Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Isaacs proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The importance of integrity in Government.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party came into government in 2013 promising that theirs would be a trustworthy government, a government of integrity. What a hollow promise that was. This government has trashed that promise, just as it trashed all the others it made before taking office. No—whatever they promised, this is a manifestly untrustworthy government. This is a government with no integrity.

The new Prime Minister likes to talk. He likes to talk about how exciting everything is, now that he is in charge. He likes to talk about the future. The Prime Minister wants to talk about anything but the grubbiness of the recent past—the grubbiness of the Abbott opposition and the grubbiness of the Abbott government. But, make no mistake, this government still stinks of the most tawdry episodes of the Abbott era in Australian politics. Key figures from that era now occupy central positions in the Turnbull government. The Prime Minister does not have a clean slate. In fact, he has elevated to his inner circle people who even the former Prime Minister repudiated.

Today's matter of public importance is government integrity. On 21 September, the Prime Minister appointed the member for Fisher—the architect of one of the grubbiest episodes of the Abbott government era—Special Minister of State, the minister responsible for integrity in government

That was an incredible appointment and, as we now see, an incredible failure of judgement by the Prime Minister. Perhaps he felt indebted to the member for Fisher, who was a key member of the group who orchestrated the Prime Minister's ambush of the member for Warringah on 14 September. The member for Fisher never misses the chance for a good plot, and he was right in the thick of that one, too. Having stewed on the back bench under the member for Warringah, he was richly rewarded by the new Prime Minister for the part he played in the member for Warringah's downfall. Well, the chickens have now come home to roost.

On 17 November, the Australian Federal Police raided the home of the member for Fisher in the execution of a search warrant. The member for Fisher described this, quaintly, as a 'visit' to his home by the police. But this was no social call. The Australian published the part of the search warrant which sets out the proposed criminal charges being considered against the member for Fisher. These are serious matters indeed. I will read from that document, in which it is alleged:

Between 23 March and 13 April 2012, Malcolm Thomas Brough, born 29 December 1961, counselled and procured James Hunter Ashby, being a Commonwealth officer, to disclose extracts from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Slipper's 2009 to 2012 official diary, and provide those extracts to third parties without authority, contrary to section 70(1) of the Crimes Act …

It alleges further:

Between 23 March and 13 April 2012, Malcolm Thomas Brough, born 29 December 1961, counselled and procured James Hunter Ashby … to access restricted data, namely the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Slipper's 2009 to 2012 official diary, contrary to section 478.1 of the Criminal Code.

These are serious offences at any time but all the more so when they are alleged to have been committed by a man who must be held to the highest standards. Let us recall the context of this conduct. This was part of a conspiracy between the member for Fisher and two employees of the former Speaker of this House which involved taking parts of the Speaker's diary. The aim of the member for Fisher was to destroy the Speaker and to take his seat. It appears that he would stoop to any means to achieve that aim. It did not matter how low, how improper and how inappropriate the means were. This former cabinet minister was ready to go to these lengths. The member for Fisher, more than most Australians, should have respected the office of the Speaker, should have respected this parliament and must have understood just how grubby his conduct was. The member for Fisher has never explained his involvement with James Ashby and the other employee of the Speaker, because it simply stinks.

This is the man that the Prime Minister considers fit not only to serve as a minister of the Commonwealth but to preside over standards of integrity in government.    Australians are meant to accept that a man who is, by his own admission, under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for criminal wrongdoing is fit to set standards for propriety in public office. In the Turnbull government, a man whose home has been raided by the Federal Police and against whom the Federal Police are considering laying very serious criminal charges is meant to be the arbiter of integrity.

This is not just about the member for Fisher, a man who would—we can now see—do anything to advance his own interests and to realise his ambitions to return to the parliament. No, this is about the judgement of the man who has fulfilled those ambitions: the new Prime Minister. This is about the judgement of a Prime Minister who appointed, as his minister responsible for government integrity, a discredited figure over whom loom allegations of serious misconduct. It is about the judgement of a Prime Minister who stands by the member for Fisher, even after the Australian Federal Police have raided his home and even as they are considering serious charges against him. Surely, the Prime Minister was aware of the member for Fisher's involvement in the Abbott opposition's desperate plotting to bring down the Labor government by even the most underhanded of means. Surely, the Prime Minister had seen the member for Fisher's appearance on 60 Minutes in September 2014, when the member for Fisher admitted to asking James Ashby to take parts of the former Speaker's diary. Surely, the Prime Minister knew that this behaviour, freely admitted by the member for Fisher, could be criminal conduct under Commonwealth law. Surely, he knew that Labor had referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police.

