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 need for the Government to maintain standards of integrity”.

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

Why is the Prime Minister still defending this discredited minister? He has let this go on for far too long. It is not just about the member for Fisher anymore; it is about the Prime Minister. It is about the integrity of his entire government. How can anyone trust this Prime Minister's judgement while the member for Fisher remains a member of this Liberal government? It is now beyond clear that he should have been dismissed from the ministry.

The Special Minister of State and the Prime Minister must take us all for mugs. They must take the Australian people for mugs if they think they can weasel their way out of the scandal that is engulfing the Special Minister of State, the member for Fisher. They seem to think that if they can just make it through these last two weeks of parliament—if they can hold on, white knuckled, through these last question times—then it will all go away. They seem to think that if they can make it to the summer recess, we will all forget that this minister was raided by the Federal Police. Just think about this: this is a Commonwealth minister who was raided by the Federal Police and is under investigation for the suspected commission of serious criminal offences.

They seem to think that we will forget the disgraceful way in which the member for Fisher sought to defend himself in this place when this came to light, the way that he has dissembled, the way that he has blamed everybody but himself—the way, shamefully, that he has misled this parliament not once, not twice, but five times. I bet the Prime Minister wishes we would all just forget that he had ever appointed the member for Fisher to the ministry. Well, that is not going to happen. We are not going to forget. We are not going to forget this week and we are not going to forget over the summer. We are not going to forget, because this scandal is not just about the member for Fisher; it is about this Prime Minister. It is no longer just about the member for Fisher; it is about the type of leader this Prime Minister is; it is about the type of government that he runs; it is about his integrity.

Let's remember what the member for Fisher has done. In 2014, in an interview on 60 Minutes, journalist Liz Hayes of Channel 9 asked him, 'Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you', and the member for Fisher said, 'Yes I did.' Think about that. It was an admission that has been corroborated by Mr James Ashby, who was quoted this week in The Australian as saying:

I met with Mal—

That is, Mr Brough—

and he said at one stage that he was interested in Slipper’s use of taxpayer entitlements and about a few trips he had taken to New Zealand and I said I had a copy of his diary and would check it out.

Ashby went on:

So I went home and pulled the copy of the diary out of my cupboard, took some pictures of the relevant dates and sent them to Mal.

That is, the member for Fisher—

He couldn’t read them and texted me and asked if I could send them again…

We have seen these text messages. They are publicly available. Not surprisingly, the authorities took an interest in the member for Fisher's admission. They decided to investigate whether he had committed a criminal offence.

On 17 November, after he had been appointed to the ministry—this is one of the new matters—the Australian Federal Police raided the home of the member for Fisher in the execution of a search warrant. A copy of the AFP warrant published by The Australian sets out the criminal charges being considered against the member for Fisher, and these are serious matters indeed. It is alleged in that search warrant that the member for Fisher counselled and procured a member of the former Speaker's staff to take parts of the former Speaker's diary. It would be a serious criminal offence: it carries a maximum sentence of over two years jail.

Over the last two weeks I have asked the member for Fisher a series of simple questions about his involvement in the grubby Ashby affair, questions about how it is that, as a government minister, he came to be raided by the Australian Federal Police and about the standards of integrity that this government holds itself to, which—and this is the incredible thing—as Special Minister of State, the member for Fisher himself is responsible for maintaining. These are simple questions, and the member for Fisher owes it to this House and owes it to the Australian people to give a full and frank explanation for his conduct. He ought to be able to explain why he should be permitted to continue as a minister, especially given that he is the minister responsible for government integrity. He ought to be able to explain what disclosure, if any, he made to the new Prime Minister before he was appointed to the ministry. But he is not up to that, is he?

The Special Minister of State is not even up to the most basic standards of integrity owed by a minister in the Commonwealth government, the most basic of his obligations of candour and honesty in this House and the most basic of his obligations to explain himself to the Australian people. No—the member for Fisher has writhed, slipped and slithered around, inventing excuse after excuse. He would say anything—do anything—to get back into this parliament. He wanted to destroy his rival, the former member for Fisher, by any means possible—whatever it takes. He would say anything—do anything—to get back into the ministry. This minister loves a good plot. He was up to his eyeballs in the plot to take down the member for Warringah as Prime Minister of Australia.

