Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

There will be quiet on my left!

Opposition members interjecting—

There will be quiet on my left so we can hear the honourable member for Deakin, who has the call.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks again, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Acting Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain to the House why it is imperative that the government's measures to ensure transparency and accountability in the union movement are supported? What stands in the way of those reforms being adopted?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I think it is sweet how people's choice comes in at this particular point to distract the Leader of the Opposition and give him a chance to pretend he is not interested in the question and the answer! Of course, it is absolutely imperative that the government's measures around transparency and accountability in the union movement are carried in the Senate—namely, the Registered Organisations Commission—

Mr Champion interjecting—

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

The member for Wakefield is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the re-creation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—

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

In fact, you have already been warned. One more utterance and you leave.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because of the revelations we are seeing in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption that go directly to the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition. The hurdle standing in the path of passing those reforms is, ironically—or perhaps it is sinister, Madam Speaker—the Leader of the Opposition himself and the Labor Party. There are some very important questions that he needs to answer. He needs to answer: what did Winslow constructions receive in consideration of the $38,000—

Mr Danby interjecting—

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

The member for Melbourne Ports is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of payments to the AWU that were made when he was the Victorian state secretary?

Mr Danby interjecting—

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

The member for Melbourne Ports will leave under 94(a).

The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why, if the $225,000 payment by Winslow construction to the AWU was legitimate—a different payment—was it concealed as safety training? Why was it concealed as safety training? If it was a legitimate payment, why was it covered up by the AWU when the Leader of the Opposition was the Victorian state secretary? What did the Leader of the Opposition have to gain by trading away the penalty rates of Cleanevent workers?

Mr Burke interjecting—

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

The member will resume his seat. I refer you to page 189. The minister has the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What did the Leader of the Opposition hope to gain by trading away the penalty rates of Cleanevent cleaners in 2004, during that EBA? Was the $2,000 for the Leader of the Opposition's campaign—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a). The minister will resume his seat. If this is, as I anticipate, simply wishing to interrupt what is a valid and relevant answer then you are warned. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 524 of Practice, which refers to references to royal commissions within the parliament. Earlier on in the answer, I did not take issue when the reference from the Leader of the House was specifically to legislation, but I quote from page 524:

It is necessary for the Chair to consider the nature of the inquiry. Where the proceedings are concerned with issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of the actions of specific persons the House should be restrained in its references.

The Leader of the House, midway through the answer, has transgressed from where he started and is in violation of that principle in Practice.

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

I would refer you to the rulings of subsequent—or, rather, previous—Speakers of the House who have ruled that the sub judice rule is not applicable to royal commissions. The minister has the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am referring to things that have been reported in the newspapers that have not been findings of fact by the royal commission. I am asking questions that the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer. The last one was: was the $2,000 that his campaign received from the Industry 2020 slush fund the only benefit that the Leader of the Opposition received from Cesar Melhem's activities? Today, in the Fairfax press, we see 'Shorten's $1m union bonanza'. Why did Thiess John Holland regard the payment of $300,000 to the AWU as 'an acknowledgement of the flexibility of the AWU deal'? What does 'acknowledgement of the flexibility of the AWU deal' mean? These are matters that are within the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is why he needs to answer those questions. He cannot wait till August. The member for Port Adelaide answered those questions on Wednesday. Why can't the Leader of the Opposition answer them today?