Did the member for Fisher offer the Prime Minister a full disclosure of these matters before his appointment as a minister? Did the Prime Minister ask for such a disclosure, or is that the approach that this Prime Minister takes to the standards of conduct that he expects of the people he appoints as ministers? He probably did not even ask. Did he know that the member for Fisher was under investigation by the Federal Police? Did he even care? The Prime Minister has had the chance in question time this week to clear up all of this. The Prime Minister has had the chance to provide the explanation for his own conduct and the conduct of the member for Fisher—an explanation the Australian people deserve. The Australian people deserve a full explanation from the member for Fisher as to just what his involvement was in the bringing down of the former Speaker. They deserve an explanation of just how he conspired—as a Federal Court judge put it—with members of the staff of the Speaker. These were people who were trusted by the Speaker of this House to serve his interests, not the base political interests of the then would-be member for Fisher. We deserve an explanation. This House deserves an explanation. The Australian people deserve an explanation. In particular, the Prime Minister needs to explain why he thought it fit to appoint the member for Fisher as the Special Minister of State.

I asked the Prime Minister whether he still had confidence in the minister, but this Prime Minister, who normally relishes the chance to lecture Australians from the dispatch box, did not have much to say at all on this occasion. He does not have anything to say about the extraordinary circumstance of a senior government minister's home being raided by the Australian Federal Police. I ask members to think back: when can they last remember an occasion like this where the home of a minister in the Australian government was raided by the Australian Federal Police in the execution of a search warrant?

The Prime Minister has nothing to say about the member for Fisher's behaviour, only that he apparently retains confidence in him. He does not have anything to say about the standards of behaviour that he expects from his ministers, only that he considers the member for Fisher is fit to serve as the minister responsible for government integrity. Just keep this in mind: this is not any minister. This is the Special Minister of State, who is responsible for a whole range of matters to do with integrity of government, including the Australian Electoral Commission and including the entitlement system for the members of this parliament—a whole range of matters that require him to use and apply the highest standards of integrity.

Australians expect their government to be trustworthy, to be accountable, to display integrity. While the Prime Minister continues to run interference for the member for Fisher, while he continues to refuse to explain why he still has confidence in the member for Fisher, he is failing Australians on every one of these counts. (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a courageous Labor Party who puts up an MPI on integrity in government, because this is the party of Eddie Obeid, of Michael Williamson, of Craig Thomson, of Cesar Melhem of brown paper bags. And they want to talk about integrity!

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth will cease interjecting.

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The member for Lingiari will not interject.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will talk about integrity in government all day long. We are very happy to compare our record in relation to integrity with the Labor Party's record in relation to integrity. I can tell you one thing, Mr Speaker, as a member of parliament, the first thing to have integrity about is to actually live in the electorate which you represent. I point out that the member for Isaacs lives in the beautiful suburb called Malvern, which is not even one electorate away but two electorates away from the suburbs which he pretends to represent in Carrum and Patterson Lakes and the like. All I can say is that at least he is very well represented by the member for Higgins in the seat in which he resides.

There are actually three components in relation to integrity in government. First of all, there is the integrity of the individuals on your team; secondly, there is the integrity of your party—that is so important if you want to have a government with integrity; and, thirdly, there is the integrity of your decisions. I would like to go through each of those three elements. I would put to you, Mr Speaker, and put to the parliament that our record stacks up very finely against the record of the Labor Party in relation to those three things: the integrity of our individuals versus theirs, the integrity of our party versus theirs; and the integrity of our decisions versus theirs.

Let me start with the individuals, particularly on the Labor side. I have mentioned Eddie Obeid. He is a well-known figure and he is well known to the member for Watson, who has frequented his beautiful ski chalet. He was the kingmaker in New South Wales. He pulled all the strings, but he was found to be corrupt by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and is facing very serious charges. I mentioned Craig Thomson, a man who only recently sat in this parliament and was defended day in, day out by every single one of those Labor members of parliament. He was using union funds for services which I will not even mention in this parliament. A magistrate found him guilty—this is the Labor member for Dobell—of 65 charges of theft and fraud. I could mention Michael Williamson. He was the President of the Labor Party. He was found to be corrupt and sentenced to five years jail. These are three individuals just in the last couple of years—very senior members of the Labor Party, senior parliamentarians and very senior kingmakers within the Labor Party.

If you want to then go to maybe a head-to-head contest with our leaders and you want to line up the Leader of the Opposition versus our Prime Minister in relation to the integrity stakes, let's have a look at Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten is the man—as the royal commission into union corruption has found—who ripped off the lowest paid workers, cleaners, at Clean Event, in order to do a side deal to benefit his union. That is what he did before becoming a member of parliament. He is now the Leader of the Opposition. The evidence was that he ripped off the lowest paid workers in Australia. He is being put up by the Labor Party as their prime ministerial candidate—the man that they have put up as the one who should be the most important decision maker in this country. Of course, he is also the man who knifed not just one Prime Minister but two Prime Ministers, despite all the assurances that he was as loyal to each of those men and women all the way along.