Now it is clear that he will say anything—do anything—to stay in his job. He refuses to answer questions in this place. He shows contempt for this parliament and contempt for the people we represent in this parliament. He tries to blame others for his own misfortune. Wildly clutching at straws, he claimed he had been fitted up by Channel 9—an incredible allegation, and an allegation that was quickly proven to be untrue. He will even go so far as to mislead this parliament not once, not twice—but, after today, this minister has misled the parliament five times.

In all of this he has failed to meet the standards this Prime Minister says that he expects of his ministers. In this Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards, he has said that when there is a prima facie case of wrongdoing a minister must stand aside until any investigation is complete—that is, when there is a real case, when there is an obvious case, not a concluded case, the minister must stand aside. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the case against the member for Fisher. He went on national television and admitted what he had done. The police were tipped off because, apparently, the suspect went on TV and bragged about it! If that is not a prima face case, I do not know what is.

We all know what the Prime Minister says he thinks about ministers who mislead this parliament, as the member for Fisher has done five times to date this week.

An opposition member: Sounds like prima facie to me.

Sounds like prima facie.

When the Prime Minister was opposition leader, in June 2009—and members may remember this event—he used to pontificate about this matter. I am referring to utegate. I am referring to this Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, putting his trust in Godwin Grech. On that occasion in June 2009, this Prime Minister said about misleading the House:

That is an offence that should result in the dismissal or resignation of a minister. It is perfectly clear.

Well, that was then, for this Prime Minister, and this is now. Because now applying that standard could cost the Prime Minister something. Now the Prime Minister would have to sack one of his own numbers men, and now the Prime Minister would have to admit that his appointment of this minister was an error of judgement from the very beginning—from the day that he was appointed. Now, apparently, this Prime Minister is a whole lot more flexible about standards of integrity. That is why I say that this no longer just about the member for Fisher.

In his handling of this matter, the Prime Minister has shown his true colours. He has shown us what type of leader he is. He has shown us the type of people that he considers fit for public office. That is something that no-one is going to forget over the summer. We are not going to forget the charade. We are not going to forget the ducking and weaving from the member for Fisher over the course of the last two weeks. In particular, we are not going to forget the way in which no-one on the government side has been prepared to defend the member for Fisher. We are not going to forget that this Prime Minister has refused to dismiss the member for Fisher when it is crystal clear by the standards set in this Prime Minister's own Statement of ministerial standardsthat the member for Fisher has to go. The Prime Minister is failing the people of Australia.

Honourable members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, a Nat. I refer to Louis Dreyfus, a grain merchant and part-owner of Newcastle Agri Terminal or NAT, who supplied the wheat for the largest grain train ever in Australia. It is a 1.3-kilometre long grain train. Louis Dreyfus supplied that wheat, sourced from Moree and Narrabri, with the mother lode being consolidated at Narrabri before being hauled into port by Southern Shorthaul Rail’s locomotives. That came from the electorate of Parkes. I talk about Mr Dreyfus and I talk about NAT because that speaks to the integrity of our government. Our government is delivering integrity—integrity in infrastructure and integrity in what we do.

Labor is looking for anything at all to discuss, other than policies, because Labor has no policies. Labor came to the parliament and we heard the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, talk about the year of big ideas. Those opposite have hardly had a single idea. In fact, it could be Labor's year of no ideas or at least Labor's year of no good ideas. The Liberal-Nationals government have many, many good ideas, including investing in rail infrastructure and investing in agriculture, such that we are getting a grain to port train to help Mr Dreyfus's company, NAT. What a good acronym! I could not think of one that would be any better myself. Labor is looking for a distraction, and any distraction will do. It is reverting to its usual negativity, which is its modus operandi—anything to distract from 'Mr 15 per cent' and anything to distract from their poor performance in the opinion polls.

I am not a big believer in opinion polls. I believe that there is one opinion poll that should be followed and that is the ballot box. When you have an opposition leader whose rating as preferred Prime Minister is down to 15 per cent, it does not bother me. As I said, I do not give too much countenance to opinion polls, but it is worrying those opposite big-time. It is really disturbing them. If anybody is being thought about over the summer period, it will be the member for Maribyrnong. He will be sweating nervously not just because of the Boxing Day test and how Australia will go; he will be very, very nervous about his position, because he has many members breathing down his neck.

