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:

That in the view of the grave findings made against him by Fair Work Australia, the Honourable Member for Dobell be suspended from the service of the House for 14 sitting days, and that after that the Honourable Member make a statement for the consideration of the House in response to the findings made against him so that the House can consider whether a further period of suspension is warranted.

Leave not granted.

By leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving the following motion immediately—

That in the view of the grave findings made against him by Fair Work Australia, the Honourable Member for Dobell be suspended from the service of the House for 14 sitting days, and that after that the Honourable Member make a statement for the consideration of the House in response to the findings made against him so that the House can consider whether a further period of suspension is warranted.

This is the most serious motion that the parliament can consider. I do not move it lightly and it is not without precedent. In fact, the precedents for this are threefold in this parliament. In 1913 a member of the House Mr McGrath was suspended for a period of time from the service of the House because of reflections he made on the Speaker. In 1987 the former member for O'Connor was suspended for seven sitting days following remarks he made that were critical of the Speaker outside the parliament. Ken Aldred, a member of this House for a number of seats, in 1989 was suspended for two sitting days for statements he made that he refused to retract.

We do move this motion in this parliament because the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell are very serious ones, the most serious that can be made: that he engaged in corruption and that he misused union funds to the tune of almost half a million dollars. The Fair Work inquiry into the Health Services Union has made very serious findings against the member for Dobell. It found, amongst other things, that he used the union funds of his members to the tune of $6,000 on escort services. It found that he used $196,421 on staff of the Health Services Union for his campaign in Dobell, and that he used $71,300 of HSU funds directly in his campaign in Dobell.

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

This is a suspension motion. The Manager of Opposition Business must speak to the suspension and is not able to do what he is currently engaged in unless the suspension motion is carried.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will refer to the motion of suspension of standing orders before the chair.

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

I will. I am very mindful of the seriousness and importance of this particular motion. The reason standing orders should be suspended is because the gravest matters are before the House, matters of the integrity of the parliament, matters of our reputations as members of parliament, as well as the entire confidence of the Australian people in this House, in this federal democracy. For too long this matter has been allowed to sap the confidence of the Australian people in their parliament. It has taken the opposition to move this motion today to highlight the fact that we believe it is time for the members of parliament in this place to take control of our own destiny, to recover and repair our reputations. Because I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, out in the public they view the 43rd Parliament with sheer horror and revulsion. The allegations that have been made against the member for Dobell—allegations so serious that he has been suspended from the Labor caucus and now sits on the crossbenches—are so serious that I believe this motion is worthy of consideration and that is why standing orders must be suspended.

Fair Work Australia also found that the member for Dobell took $103,000 in cash withdrawals from the membership of the Health Services Union—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will not test my patience by going over this ground!

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

Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite apart from the gross expenditure of the 77,000 Health Services Union members' money on personal items, the member for Dobell has to answer serious questions about whether the expenditure on his election campaign in Dobell to the tune of $267,000 was in breach of the Electoral Act. That is why standing orders need to be suspended so the House can properly consider whether a case has been created for a 14-day suspension of the member for Dobell. The parliament has to protect itself. We have to protect our reputations and our integrity, because the government has allowed this matter, this open sore, to fester for too long.

The Prime Minister has defended the member for Dobell in this House over and over again. On eight occasions she has expressed her confidence in the member for Dobell. In fact, she went so far as to say on one occasion, 'I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.' That is why standing orders need to be suspended, so we can test the Prime Minister's confidence in the member for Dobell in this place, so we can discuss and debate whether the member for Dobell has so breached what we regard as acceptable behaviour that therefore he warrants a suspension.

Ten days ago the Prime Minister felt so strongly on this matter that she ejected him from the caucus—she accepted his suspension from the caucus. She still accepts his vote in the parliament. Of course, standing orders should be suspended because if the original motion is carried his vote will not be accepted in this parliament for the next 14 sitting days. If the member for Dobell is not good enough for the caucus then how could he be good enough for the Prime Minister to rely on his vote in this parliament? This whole sorry affair has damaged the parliament and its reputation. It has damaged the standing of the parliament in the eyes of the Australian people. It is time for the Australian parliament to protect its reputation.

In my previous speech I referred to the comments of the former Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans; journalists in the press gallery of very high standing like Michelle Grattan, who nobody could accuse of being involved in partisan politics; and even a former member of the Labor Party. They have all bemoaned the state that the Labor Party finds itself in. For three years in this House the opposition has tried to hold the member for Dobell to account. We have asked on many occasions for him to make a statement in this parliament. This motion gives him the opportunity, right now, to make a statement to the parliament. It gives him the opportunity to do what he promised he would do some time ago, which was to make a statement to the parliament. This motion allows him the opportunity to do that, because he can now follow the seconder to this motion and speak against it should he choose to do so. Or will a member of the Labor Party seek to defend the member for Dobell, and what arguments will they put as to why the member for Dobell should not be suspended from his duties in the House for 14 days?