So egregious were some of the decisions which the member for Maribyrnong, now the opposition leader, made when he was a union leader that the current union has overturned those decisions. They have quashed those decisions because they have had a look at them and said: 'No, these weren't right. They don't have any integrity.' This is the man that they have put up to be Prime Minister. I think the real character assessment comes from the man who was here just a moment ago. He sits on the frontbench of the Labor Party. The member for Corio, Richard Marles, said:

If you want to know how Bill has got to where he is now … if you had to identify one thing, I think it is that he has been prepared to make decisions and to do things that almost anyone else would not.

That was Richard Marles, the member for Corio, the shadow immigration spokesperson. That is his assessment of Bill Shorten, the person whom they have put up as their leader and their prime ministerial candidate. He is the man who will be willing to do things that almost no-one else would do. That is not a man with integrity. This is not a man who is deserving of being the Prime Minister. I will tell you this: the Labor Party has form in terms of putting people up for the highest office in the land who lack integrity—because it is not just Bill Shorten. Only a few short years ago, they also put up a man whose name they almost cannot speak anymore—Mark Latham—to be their prime ministerial candidate. He was also not a man with integrity. So they have form in this regard.

I move on now to the integrity of the party, because that is so important as well. Your party is important in the way that people get preselected and in the way that you get supported with your campaigns. If you are not careful, the political party can have enormous influence over members of parliament as well, even after they have been elected.

Indeed, the concern that we have with the Labor Party is that they are run by one particular interest group that really controls the decisions of the Labor Party, far too much, on a day-to-day basis, and this particular interest group is a small interest group in the scheme of Australia—it represents only 17 per cent of Australian workers and is known as the Australian union movement. More, actually, than just the union movement as a whole, it really is just the union bosses who now control so many of the decisions of the Labor Party and have such inordinate influence. We know that these union bosses have half the voting power at their party conferences. We know that they basically preselect their candidates, they fund their campaigns, they pretty much call the shots as to who is going to be their leader and who is going to be their Prime Minister, and increasingly they call the shots on policy. This is not a party with integrity where the members can independently make decisions based on their core values but one making decisions increasingly in the interests of a very narrow section of the Australian community—that being the union movement.

Do not just listen to me on this but listen to Martin Ferguson and perhaps even Bob Hawke. Martin Ferguson says that too many opposition MPs today 'wait for the phone call from the trade union heavies to tell them what to do'. He says that Shorten can't curb union influence because 'too many of the shadow ministry in the caucus are almost as if they are prisoners of the union movement'. This is Martin Ferguson—he used to sit on these front benches as a very senior member of the Hawke-Keating governments and was the president of the ACTU. He now says that the shadow ministers who sit right there on that front bench are prisoners of the union movement. That is not a party with integrity. That is not a party that can make decisions based on core values in the interests of the Australian people. That is a party that is captured by a small interested group, and they are making decisions on their behalf rather than on behalf of the citizens.

I am glad the member for Corio has entered the chamber, because I was just quoting him in terms of his character assessment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Finally, I have mentioned the integrity of individuals being so important. I have mentioned the integrity of the party being so important and how that is lacking in the Labor Party. Finally, if you do not stack up on those two things, you get poor decisions. You do not get integrity in your decisions. And that is what we have seen just so often over the last couple of years in the years of Labor in government. We have seen so many decisions which have been dominated by the union movement—campaigning against the China free trade agreement, for example. We have had the member for Ballarat make extraordinary decisions, where she has denied cash for cancer centres as funds have flowed to their marginal seats. They dismantled the ABCC while they were in power, despite it doing such a great job in terms of cleaning up union sites. We are proud to stand here as a party and as individuals with integrity, and proud to represent— (Time expired)

Clive Palmer (Fairfax, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today because I am concerned that the whole issue of the Slipper affair is once again diverting the Parliament of Australia away from the real issue facing Australians: the economy. This goes to the very heart of government integrity. The former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was accused in 2013 by the former member for Fisher, Peter Slipper, saying that the former Treasurer, Hockey, and the current member for Fisher had asked me, at a meeting at my resort in April 2012, to stump up tens of thousands of dollars to pay for Mr Ashby's legal costs. The accusation was that the current member for Fisher and the former Treasurer, Hockey, requested I make funds available to fund Ashby's case against the former member for Fisher, Mr Peter Slipper. In April 2012, I met with the member for Fisher at my resort. The former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was staying at my resort as a paying guest.

