Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Prime Minister:

(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';

(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and

(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;

(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:

(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and

(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and

(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.

Leave not granted.

I move that:

So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable the leader of opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Prime Minister:

(a) committed to the Australian people that he would lead a Government that is 'transparent and open' and would 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures';

(b) is accountable to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament; and

(c) has been asked on numerous occasions to explain to the House what he knew about Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings and when he knew it;

(2) requires the Prime Minister, for 15 minutes, to immediately explain to the House:

(a) all the information in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office in relation to Senator Sinodinos' involvement in Australian Water Holdings; and

(b) what changed between the Prime Minister appointing Senator Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer in September, expressing full confidence in Senator Sinodinos on Tuesday and allowing Senator Sinodinos to stand aside on Wednesday; and

(3) allow the Leader of the Opposition, for 15 minutes in the House, to immediately reply to the Prime Minister.

We know two things. We know—and this is an important point to establish—that Arthur Sinodinos is entitled to the presumption of innocence. We understand there is a process underway, and the process should not target unfairly someone's innocence or pre-presume the outcome. Labor supports that principle. I might add personally that my dealings with Arthur Sinodinos have always been professional, pleasant, civil and decent. But there is a second principle which people want to know.

The people of Australia are entitled to know what has gone on here. It is not enough for the Prime Minister not to tell us what he has done. It is not good enough for him not to tell the Australian people what he knows, when they say, 'We asked the Prime Minister on 20 occasions what he knows.' It is not enough for a Prime Minister of Australia to brush off the Australian people with a reference to private conversations about ministers in government not being worthy of being answered in question time. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister of Australia to talk about the standing aside of a minister and provide to not only the opposition but the people of Australia only the information that it is a private conversation and that he does not need to explain his actions to anyone.

What the Prime Minister has actually answered in no fewer than 26 or 27 questions over the last two days is that the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, does not want the Australian people to know what the Prime Minister knows and to know when the Prime Minister learnt of certain key information. We have heard unanswered questions in this parliament today. That is why we should suspend standing orders. We asked the Prime Minister today: was he aware of the remarkably large $1 million amount, which would raise eyebrows in every lounge room in Australia—an informal $1 million success fee—and what did he know about it? We asked the Prime Minister today: what was the role, and what did he know about the role, of Senator Sinodinos in arranging a letter from Premier Barry O'Farrell to help secure a large contract? He said that he knows and that he will not tell us when he knew it or what he knows. We asked today: what is the knowledge that the Prime Minister has about one of his ministers being involved with facilitating a $20 million windfall fee? These are not ordinary amounts of money. These are not ordinary goings on. Most Australians would understand that if someone says, 'If you can arrange a contract, you will get $20 million,' it is not business as usual. What we want to know and I think what the Australian people want to know—and the one thing we know that the Prime Minister is not telling us, in fact—is his awareness or state of mind on these matters.

We have asked questions about what Senator Sinodinos has done. The Prime Minister said that the reason he has stood aside is not that he has done anything wrong—the Prime Minister is entitled to say that. But what the Prime Minister is saying is that the ministerial conduct standards of this Abbott government are that if a minister becomes a sideshow or a distraction they must move sideways—whatever moving sideways means, which is a point I will come to. That is why we must suspend standing orders—to deal with this issue. The Abbott government's ministerial standard for accountability is that if you become a sideshow—this must be worrying, Mr Joyce—or a distraction, this is the standard that the government will apply to their ministers. The standard the Prime Minister will not apply to himself is his willingness to be transparent with the Australian people.

It is a fairly made question, I believe: what has changed? ICAC said they were going to investigate Australian Water Holdings in December 2012. Senator Sinodinos appropriately made a statement in February 2013. Then the Prime Minister, upon appointing Senator Sinodinos to the outer ministry, said that there was no cloud and that he wanted to scotch the rumours of a cloud. Yet well informed sources in the Liberal Party tell us the reason the remarkably well-credentialled Senator Sinodinos was not appointed to the cabinet—which I think most people thought was a likelihood—was that there was a cloud.