The coalition government will not bogged down in Labor's rather petty political games, and it is all rather pathetic. We are delivering on all fronts: from the Federation, the taxation and the agricultural white papers to record investments—$50 billion—in infrastructure, including the sorts of rail infrastructure that I talked about earlier. We are delivering. We are building our nation. We are harnessing creativity. We are fostering innovation. We are investing in our future, in our children's future and in our grandchildren's future. We are facilitating economic transition. We are seizing the day. We hear the Prime Minister talk about the fact that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. I would add to that and say that there has never been a more exciting time to be a regional Australian. We are securing our country.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear a wall of noise from those opposite; they should know that we are securing our nation, because securing our borders is something that they failed dismally at. They failed absolutely. They were hopeless at securing our borders. There were 55,000 unauthorised arrivals. We only had four in detention centres when Kevin Rudd, the then member for Griffith, took over government. When we acquired government, it was 55,000. Labor put more money into detention centre beds than they put into hospital beds. Shame on them!

Moving on, we are looking after those in need; we truly are. We are building business confidence. When I go around my electorate and I talk in places such as Wagga Wagga, Temora, West Wyalong and Griffith, there is a sense of optimism in the air. There is a buoyancy about business people. People are willing to spend; they are willing to buy up for Christmas. That is good, and it is because of the policy positions that we have put into place. There is a good sense of confidence in the economy, and we need that. The retail sector absolutely needs that leading up to Christmas time.

We are much more positive than those opposite. We have a plan; there is no plan from those opposite. We are delivering; they never delivered. They had six years to do so, but they never ever delivered when they were in government, save for delivering a huge budget deficit of $124 billion, and it would have been $667 billion had it gone unchecked. I talked about our $50 billion investment in infrastructure—in roads, rail, bridges, airports and ports—which is so vitally needed. That infrastructure was neglected by those opposite, for those six sorry years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

On Monday, the second round of the National Stronger Regions Fund, a fund which is going to deliver $1 billion over five years, will be announced. I am looking forward to telling my colleagues and even those opposite about the wonderful programs and projects that are going to be delivered in their electorates. They are a good thing. The Stronger Communities Program will deliver $150,000 of funding per electorate—a program initiated from an idea by the member for Parkes, my good friend Mark Coulton. In my portfolio area, I am also responsible for the Community Development Grants Program. Again, this is a really good initiative which is getting on with the job of building those projects and funding those programs that are so vitally needed.

In the National Highway Upgrade Program, $228.7 million is going into vital infrastructure. We getting on with building the infrastructure for the beef roads in Northern Australia, which are really valuable roads, proving that we have integrity as a government and that we are doing the sorts of things that people expect us to do. The Black Spot program is another important roads program. As the minister responsible for road safety, I went to the global road safety conference in Brazil a couple of short weeks ago. Australia is a world leader in road safety, but we can always do more. The road toll is always too high, and one death on the road is one death too many—we all know that—but Australia is a world leader in road safety initiatives.

We have committed $300 million to the Bridges Renewal Program. People are very, very pleased in my electorate about it—and everything is about local. Everything that we talk about in the federal parliament is about local, because that is who we represent. We represent people who send us here to bring about a better life for their local electorates. I was very pleased to take part in a sod-turning exercise at Carrathool Bridge. I compliment Margaret Merrylees for her tireless advocacy for that. Just last week, I stood alongside the member for Cootamundra, Katrina Hodgkinson, and the roads minister in New South Wales, Duncan Gay, to open the Gobarralong Bridge, which was flooded to the point of disrepair in March 2012. It was funded under the New South Wales coalition government, partnered with the federal coalition government. It is a good bridge and Gundagai shire is a good shire; they are good people and they needed that bridge.