I think I have a moral duty and a responsibility to Mr Hockey and his family—and, indeed, to the Liberal Party—to make it absolutely clear that the former Treasurer, Hockey, played no role in the discussion I had with the member for Fisher in respect of the funding of any case by Mr Ashby.

Hockey walked past the table where we were sitting at the end of my discussion with the member for Fisher. He merely sat down to have a coffee, and no mention was made of the Ashby case while Joe Hockey was there. However, before the former Treasurer, Hockey, arrived, the current member for Fisher at the meeting requested I fund the legal costs of Mr Ashby and, while no exact figure was discussed with the member for Fisher, who later ran against Mr Slipper in Fisher, I understood the cost would be at least $200,000. The member for Fisher stated to me that we needed to destroy Peter Slipper, and that he had all the evidence to put Peter Slipper away for a very long time. I was not told what the evidence was, nor how the honourable member acquired it. I refused the request from the member for Fisher. I did not think it was appropriate then and I do not think it is now that a person funds another person's legal action designed to cause a third party's demise for political reasons. It is especially not appropriate for a citizen seeking election to this House or selection to the ministry to canvass for money and support to seek to damage an individual's reputation by commencing court actions for what can only be an improper purpose—as the judge found in this case.

We need integrity in government and in the full political process. We need to have trust in government from members of the public. Our members of parliament must set a high standard for the community and future generations.

I want to make it clear again that the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, acted with the highest standards of integrity and knew nothing of the appeal for money by the member for Fisher. The member for Fisher had previously approached me for money. Just before the merger of the Liberal Party to form the LNP, he approached me and advised me as the president of the Liberal Party that the Liberal Party was insolvent and that, unless I wrote a cheque to the Liberal Party for $100,000, it would go into liquidation in Queensland and there would be no LNP. On that occasion, I wrote a cheque to save the Liberal Party to live another day. This action may have encouraged the member for Fisher to seek me out when he wanted more money.

In April 2012 it was totally different. The member for Fisher was seeking substantial funds for what I thought at the time was to damage the integrity of a citizen for purely political purposes—for self-interest. I could not and did not have any part of it and refused to provide any funds to Mr Ashby or the member for Fisher.

The Prime Minister has the highest standards of personal integrity and deserves to have ministers of the highest standards of integrity as well. Every member of the House needs to treat other members as they would wish to be treated. They should not seek to corrupt the staff of any member, spy on any member or steal from any member. This House must be founded on trust of all those who serve the Australian people.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it astounding that we are having this debate today when there is a federal police investigation underway. It would be incredibly inappropriate—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will cease interjecting. I remind them that 94(a) applies at all times of the parliamentary sitting day, and warnings from question time carry over.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for statements to be made in this House while this investigation is going on. I also find it incredible that I am being lectured by the member for Fairfax about integrity in parliament, a man who has made this parliament a plaything for his self-indulgence and who has made outrageous statements on television. Indeed, I believe from his inattendance that he only comes into this place to try to lift his profile. We saw in question time today that he even launched an attack on a legitimate deal done by the Northern Territory government and the Chinese government to advance his own cause and his own business. So I will not be lectured on integrity by that man.

Indeed, in this place all we as members of parliament have is our integrity. If you want to insult anyone in this place, you question their integrity. I live and die by that integrity. I have seen in my eight years in this place as of yesterday some things that really have questioned that integrity in the deals that have been done. We saw it back with the carbon tax. If the members opposite are wondering why their numbers have somewhat shrunk, it is because they have walked away from their traditional constituents, who have been disaffected by that, in their attempt to garner Green votes from the leafy suburbs of the capital cities. We saw that in the deal that was done with the member for Melbourne and others after a former Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax under a government she led in an attempt to get votes. We saw that when the pensioners of Australia were sold out for Greens preferences.

We also saw that in a deal that was done under the previous government with the member for Denison on poker machines—that was a personal crusade for the member for Denison—despite the fact that the members of the then government knew that what was being requested was an impossibility, despite the fact that across my electorate small golf clubs, bowling clubs and RSLs are funded by a couple of poker machines to pay the green keeper and have a communal place to meet. We saw that Labor's traditional supporters were turned on by the previous government. We saw out of that a trial that went to the union backed clubs in the ACT along those lines.

I bring into this place my integrity. That is all you can keep. If you stay in this place it will be because you put the everyday people that you represent first. Quite frankly, this debate upsets me immensely because quite often the carry-on and the stunts in this place bring all of us disrespect. Time and time again, I find myself defending this place and what we stand for. I actually spend a lot of time defending people on the opposite side because of my belief in this institution. We should not be using this institution for some sort of political stunt or a personal crusade.