I actually admire the Prime Minister's commitment to Senator Sinodinos—I admire that on a personal level. What I do not admire is his unwillingness to be transparent about what he knew. There may not have been a cloud over Senator Sinodinos, but there are smoke signals coming from the Prime Minister's office that he knew more than he said. It beggars belief. I have heard the almost eulogistic comments from those opposite about Senator Sinodinos—that in fact he is a great fellow. I too have found him reasonable to deal with; I say that. Therefore, why wasn't Senator Sinodinos appointed by the Liberal Party to the cabinet, which is what everyone expected? Of course, there were the rumours—probably not from allies of the Prime Minister within the Liberal Party—that there were concerns raised. But when we have asked the Prime Minister just to come clean—Prime Minister, just come clean and tell us what you know—what he says is: 'I do not have to tell you. That is a matter that will be at ICAC.' But we are not asking about Senator Sinodinos; we are asking about what the Prime Minister knows. That is why we should suspend standing orders.

What happened to the famous due diligence process at the Prime Minister's office? We understand that the chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health slipped through that until the chief of staff became a distraction, not Assistant Minister Nash. But what happened to the due diligence process? I do not think anyone seriously believes—and that is why we should suspend standing orders—that there was a due diligence process. I suspect that there was a chance the people just sort of hoped—there was more hope than due diligence—that this matter would go away. How on earth can a prime minister say that he will not tell us what he knows at any point, when there are clear signposts that these matters have been discussed with the Prime Minister's knowledge and within his orbit of influence? Does the Prime Minister know anything that the public does not already know? This is a fundamental question. The first question is: why is it, and what changed, materially, from September last year to now that has led to a minister standing aside? The second issue is that surely we saw in September last year issues that raised concern and commentary then, but what we do ask now is: does the Prime Minister have any knowledge of any matter with Australian Water Holdings?

This Prime Minister is being shifty. I get that he does not want to tell Qantas workers about their future. I get that he does not want to reveal the Commission of Audit to Western Australian voters before the election—I get that. It is shifty, but I get that. What I do not understand is that there is no way he can simply say it is someone else's issue when it comes to the conduct of his own ministers. I get that he has contracted out the Commission of Audit to the Business Council of Australia, and he says, 'I don't know what they're doing'. I get that he says, 'I have not read a 900-page report'; I get that he does not know anything about manufacturing or fighting for jobs. What I do not get is question after question in this place—legitimate question after question: what did you know, and when did you know it? And what I really find uncomfortable about the Prime Minister's shifty conduct is this: what is it that he knows that the public does not? At the very least, he should come clean and say it. If he knows nothing else besides the public reports, so be it—end of matter; Labor will leave this question alone. But if it emerges that the Prime Minister is aware of more than he has revealed to the Australian parliament, to the Australian people, to the opposition, to the Australian media, then that is a problem for this Prime Minister. It is not the standard he sets for everyone else.

And indeed the final, most frustrating issue in this whole standing aside issue is that we know that the act of parliament governing ministerial conditions does not allow for this sort of half-pregnant proposition that the government has advanced about Senator Sinodinos. His label is still on his office—he has still got his office! Does he get his superannuation? He is going to forgo it—he will probably give it to charity. Fair enough. The Prime Minister needs to come clean with what he knows, when he knew it, and whether he knows anything that he has not told the rest of Australia. (Time expired)

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. It is right that the House suspends standing orders to discuss transparency and accountability under this government. This is a Prime Minister who promised the Australian people that he would restore accountability and improve transparency measures. And we have seen accountability and transparency go AWOL under this Prime Minister today. He is not willing to answer for the conduct of his own ministers, and he is not willing to answer for his own conduct. The Australian people have known that this inquiry was coming; everybody in this parliament has known that this inquiry was coming; the Prime Minister knew that this inquiry was coming. There were media reports in December 2012 that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption has begun to make formal inquiries into Australian Water Holdings. There were media reports in August 2013 that said Australian Water Holdings would be the focus of ICAC public hearings. And what due diligence did the Prime Minister use about that? What inquiries did he make? What did he ask about Senator Sinodinos and his involvement in these matters before appointing him to the high office of Assistant Treasurer? What did the Prime Minister do to protect the integrity of his ministry?

That is a question the opposition is entitled to ask, and it is a question the Australian people are entitled to have answered, and this Prime Minister has failed miserably to do so. We are prepared to give the Prime Minister another chance, another opportunity. He can have 15 minutes of the House to explain what he has done to uphold the integrity of his office and his government. And if he votes against this motion, that means he is unwilling to do so and he is running yet again from that accountability. And we have seen the Prime Minister today, creating a new alibi about the salary and conditions of Senator Sinodinos. We had to drag from him these letters about Senator Sinodinos's entitlements. He told us that it was all crystal clear and clear-cut—that Senator Sinodinos would not receive his ministerial entitlements. Yet we see this letter from Senator Sinodinos that says, 'It is my intention to forgo my ministerial entitlements'—'my intention'. We want to know how that is done under the relevant act of parliament. We want to know whether his superannuation will continue to be paid as a percentage of his entire ministerial salary. We want to know whether he will continue to receive ministerial level travel allowance. We want to know whether he will sit, formally or informally, on the Expenditure Review Committee as this government brings down a budget. These are questions that the Prime Minister should be able to answer. These are questions that the Prime Minister must answer before this House and the Australian people, and if he does not then he has something to hide.

