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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the revelation in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Electoral Trades Union, an organisation regulated by the Fair Work Act, has purchased a million-dollar mansion in Oyster Bay, complete with five bedrooms and a butler's pantry, for one of its officials. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate that union members funds be used to purchase homes for union officials?

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

The question is out of order, as it has no relevance to the Prime Minister's role.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest of respect: the Electrical Trades Union is a union regulated by the Fair Work Act; the Fair Work Act is an act of this parliament; the Prime Minister is responsible for all legislation passed by this parliament; and therefore it is entirely—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.

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

Further to the point of order: speakers have routinely and for many decades ruled that questions asked about matters raised in the press—whether in the print media or other media—are fair game for questions in this House, especially if it is a question where the Fair Work Act regulates the particular organisation. So on two points—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Manager of Opposition Business will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Manager of Opposition Business continues to ignore my calls. I had asked him to resume his seat.

The member for Sturt then left the chamber.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addition to that point of order: by that line of reasoning, every question about every corporation which is regulated by legislation also governed by this House and by the Commonwealth and every question about a house owned by every CEO of every corporation could be asked of the Prime Minister, which is clearly not appropriate.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the practice states that ministers are to be informed about matters that are in the press each day and that question time is for having information elicited. They are expected to be on top of issues in the press, and accordingly the question should be answered.

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

If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to rephrase the question in the context of an act that may have authority in the parliament, as opposed to seeking just in respect of press issues, there may be some relevance to the Prime Minister or the relevant minister. But the phraseology of the question did not provide that.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Fair Work Act, which regulates organisations—including the Electrical Trades Union. Does the Prime Minister believe that the act sufficiently covers a circumstance where the union has purchased a million-dollar mansion in Oyster Bay, complete with five bedrooms and a butler's pantry, for one of its officials? Does the Prime Minister believe that the act adequately covers that kind of purchase?

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

When the government was elected, we were elected on a platform to get rid of Work Choices and introduce Fair Work—and we did. When we introduced Fair Work, we of course swept Work Choices away, but, in respect of the provisions for registered organisations—that is, the legal architecture for both the trade unions and employer organisations—we did not change those provisions. We re-enacted them—they obviously needed updating because we created Fair Work Australia, so the terminology changed—but the provisions regulating registered organisations were kept as they were under the Howard government. I make that point as No. 1.

As No. 2, I would make the following points. The misuse of union members' money is of course wrong. The misuse of employer organisations of the stipend paid by employers to their organisations is wrong. Anyone who has an allegation of misuse, whether it is in a trade union or in an employer organisation, should report that expected misuse to the appropriate regulator and then it should be fully and appropriately investigated and dealt with. I would take exactly the same attitude to this as I take to fraud and poor conduct in corporations and to dishonesty generally. Anybody who has an allegation of dishonest conduct should take it to the appropriate authority to be dealt with.