It is time for the parliament to restore the confidence that the Australian people want to have in their elected members. But, most importantly, let us remember who the crime has been committed against in the allegations that have been made against the member for Dobell, and that is the 77,000 members of the Health Services Union who have seen half a million of their membership dues spent on personal items—the escort services, the campaigning in Dobell, fine dining, overseas travel—that Fair Work Australia has found were actions taken by the member for Dobell when he was the national secretary of the Health Services Union. While it took Fair Work Australia three years to reach the conclusions that they published yesterday, the conclusions were utterly damning and so serious that they will now take action in the Federal Court to defend the interests of the 77,000 members of the HSU.

It is passing strange—perhaps it is not these days—that it is the opposition, it is the coalition, standing up for members of the union movement around Australia. Menzies used to refer to them as part of the forgotten people when he founded our great party. So many unionists sit on the other side of the House and yet not one of them has stood up and defended the interests of the members of the Health Services Union; in fact, they have traduced the reputation of Kathy Jackson, who was one of the few who had the courage to stand up.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt has completely gone off track!

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

The reason standing orders should be suspended is so the House can debate whether the actions of the member for Dobell warrant him being suspended from the House for 14 days. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I second this motion. Standing and sessional orders must be suspended because the scandal that has engulfed the member for Dobell is a stain on the Prime Minister, on the government and on the parliament. That stain will remain while ever the member for Dobell remains in the parliament voting in support of this sordid government.

After three years of investigation into that e activities of the member for Dobell, after the Prime Minister expressed her total confidence in the member for Dobell, belatedly there was the spectacle of the member for Dobell being suspended from the Labor Party. The Prime Minister claimed in her press conference at the time that it was her decision to stand him down and that she had acted decisively. Well, as we now know, that was contradicted by the member for Dobell who claimed that it was his idea and that he initiated the call. Standing orders must be suspended to debate this motion, as the member for Dobell has since reportedly said that he offered to be suspended from the Labor Party at least six months ago but this Prime Minister rejected his offers. It is clear that both the member for Dobell and the Prime Minister knew the extent and the seriousness of the allegations against the member for Dobell well before the Fair Work Australia report was released yesterday. The reason for last year's charade is that the Prime Minister has known for at least three years of the seriousness of these allegations. That is why standing orders must be suspended. We must debate why the Prime Minister did not act earlier to suspend the member and why she continues to accept his vote.

In fact, there was a report in the Sydney Morning Herald by one Mark Davis on 10 April 2009 which set out in detail the allegations against the member for Dobell, which have now been confirmed three years later by the Fair Work Australia report released last night. Mark Davis said at the time:

Backed by the Health Services Union, the now member for Dobell started his own cash splash in the Central Coast electorate of Dobell just after he moved into the area at the end of 2005.

Standing orders need to be suspended so that a procedure can be put in place for the member for Dobell to answer these allegations. He has offered to make a statement in the past. We are giving him that opportunity. Mark Davis went on:

The funds continued to flow all the way to election night in November 2007 when Mr Thomson and his supporters celebrated his 6430-vote thumping of the Liberal Ken Ticehurst.

Union money was pumped into Dobell to buy the recently arrived HSU national secretary a profile and to curry favour both with ALP preselectors and the wider community.

That is why standing orders must be suspended, so the member for Dobell can make a statement to explain how it is that Mark Davis could write in the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2009:

HSU national office funds were used to:

It was in fact $267,000 of HSU members' money that was used by the Labor Party to buy votes in the Dobell electorate in 2007. Mark Davis was able to go on and say in 2009:

The latest details of the HSU spending spree follow claims Mr Thomson's union credit card was used to make payments to Sydney escort services and to withdraw more than $100,000 in cash over a five-year period.

Standing orders must be suspended so that the Prime Minister, who has left the chamber, can come back and answer these allegations and debate the motion as to why the member for Dobell should not be suspended from this House and explain why she should continue to accept his vote.

The investigation report by Fair Work Australia does contain far more details and raises many more allegations. The Prime Minister must have been aware of the serious nature of these allegations so why did she not act sooner? Why did she not suspend the member for Dobell from the caucus? Why is she still accepting his vote? Well, if you believe the member for Dobell, she has not acted at all in relation to these allegations. The answer lies in the judgment and instincts of the Prime Minister. She fails to understand the seriousness of the allegations that hundreds of thousands of dollars in union fees collected from people around the country have been used for the personal gain of the member for Dobell. The motion should be supported. (Time expired)

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

'He's a backbench member of parliament and I think he's entitled to stay in the parliament until these bodies have come to their conclusions.' Those are not my words but the words of the Leader of the Opposition. They are the words of the Leader of the Opposition about the member for Bowman and his colleague the member for Bonner when they were before the police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. That is what the then Leader of the House had to say at that time.

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

If I were the member for Indi I would just keep quiet. We have not gone after you but, if you want to go down this road, we can.

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Indi is warned!

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

He also said this:

The matter is really now before the police … and perhaps a Criminal and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. And let's let those authorities make their investigations and come to any conclusion.