If he was willing to answer these questions, then he should not worry about this motion, he should welcome this motion. He should embrace this motion, and thank the House for the time it is prepared to give him to explain his conduct and the conduct of his government, to explain what measures he has put in place so that the Australian people can have confidence that he is running an administration of appropriate accountability and transparency measures, as he suggested.

We have seen this government ducking and weaving all week. We had the speculation about whether Senator Sinodinos would stand aside or not, about whether the Prime Minister would ask him to. Well, the Prime Minister did ask him to, but he did it through the pages of Australia's newspapers—that is how he treats his ministers. He sends smoke signals to one of his colleagues, sending him the message that it might be a good idea to stand aside. When matters like this arise, as the Leader of Opposition has said, there is one fundamental question that somebody who sits in that chair must answer: what did you know, and when did you know it? It is an old question, but it is a question that has stood the test of time, and it is a question this Prime Minister has failed miserably to answer.

Senator Sinodinos has had great responsibilities. He has been responsible for things like changing Australia's financial advice laws, laws that were introduced after $6 billion was ripped off of 120,000 Australians, laws that were introduced to provide more protection, more accountability, and more transparency. Senator Sinodinos is ripping these laws up, and this Prime Minister is letting it happen. He has got some serious explaining to do about this entire matter, and if he will not do it in question time then he should do it now.

The leader of the House is about to get on his hind feet and talk to the House. The Prime Minister should be doing that. The Prime Minister should be taking this opportunity to explain to the Australian people what he knew, and when he knew it. The Prime Minister should be accountable to the Australian people and he should be taking this opportunity— (Time expired)

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

We on this side of the House do not agree with the motion, and the opposition's attempt to suspend standing orders should not be carried. I will say why in the next 10 minutes. We will not be judged by the party of Craig Thomson, and the party of Michael Williamson, and the party of the AWU slush fund, and the party of Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. We will not be judged by the Labor Party on the issue of standards in government. I have waited all week for the opportunity that I hoped the opposition would give me, to outline why we will never be lectured by the Labor Party about ministerial standards.

I say to the House, how dare the Labor Party come into this chamber and try and wear the clothes of ministerial accountability and standards, after the sewer they presided over for three years in the 43rd Parliament, putting aside the 42nd Parliament. But in the 43rd Parliament—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Charlton!—

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

there was an endless list of atrocities committed against this parliament. Not only did they suborn the former member for Fisher into becoming the Speaker, and replacing a good man in Harry Jenkins, to gain a vote.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton will desist!—

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

But they kept Craig Thomson's vote in their party room until 29 April 2012.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth has already been warned! That is the last time.

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

Labor clung to the vote of the former member for Dobell, the now disgraced Craig Thomson. Now, when did they find out? When did we all find out there was a cloud hanging over the member for Dobell? Well, it certainly was not on 28 April 2012. It certainly was not the day before Labor excluded him from their caucus. In January 2009, even before the 2010 election, Terry Nassios from the Fair Work Commission commenced his inquiry into the HSU's Victorian No. 1 Branch. In January 2009, the Fair Work Commission began its inquiry into the Health Services Union No. 1 Branch, and the stories started appearing in the newspapers about former member for Dobell Craig Thomson.

In fact, we know that in early 2009 Ben Hubbard, the former chief of staff to then Prime Minister Gillard, rang the then Industrial Registrar Doug Williams to inquire into whether they were investigating a Labor MP. So we know that in early 2009 the Prime Minister's office and the Labor Party were aware enough, and concerned enough, that the chief of staff of the Prime Minister contacted—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will take his seat!—

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

the then Industrial Registrar Doug Williams to discover—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will take his seat or leave!—

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

if there was an inquiry into the former member for Dobell going on. It goes on and on. There were so many stories. The New South Wales police launched Strike Force Carnarvon, in September 2011. The Victorian police fraud squad confirmed in October 2011 that they were investigating Craig Thomson. Fair Work Australia published their investigation into the HSU in April 2012, and in March 2012 they released their investigation into the Victorian HSU No. 1 Branch.

