proposed findings' in December 2010; and

(e) the investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell has taken more than three years and is yet to be completed; and

(2) calls on the Government to provide an assurance that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell.

Back in January of 2009, more than three years ago, a very important investigation was begun into serious misuse of the moneys of the 70,000 lowly paid members of the Health Services Union. This is a very serious matter because union members have an absolute right to expect that their money will be used for the purposes of the union and for the purposes of advancing their industrial interests, and will not be misused for personal purposes, for political purposes and for family purposes of union officials. And there is strong evidence, much of which is in the public arena, that hundreds of thousands of dollars of union members' dues have been used to fund political campaigns of the now member for Dobell, formerly the general secretary of the union, and used to benefit the families of senior officials of the union. And, I regret to say, there is strong evidence, much of which is in the media, that members' dues were used to procure prostitution services for then officials of the union. This is an absolute disgrace.

If union members and the Australian public more generally are to have any confidence in the administration of justice, in particular if they are to have any confidence in the just operation of Australia's industrial system, matters of this seriousness must be swiftly investigated and justice must be swiftly done. But that has not happened.

The investigation began in January 2009. Towards the end of last year, when the investigation had already been going on for well over 2½ years, an assurance was given by a Fair Work Australia director that the investigation should be completed by the latter half of last year. The acting general manager gave an assurance in writing in October of last year that the investigation was expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Further, back in December 2010, an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor was provided with an official letter containing proposed findings in this investigation.

So back in December 2010 proposed findings were available. Twice last year Fair Work Australia gave assurances that the matter would be completed by the end of the year and still there is no conclusion to this saga. This gives rise to a very strong suspicion of, at the very least, an institutional go-slow, but possibly political interference in the operation of what should be an organ of justice.

I do not lightly question the integrity and professionalism of any official body. As a former minister for workplace relations, I worked with the former Industrial Relations Commission and in those days it was a body that dispensed impartial justice. I do not say that the body has been necessarily corrupted since then, but I do say this is a terrible look. It is a terrible look because since the current government took over, almost all of the senior appointments to Fair Work Australia have been former union officials.

We know that there is an incestuous relationship between the trade union movement of this country and members of the current government. Just about all the senior members of the current government are former union officials. It is a big union family which has links through the union movement from Fair Work Australia to the government and that would be threatened should Fair Work Australia's investigation be brought to a swift conclusion and charges laid. I do not question the professionalism of Fair Work Australia, but I urge Fair Work Australia, in the interests of its own good name, to not further delay this vital investigation.

There is another important factor that needs to be considered—that is, the extensive contact that has taken place between ministers in this government and Fair Work Australia. When a member of the opposition front bench contacted a minister in the New South Wales government about investigations into the member for Dobell, ministers opposite lined up, one after the other, to denounce political interference, even though a member of the opposition front bench by definition is not in government. Yet what we now know is that on at least seven occasions there was direct contact between ministers in this government, including none other than the Prime Minister, and Fair Work Australia over this matter.

There was a phone call between Fair Work Australia and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, first denied and then admitted. There were numerous emails and phone contacts between the former minister for workplace relations and Fair Work Australia, and there has been at least one phone conversation between the current minister for workplace relations and Fair Work Australia on this matter. We do not know for sure that there has been collusion between the government and Fair Work Australia over the investigation itself, but there certainly has been collusion over the media management of it. We know that because emails released under FOI prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This motion is important because it is about maintaining the integrity of our institutions and it is about maintaining honesty in government, something which this Prime Minister seems to find so incredibly difficult. This Prime Minister needs to explain all of the contacts between her and her office, and her ministers and their offices, and Fair Work Australia. She needs to detail the precise content of all of those contacts. And she needs to explain why it is political interference for an opposition frontbencher to talk about an investigation but it is somehow entirely benign for ministers to heavy officials of Fair Work Australia.

The Prime Minister also needs to explain just how the interests of justice, as opposed to the political survival of this government, are furthered by the unconscionable time that this investigation has taken—it is now in its fourth year, yet far more complex investigations have been completed in far less time. The Fitzgerald royal commission into illegalities in Queensland took less than three years. The Wood royal commission into corruption in the New South Wales Police Force took less than three years. The Cole royal commission into the construction industry took less than 18 months. The Watergate investigation took less than 18 months. The Empire State Building was built in one year and 45 days—far, far quicker than this investigation! And do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it has already cost more than $1 million?

Members opposite might be interested to know that, when there was a problem with expenses in the House of Commons, revelations were uncovered in May 2009, charges were laid in February 2010 and convictions, including prison sentences, were brought down by January 2011. Instead of swift justice we have had, I fear, a corruption of the process of justice. That is why the Prime Minister has to explain. That is why this motion should be supported.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

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

In a month's time I will have been in this place for some 16 years. One thing I learnt in my very earliest days here was that, when the leader of your party is on his or her feet, it is a good idea to get yourself into the chamber to listen to what he or she might have to say—and, of course, it is one of the roles of the whip to make sure people are aware that he or she is on his or her feet, and people usually dutifully race in to support their leader.