We saw week after week members from that side defending the former member for Dobell, who stayed here under dubious circumstances. But they come in here now and lecture the parliament about integrity. This is one of the most bizarre matters of public importance, quite frankly, that I have seen in this place. The member for Isaacs must long for the days when he was a QC and he worked in a place where he actually had some respect and integrity, because quite frankly he is struggling in this place. This is a very paltry and ill-conceived attack. Quite frankly, it is a waste of time for this parliament.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about this MPI on the importance of integrity in government, following the member for Parkes. I have been in this parliament for the same time as him—eight years and one day. I know a little bit about the people I have met over those eight years. I know most people are here for good reasons. Irrespective of what side of the chamber they sit on—in government or in opposition—most people are here to do good things.

But what I noted in the speeches put forward by the member for Aston and the member for Parkes was a gaping and incredible silence when it came to defending their colleague. We are here today talking about the importance of integrity in government. I do so through the prism of having a great respect for this democratic institution. I know how tough it is for the member for Parkes to be an MP a long way, like many of us, away from his family and partner. This is a job that is incredibly tough when it comes to our families and our partners and our lifestyles because of the hours and the travel. So you need to have that unwavering belief in democracy to do this job. That belief in democracy is more important than any one person here of the 150 elected members of the House of Representatives. It is more important than any political party that we represent. It is more important than power. That is why this MPI is so important. If we are going to have faith in this democratic institution—this building; this wonderful piece of history in which it is such an honour for me to represent the people of Moreton—we must have faith in all of the people in this parliament.

Due to my concerns with the actions of three people opposite, particularly the member for Fisher, and following Judge Rares's judgement in the Federal Court, I wrote to the Australian Federal Police in December 2012. Judge Rares had said that he had reached a 'firm conclusion' that the 'predominant purpose' of Mr Ashby's claim was to 'pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper' designed to 'tip the government to Mal Brough and the LNP's advantage'. That is the history. The matter concerning Mr Brough is not before the courts at the moment; it is only being investigated by the police. The quotes I gave relate to the Federal Court case that threw out Mr Ashby's claim against Mr Slipper.

My first letter to the AFP, on 21 December 2012, directed them to the findings by Judge Rares, which said:

The material also indicates that Mr Brough procured Mr Ashby and Ms Doane to provide unauthorised access to restricted data contrary to s478.1 of the Criminal Code, and unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers contrary to s70 of the Crimes Act 1914.

This communication with the AFP was in December 2012. The judgement of Judge Rares was subsequently overturned by the full court of the Federal Court. However, I note that Mr Ashby has not pursued his claim against Mr Slipper since it was overturned.

We then had that incredible admission on 60 Minutes on 7 September 2014. In the interview, when Liz Hayes asked the current member for Fisher, 'Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you?' Mr Brough replied, 'Yes, I did.' That is why it is quite telling that the two previous speakers to this MPI debate made no mention of their party colleague at all. After that public admission by Mr Brough, I wrote to the AFP again, for the third time, on 8 September 2014, pointing out his admission.

We then had that incredible set of circumstances where, after the democratically elected Prime Minister was cut down by the plotters opposite, the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, appointed the current member for Fisher to the office that requires the highest standard of integrity. This is not a normal portfolio; this is a portfolio with responsibility for key integrity agencies such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Australian National Audit Office and the Australian Electoral Commission and for the administration of the parliamentary entitlements framework, including Cabcharges and the like. This is not an ordinary portfolio. It is extraordinary that he could still be in that job after the Australian Federal Police raided—not visited—his home. He was raided by the Australian Federal Police. Arthur Sinodinos stood down for less. I cannot believe this man is still sitting in that role.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are right to highlight the importance of integrity in government, because without integrity there is no trust—and, of course, it is impossible to govern without trust. We are getting on with the business of generating jobs and driving growth because that is what Australians want us to do, but I accept that there is a time and a place to reflect on integrity in government.

I sit on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—and I am disappointed that the member for Charlton, who also sits on that committee, has left the chamber—which looks at the way in which government programs are put in place and administered. It looks at important programs that Australians depend on to ensure that money is being well spent and delivering good outcomes for Australians. In sitting on the public accounts committee over the last two years, I have seen an absolute smorgasbord of failures in integrity and competence. We saw the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the Regional Development Australia Fund, but I want a focus for a few moments on the Early Years Quality Fund, because this was absolutely distinctive for its lack of integrity. The Early Years Quality Fund was a $300 million fund launched by Peter Garrett and the member for Adelaide in March 2013, and its stated objective was to upskill childcare workers. If the plan was to spend $300 million, who were the beneficiaries and did the real clients of child care, our kids and their parents, benefit from this program?