For all that time the Labor Party protected former member for Dobell Craig Thomson and kept his vote in their caucus.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth will leave under standing order 94(a)!

The member for Perth then left the chamber.

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

Yet they come in here and try to lecture the coalition about ministerial standards. Craig Thomson is just one example. This is the party of Eddie Obeid. This is the party of Joe Tripodi. This is the Party of Ian Macdonald—and federal ministers were named in the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the Obeid family's financial matters. Two of them appeared as witnesses.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is warned!

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

Greg Combet appeared as a witness to ICAC. Did we demand that he resign from the front bench? No, we did not demand that he resign. Senator Doug Cameron, now sitting on the Labor Party front bench, appeared as a witness at the ICAC investigation into the Obeid family fortune. Did we demand that Doug Cameron be disciplined and be stripped of his responsibilities? No we did not, because there is an enormous difference between appearing as a witness in an investigation and being investigated by the ICAC. The member for Chifley knows that very well; the member for Kingsford Smith knows it very well. For all the confected outrage in the world that Labor are trying to raise this week, they cannot get away from one fact: they are the party of sleaze and smear in New South Wales, in particular, and Sussex Street has got its reputation. We will not be lectured by Labor about standards in this place.

I would also say that the big difference between this side of House and the other side of House is that, when a matter like this occurs, we act. When something was raised, as it was against the former Assistant Treasurer, the former Assistant Treasurer acted. He did the right thing. He stood aside yesterday so that he would not be a distraction from the government's important economic and social agenda. So the Labor Party have spent all week in question time, wasting question time and criticising us for doing the right thing. When Labor were in power, what did they use to do when these things happened? They circled the wagons, they aggressively attacked the opposition and they used all sorts of personal calumnies against members of the opposition, including me and including you, Madam Speaker, when you were in opposition, and including the now Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. That was their response. The response on our side of the House was for a decent man, a man of honour and reputation, Senator Arthur Sinodinos to stand aside until this matter is resolved.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Chifley will either desist or leave.

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

So, in fact, Labor have spent the week criticising the government for doing the right thing, demanding every day that the Prime Minister respond to question after question—repetitive questions—because they want to criticise us for doing the right thing. If, on the other hand, we had behaved like Labor behaved in government then maybe they would have had a feather to fly with—a leg to stand on. But, no, this is all just the confected outrage of an opposition without a strategy and without a narrative that lives tactically from day to day and that is being marked down by the public because of this exact strategy. That is why the Griffith by-election was the best result for a government since 1984.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How about South Australia? How did South Australia go?

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

In South Australia, we got 53 per cent of the vote for the coalition.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Charlton will leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Charlton then left the chamber.

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

In Tasmania, we swept aside 16 years of Labor-Greens government, because the public knows that this side of House is operating in an adult, calm and methodical way, introducing the policies that we promised to take to the election and introducing the governmental changes that we know will create jobs, build growth and restore the reputation of Australia internationally and domestically. We are getting on with the job. What Labor are doing is spending a week wasting their questions, wasting question time and building to their suspension of standing orders on Thursday afternoon. I say to the new members of the Labor Party, particularly: you should speak to the strategy team about their strategy, because you are not winning it. You spent all week criticising the government for doing the right thing, and this was a complete waste of a question time.

There are so many precedents for the action of Senator Sinodinos. Mick Young in 1984—

An opposition member: Thanks for your help!

Someone needs to help you. Mick Young, your predecessor, in 1984 stood down from the Hawke ministry; he was reinstated about a month or so later. Phillip Lynch stood down as the Treasurer in the Fraser government; he was reinstated to the ministry a little while later. Ian Sinclair stood down from the Fraser government; he was reinstated to the ministry after he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Even the member for Lilley, when he was a shadow minister, stood down from the role that he held in family and community services under the former Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, until he was cleared of any wrongdoing in any matters and returned to the front bench. These are the precedents—Mick Young, Phillip Lynch, Ian Sinclair and Wayne Swan. These are the precedents. The action that was taken by Senator Arthur Sinodinos yesterday by standing aside from his position—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister for Health has used words against the member for Lilley which are offensive, and I request that you ask him to withdraw them unreservedly.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is something that needs withdrawing, it would assist the House for the Minister for Health to do so.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (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.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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