But I was intrigued by what took place here this afternoon, and I think it reflects the feeling of many who sit on the opposition back benches towards the Leader of the Opposition's tactics with this motion, and indeed whether he is right to be playing this political game with what is very much an independent inquiry. One minute into his speech, seven members of the opposition were in here to support their leader—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is in no way relevant to the motion before the House; it is just a bit of mischief.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker will resume his seat.

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

The member for Barker should not be concerned, because it gets better: within two minutes there were nine members, within four there were 16, within five there were 27, within six it built to 30 and at about the 31st minute it reached its crescendo at 31!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I ask you to bring the member for Hunter back to the motion. I know the member for Hunter is good at counting numbers and relaying them here in this place, but I do not think it is relevant to the motion.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cook. The member for Hunter is reminded of the motion before the House.

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

I will move on, except to say that theirs is a parliamentary party of some 71 members—and there was a crescendo of 31. So where were these other members? I would like to think some of them were out there thinking about the things we have been thinking about as a parliamentary party.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Hume that he is interjecting from outside of his place and he does not have the call. The member for Hunter has the call.

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

Somewhere tonight, if not everywhere in the eurozone, members of parliaments, their officials, their departmental heads and their advisers will be thinking about where to jump next in dealing with their economic crises—and something similar will no doubt be taking place in the United States, who look upon our economy with in wonderment and with envy. And here in Australia, those of us on this side—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Hunter, I think, is defying you. He is clearly not being relevant to the question. If he does not have anything relevant to say on this matter then he should just sit down.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook will resume his seat. I again remind the member for Hunter of the motion before the House. I can repeat it for him if he likes, but I am sure he has a copy of it.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will get off the important issues facing the country and get back to the muckraking—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The motion before the House relates to Fair Work Australia.

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

I will address it very directly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's go through it then. Mr Abbott, with great fanfare, although with little support from his own back bench, wants the House to note—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hunter will refer to members by their titles.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition wants the House to note:

… the Fair Work Australia investigation—

I won't read the whole thing—

… commenced in 2009—

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hunter has the call.

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

Yes, it did—we have no problem with that; that is fine. The motion continues:

(b) the investigation started with the Industrial Registrar—

Yes, that is fine; it seems to be a matter of fact to me—

… (c) Fair Work Australia representatives said the investigation would be completed by the end of 2011—

Okay, these are generally statements of fact—

… (d) the investigation remains ongoing—

A bit of a statement of the obvious, I would have thought—

despite an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor, Craig Rawson, being provided with a letter containing 'proposed findings' in December 2010—

That is a fairly big point—

… (e) the investigation into the Health Services Union and the Member for Dobell has taken more than three years and is yet to be completed.

That is a statement of fact, so what are we debating here this afternoon? Are we having a debate or is this a misuse of parliamentary procedure to launch an attack on an individual who I would have thought all members in this place would agree is entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice?

I would have hoped that every member of this place accepts those principles as the golden thread which holds our legal system in this country together. If no-one on that side agrees, certainly some of their senior colleagues agree. For example, former Prime Minister John Howard in this place in 2007 with respect to an earlier investigation 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.

That was a very sensible contribution by the former Prime Minister, the former member for Bennelong.

All the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his motion were dealt with very considerably and in great detail in Senate estimates just in the last sitting week. I do concede that the Leader of the Opposition lodged his motion prior to those Senate estimates processes. That is understandable. He was not to be aware that they were forthcoming. But he might have considered, given what was said in Senate estimates a fortnight ago, withdrawing the motion. That would have been the sensible thing to do.

On that, I refer the House to just one of the statements made by Bernadette O'Neill during estimates. She is the general manager of Fair Work Australia. She said:

I am aware of the allegations that there has been some political interference in the investigations and take them very seriously. I have absolutely no reason to conclude that there has been any such interference in the investigations.

We have a senior official, an independent arbiter, before Senate estimates providing us with that statement. She is a respected official. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition, seeking to make political capital, comes in here and directly challenges what she has had to say. I say to the House that that is inappropriate. I am a person who knows a little bit about trial by media. I will not say much more about that. I will let Justice Lucy McCallum of the New South Wales Supreme Court speak for herself. She said, 'People should never assume, surprisingly, that everything they read in the paper is correct.'

Most of what the Leader of the Opposition raised today was taken straight out of the countries' news sheets. He made no attempt to make any reference to what was a fairly full conversation in Senate estimates just over a week ago. Rather, he relied almost entirely on allegations and accusations, as he himself described them, rather than sticking to the facts. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition and to every member in this place to be very careful because if Mr Thomson is cleared in these inquiries—and that is obviously a possibility—he will not have been the first person to fall victim to rumour and innuendo and various media reports. The person who next becomes a victim of that might be someone sitting on the other side. Who knows? It could even be the Leader of the Opposition himself. So the Leader of the Opposition has to be careful not to get too carried away. I know he is a little bit excited because from time to time since the last election he has had visions of himself sitting in the Prime Minister's chair during question time. But I have some news for him: the sort of tactics that he has embraced and adopted today here in the House are not conducive to his aspirations and will not help him get there. For the sake of our democracy and procedural fairness, he should take a new course.

Debate adjourned.