The first group that benefited from this $300 million program were United Voice union officials. The childcare industry union, United Voice, was heavily involved in a misleading campaign to recruit members during 2013 on the back of this program. The Australian National Audit Office said that United Voice had engaged in a grassroots campaign to recruit into the union, and the PwC told us that United Voice had sent inaccurate information to childcare providers, indicating that the majority of their staff had to be members of the union for the grants to be approved. So union officials were using $300 million of public money to recruit members. But the second beneficiary—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

It is great to see the member for Charlton here, because the second beneficiary was the Labor Party—those opposite. Until 2013, United Voice and its predecessor unions had regularly given around $600,000 to the Labor Party. But suddenly, at the exact time of the last election campaign and the establishment of the Early Years Quality Fund, United Voice almost tripled its donations to $1.5 million. They had never got near that before. The Labor Party gained an unprecedented donation to its coffers at the last election campaign in the very year that United Voice was running a recruitment campaign supported by taxpayer money—and you want to talk about integrity.

The third beneficiary was Goodstart, the preferred childcare provider of United Voice and the Labor Party. Goodstart was given the bulk of the money, which was allocated on the eve of the last election—and, when I say the eve, I mean the very eve. Of the $137 million ultimately allocated, $132 million went straight to Goodstart. Goodstart was on the advisory board, against the advice of the department, which said that early childhood employer organisations should not be invited to join the board to avoid perceived or real conflicts of interest. But the minister ignored it, with what was clearly a lapse of integrity. When questioning the integrity of the program, the relevant department was told by the PMO that it was 'over-thinking the process.' The Auditor-General was asked how many programs like this he had seen in his 40-plus years with the ANAO. He answered:

I am struggling to recall others.

…   …   …

I do not recall any other example like this.

This is a grubby episode in the recent history of Australian politics—the sort of lapse of integrity that I would never stand for, and nor should those opposite. I am proud to be part of a coalition that would not stand for this sort of behaviour.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an offence under section 478.1 of the Criminal Code to cause unauthorised access to restricted data in certain circumstances. The section titled, 'Unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data,' provides:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person causes any unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data; and

(b) the person intends to cause the access or modification; and

(c) the person knows that the access or modification is unauthorised …

The penalty is two years imprisonment. Section 70(1) of the Crimes Act provides:

A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

The penalty is two years imprisonment, and there are accessorial liability provisions in the relevant legislation that apply.

It has been alleged in a recent search warrant that, between 23 March and 12 April 2012, a Mr James Ashby accessed restricted data without authorisation and communicated the material to a third party. The restricted data was the then Speaker's official diary. In 2012, selected parts of the official diary of the then Speaker were leaked to the media. In December 2012, the member for Moreton wrote to the Australian Federal Police calling for an investigation. One of the allegations into which the member for Moreton sought an investigation was that the now minister had procured Mr James Ashby and another person to provide unauthorised access to the then Speaker Mr Slipper's official diary.

In September 2014, the now Special Minister of State appeared on 60 Minutes. During that 60 Minutes appearance, the now Special Minister of State admitted to asking Mr James Ashby to obtain a copy of the then Speaker Peter Slipper's diary. That admission was and remains a matter of great notoriety. The now Prime Minister would have been aware of that admission at the time it was made and at the time that he appointed the now minister as Special Minister of State. Following that interview, the member for Moreton wrote again to the Australian Federal Police in respect of the matter. In October 2015, the Australian Federal Police confirmed to the member for Moreton that the investigation was ongoing.

On 17 November 2015, the Australian Federal Police raided the Special Minister of State's home. The search warrant referred to section 478 of the Criminal Code and section 70 of the Crimes Act, amongst other provisions. The raid was part of an ongoing investigation as to whether the now minister had committed an offence by procuring Mr James Ashby to obtain a copy of the diary of the then Speaker, Mr Peter Slipper. The Special Minister of State has confirmed that the raid occurred. On 19 November, the now Prime Minister, notwithstanding that he was aware of the earlier admission, and notwithstanding that he was aware of the raid that had occurred two days previously, said of the minister:

… at this stage there is nothing to suggest that Mr Brough should stand aside or do anything of that kind.

Paragraph 1.2 of the Statement of Ministerial Standardsprovides:

In recognition that public office is a public trust, therefore, the people of Australia are entitled to expect that, as a matter of principle, Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by these Standards.

The Statement of Ministerial Standardsfrom which I have just quoted is a document published under the name of this current Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, this year. The Prime Minister would be well aware of the contents of the document that has been published under his own name. He will also be well aware, because it is recorded in detail in House of Representatives Practicethat in the history of this parliament there have been a number of occasions on which ministers have resigned or taken a leave of absence when allegations had been made against them and were being investigated, while investigations were underway. In some cases, those ministers have been exonerated and have returned to their ministerial responsibilities.