That is what the now Leader of the Opposition had to stay. And I am not surprised that he would have some respect for judicial processes. Has been in the dock—I have not—at North Sydney court. He respected those judicial processes and they were gone through. Indeed, while the Leader of the Opposition was in parliament there were two court appearances for the Leader of the Opposition. One offence was proven but no conviction was recorded. I have never been in the dock and I have never been charged by the police with anything.

In terms of proper processes, this is one of the most dangerous resolutions that could possibly come before this parliament. Every three years we put ourselves before the people in our electorates to face their judgment about whether we should represent them or not. What this motion attempts to do is suspend standing orders so that we can suspend a member from parliament for 14 days. Think about the implications if this is carried.

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—

The interjection is 'the parliament would be better'. Well, were there circumstances where there was majority government and whatever allegations were made against a member of either side—but particularly against a member of the opposition—if this resolution is carried, a future government could come in here at any time and just decide it is the jury and suspend members on the basis of a majority vote of this parliament. That is an extraordinary proposition. There are allegations against the member for Dobell. If they are true, he deserves to face the full force of the law, but he is also entitled to the presumption of innocence and entitled to defend himself through proper processes. That is the system of government we have.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member for Bradfield!

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

People stand in front of tanks to get that system of government. It is called democracy. It is called a separation of the state from the judicial system. It is called a separation of politics and number crunching from proper judicial processes. I make no judgment. It is up to someone else to make judgment and it is not for this parliament. This is an extraordinary proposition that has been put forward.

There is hypocrisy from those opposite who relied upon the votes of the member for Bowman and the member for Bonner for the passage of 12 health bills while the Leader of the Opposition was health minister and the Manager of Opposition Business was ageing minister. They voted in 14 legislative divisions and 19 non-legislative divisions while they were being investigated for entitlement misuse in 2007. The Howard government did not disown the votes of Mr Laming and Mr Vasta. They continued to vote and participate in the parliament. I tell you what, we did not ask them not to vote either. We did not ask them not to vote because we understood that this opportunism is very dangerous indeed in what it means for the functioning of our democracy, for the functioning of our judicial system and for proper processes.

The opposition did not require Senator Mary Jo Fisher to stand aside or refuse to accept her vote while she was under a cloud of criminality. The Leader of the Opposition accepted Senator Fisher's vote 95 times including on the clean energy bills. And she was found guilty. According to the coalition that, of course, is very different. Well, there is one difference: Senator Fisher was charged, whereas the member for Dobell has not been charged with anything, let alone findings found. So let processes take their course, but let's not go down the road—

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Bradfield will remove himself from the chamber under 94(a); he has been warned previously.

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

Let's not go down the road of setting up this chamber as a replacement for judicial processes. We should also not support this suspension of standing orders because, on the day of the budget, we should be debating the economy. The member for Fraser's MPI—

Mr Abbott interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Let question time go on.' This is the bloke who authorised not one but two suspensions of question time on the same day. It is a new record for the Leader of the Opposition. The MPI is for:

The urgent need to return the budget to surplus, to invest in boosting productivity, and to provide open and transparent costings to the Australian people.

There you have a fundamental issue which should be debated before this parliament on the day in which the budget comes down. Yet those opposite say: 'No, we shouldn't do that. We should debate us becoming judge and jury and replacing proper processes, like a star chamber.' These are circumstances where there is not a shred of credibility because there is not a shred of consistency.

We have the member for Bowman and the member for Bonner, and we have Senator Fisher. We have statements from the Leader of the Opposition, and we do not have to go back very far for them. On 22 April 2012 the Leader of the Opposition said:

Well, as I said, she was a backbench Member of Parliament. My recollection is that she did not take part in the committees of the Parliament, she didn’t attend the Parliament while these matters were being dealt with and I’m saying that the Speaker should stand aside from the chair while these matters are being dealt with.

That quote shows two things. One is that he did not check any of his facts, because the facts do not matter—like in the ridiculous economic question he tried to ask earlier. The facts do not matter and there is no research done. Ninety-five times Senator Fisher voted while her charges were being dealt with, including on the clean energy legislation on 8 November 2011. It shows hypocrisy, again, with the previous motion because he said on that day:

… the Speaker should stand aside from the chair while these matters are being dealt with.

Well, the Speaker did that, and they still came in here and moved the motion, showing what cheapjack opportunism this is.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will return to the motion before the chair.

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

This is a pathetic stunt, but it is worse than that. This is a very dangerous proposition that has been moved before this House by those opposite.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells beingrung—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would ask you if it is within standing orders for the member for Dobell to vote on a motion in his own case?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that the member for Dobell has the right to vote and that nothing would exclude a member from voting, but that is without reference to the House of RepresentativesPractice and so I will check that and come back. But I cannot see in any circumstances where a member cannot vote in a suspension. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The member for Sturt may wish to refer to the House of Representatives Practice, page 271, and I stand by my original decision that the member has an entitlement to vote.