If we are to address the grave democratic deficit that exists in this country, the scepticism and open cynicism that people have about their political representatives, and the fact that large numbers of people, including young people, are sceptical about the health of our democracy, then integrity is of utmost significance. It is important for the future of our democracy that this government act with integrity. Accordingly, the Special Minister of State ought stand aside until this investigation is resolved.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has chosen today's matter of public importance to be about integrity in government. In the choice of this matter, there must be some concern of the level of integrity of those who have made this decision. The matter of public importance exists to allow for a discussion of the most important matters of the day. At this time, could there have been a better choice—possibly a discussion of Syria or events in France or Belgium? Perhaps Labor may think that jobs, economic growth or innovation are important? But no, that is not the case. I am familiar with tactics like this. Tactics of diversion are played by players with no integrity when the game is going against them—players who realise that their game is not good enough and not competitive. They cannot win the game, and so they attack the man. This is a courageous move by Labor, as their record is not pristine. Australian voters are intelligent people and they have long memories. The raising of this matter, currently afoot, will no doubt jog people's memories.

We remember Craig Thomson and the supporters behind him, many of whom still occupy those benches opposite. I remember, sadly, the dispatch of former Speaker Harry Jenkins, a man of great integrity. He was dispatched on the judgement that a man of such integrity in that position was not necessary. This single act exemplified an absolute lack of integrity by the former government, who seemed so focused on political point scoring that any sense of principle or respect for the important institution of government was dispensable. Voters in my seat of Bennelong watched with growing disillusion as the actions of the NSW Labor government were exposed through ICAC proceedings. The actions of former senior Labor ministers Ian Macdonald and Eddie Obeid highlighted a level of behaviour destitute of integrity.

In contrast, since coming to government two years ago, the federal coalition has taken actions to improve integrity both in government and in industry. Our attempts to reinstate the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner have been designed to bring integrity back to the building industry. The ABCC was as an independent, statutory authority that had responsibility for promoting workplace relations in the Australian building and construction industry. And yet, it was abolished by the previous Labor government, and members opposite continue to block our attempts to reinstate it. And all the while we watch a parade of Labor identities, from the Leader of the Opposition down, being brought before the royal commission into trade unions to give evidence on corruption matters. And they want to talk about integrity.

My first entry into considering whether I should enter this world of politics resulted in two meetings: one with Brendan Nelson and one with John Howard. They were very generous with their time, and they had views that impressed me enormously. The overwhelming view that I walked away with from both of those meetings was that those two men were men of great integrity. Their integrity, their character, was attractive.

On Wednesday morning I went to an event for White Ribbon Day. Dr Anne O'Neill spoke—a person of great integrity. Why are we not talking about that in this matter of importance? I recognise integrity when I see it. Those who have brought this MPI on and those who have spoken on this from the other side have, unfortunately, placed their integrity in question. Good government is founded on trust earned through the demonstration of unmistakable integrity.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whoever leads it, this is a deeply cynical government which has done much to undermine trust in politics and government, and has done much to pull apart the Australian people's faith in the integrity of our political processes. It is not just our assessment that makes this case. It is the words of government members, including the Prime Minister, that make this very clear—and not just the Prime Minister, I should say, also the Special Minister of State. Just this week, in this House, he said, 'Integrity in all things parliamentary is essential.'

Today, on this side of the House we rise to hold him and his leader to that standard. We do so with reference to the calls for a higher standard in public life that have been made by the now Prime Minister. In opposition, he made the case for change—for a different approach to politics and for more integrity in politics. He said:

… we can make it easier to earn and keep the people's trust.

Interestingly, he then went on to say:

To his credit, Tony Abbott has said he is determined to make very few promises before the next election and only to make ones he knows he can keep.

Well, what about that? Isn't that something to reflect on as we debate integrity of politics—a matter that perhaps the member for Wentworth and the member for Warringah can discuss together. But he went on beyond this unusual praise of his predecessor as Prime Minister to say this—and this is an important point that he made in opposition, and he should remember it now that he is in government:

It seems to me we don't simply have a financial deficit, we have a deficit of trust.

He picked up on this theme almost at the moment he became our Prime Minister. He lamented the gap in political practice—the lack of integrity in politics. He said this:

What we have not succeeded in doing is translating those values into the policies and the ideas that will excite the Australian people and encourage them to believe and understand that we have a vision for their future. We also need a new style of leadership in the way we deal with others …

'A new style of leadership in the way we deal others.' Really, Prime Minister? How have you demonstrated that since you came to the high office that you hold?

I touched briefly on the former Prime Minister, who, before his election, was very keen on trust. That changed after he was elected, but it is clear now that things have become worse, not better, since the member for Wentworth became our Prime Minister. In every area of his decision making there is a gulf between his words, his expansive words, and his deeds. He is long on rhetoric but it is all sophistry. When it comes to making decisions that matter, decisions that go to the integrity of our political systems and the integrity of the government he leads, he comes up short. Amazingly, he has nothing to say. He has shown that in this House this week.

But why might all this be? I ask government members to reflect on that, particularly because we are talking about not just a minister but the Special Minister of State—a person whose responsibilities go to the heart of maintaining public confidence in the administration of our system of government. He is the minister responsible, ironic as it might seem in the context of the present debate, for parliamentary entitlements. He is the minister charged with holding up parliamentary integrity. So, what sort of qualities might a Prime Minister look to in appointing a man or woman to that position?

In this case, as the Special Minister of State said in question time today, we are talking about allegations. But these are serious allegations, and there is a wealth of practice that goes to how ministers facing such allegations should be asked to conduct their duties. They should be stood down, as this minister should be stood down while these matters are addressed. As the member for Griffith pointed out calmly and carefully, these are very serious matters. They go to the heart of the minister's responsibility, as well as our collective responsibility, to maintain public trust in our system of government.

Ultimately, as the Special Minister of State himself said, integrity matters. It is everything and it is all of our business. It is not just a question for the minister, the member for Fisher, as the shadow Attorney-General said. It is about the Prime Minister's judgement. It is about his judgement and his willingness to uphold the ministerial code of conduct he is responsible for. Prime Minister, you are right: we do have a deficit of trust. But this is down to you.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that we are all here to serve with the highest degree of integrity. Despite what we have seen over the last hour, in many respects in this chamber there is a lot of goodwill. I just want to make this point today, being White Ribbon Day: I am personally disappointed that we have brought this MPI debate to the chamber, and it needs to be understood that subject matters for matters of public importance debates are determined by those opposite, not by the government. It is a very constructive and important part of the parliamentary process. But it is disappointing that, on a day like today, we could not have had a national debate on how we work together to combat family violence. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he could consider this topic for tomorrow's MPI, because it is very important. It is clear what is happening today—this is a political point-scoring exercise and nothing more. It would also be fabulous to see that we can use this debate to take forward the big issues of our nation. I put that proposal up for consideration.

I want to reflect on the member for Scullin's contribution. I am really disappointed that he has made such a slur on the Prime Minister. In the short time that Malcolm Turnbull has been the Prime Minister, he has implemented some very important policy reforms and made some very important announcements. When it comes to integrity, the one thing that I really hate about politics is this wild exaggeration, to the point where there is very little truth in what a member of parliament says. I think it is one of the reasons why Australians do not respect members of parliament as much as they should or they used to. We just heard from the member for Scullin a quite untruthful representation of the Prime Minister. In the first few weeks that Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister he announced the $100 million women's safety package. He announced the NDIS rollout for Victoria and New South Wales. We have seen a comprehensive review of competition law being announced. There is a nation-changing innovation statement on its way. It is this sort of politics that Australians hate, and I would really like to see us move away from that.

I reflect on the member for Aston's contribution about individual MPs and the integrity of our respective parties and the decisions we make. In my contribution today I want to reflect on the unfortunate way in which the Labor Party will, in some respects, say and do almost anything. It does upset me. I was a journalist and I do like to think that the facts play a pretty good role in the story that you tell. I reflect on what happened in my local electorate and how the Labor Party ran its campaign when the former member for Corangamite, Darren Cheeseman, made claims that we were going to blow up the cliffs of the Great Ocean Road and build a four-lane freight highway—it was so ridiculous, so pathetic in its untruth. It completely discredited Labor. Those were the sorts of tactics that we were seeing locally. We continue to see this with the current local candidate, who is making utterly false claims in relation to the NBN. On 21 July, she put out a statement saying:

They are NOT rolling out NBN to thousands of premises. They are rolling NBN out to a few isolated nodes, and most people won’t be able to afford the money to connect.

This is the sort of politics that people hate. What the Labor candidate for Corangamite said is a complete untruth. The NBN is being rolled out to everyone at no charge in terms of receiving the infrastructure. At the end of the day those sorts of lies do none of us any good; they do not increase our standing. So, when it comes to integrity, I would like to see the Labor Party start to look at what they are doing in my patch and to tell the truth.

I reflect on the East West Link—one of the worst decisions we have ever seen in Victoria, a decision that cost Victorians nearly $1 billion. Premier Andrews said he would only cancel the contract because it was not valid. That did not prove to be the case. Very disappointingly, in the face of the most appalling conduct by the Victorian Labor government, on a project that federal Labor had previously supported, Bill Shorten did not have the courage to stand up with integrity and say, 'Daniel Andrews, you've got it wrong.'

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is now concluded.