We have the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and Inland Rail. We are talking about the Regional Aviation Access Program, with more than $80 million over four years. All these good programs talk to our integrity as a government. We also have the Mobile Black Spot Program. I heard the member for McEwen going crook in a 90-second statement the other day—it was almost comical, actually—talking about mobile black spots. I must correct the member for Bradfield, the minister, who got up and talked about Labor not actually delivering a dollar for mobile black spots during their turn at government. He was wrong in one sense: it is not that they did not deliver a dollar—it was not a single cent. You cannot come into this place and criticise us; we are actually getting on with the job of the Mobile Black Spots Program. We have committed $100 million; I wish it were more and I am certainly lobbying to that effect.

We are building the Western Sydney airport and developing Northern Australia. We have the Tasmanian Jobs and Growth Package, which is absolutely necessary. We are getting on with building and finishing the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway, in particular, is an absolutely vital transport linkage that was completely ignored by Labor in government. I look forward to announcing the National Stronger Regions Fund on Monday and, on the same day, because we are so full of good news, the member for Sturt is going to herald the National Innovation and Science Agenda at the CSIRO in Canberra. That is another example of us getting on with the job of governing Australia in a way that is full of integrity and full of merit.

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

I grew up in country Queensland ,where we only had one radio station, the ABC, and one TV station, the ABC. On those radio programs, every now and again, you would get the Country Hour. For one hour it would go through things that are important for the country. Well, we just had the country 10 minutes. Here we are, debating an MPI about government maintaining standards of integrity, and the member for Riverina treated it with contempt. He just read out a list of achievements connected loosely with the country. I cannot believe it, when we are talking about something as serious as this, Mr Deputy Speaker—and it is significant that you are sitting in that chair, the Speaker's chair. Let us go back to what this is about.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is everybody?

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

I take that comment from the member for Grey—'Where is everybody?' It was amazing. There was an MPI about those opposite, and there were three people in the chamber. No-one was prepared to defend the Special Minister of State—the person charged with the responsibility of looking after the integrity portfolios in this government. Unbelievable.

The member for Riverina's speech was 10 minutes wasted when instead he could have been talking about how important integrity is—especially today, 3 December. As I am sure the member for Mitchell would know, 161 years ago today we had the Eureka Rebellion, where people actually took an oath under the Southern Cross. Unfortunately, it was a situation where people died, including six soldiers and police officers. But people found something to believe in. They believed in that idea of being represented in parliament, so it is significant today that, when we had a chance for the government to defend the integrity of the Special Minister of State and to defend parliamentary integrity, instead we had 10 minutes of noise and nothing of substance whatsoever.

The reason I mentioned your chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that, as you well know, this building is designed with a basic cross principle. You theoretically look straight down the barrel to the President of the other place. So we can look straight from the 150 representatives here, under the flag, over to the state elected representatives, the senators. The other line of power to make that cross is from the people's part of the building straight through the Great Hall, under the flag, through the cabinet room to the Prime Minister sitting at his desk. Those two architectural lines intersect under the flag, with the building having grass on the roof, because we all know that the people are more important than the politicians—they are our bosses; they are on top of us. That is why it is important for the government to turn up to this MPI about government integrity. Instead they have deserted the field. When we had the representative from the executive speaking, there were three people in the chamber, and at best they were uninterested. It is unbelievable.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where the Special Minister of State facilitated an arrangement in relation to the diary of the Speaker of the House. We know how important the Speaker's role is. I have a copy of our Constitution here. There is no mention of the Prime Minister, but it sets out very clearly how we elect the Speaker. It does not matter what party the Speaker comes from, whether from the Liberal Party, the National Party or the LNP. I think Peter Slipper was a member of all three of those parties. I have never been a member of any of those parties. I know there is a little bit of fluidity on the benches opposite when it comes to switching from Liberal to National to LNP or whatever. I know what the Labor Party stands for. I believe in democracy and I believe in the Labor Party values.

Unfortunately, we have a government opposite where the Prime Minister is prepared to defend a minister—in fact, put him in charge of all of these decisions that involve the strongest possible ethics—and we have found him to be wanting.

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

In the iconic movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, an arrogant Pittsburgh TV weatherman. During an assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, he finds himself in a time loop repeating the same day again and again. Eventually Phil, not surprisingly, becomes depressed and makes more and more desperate and drastic attempts to end the time loop.

Question time and MPIs for the last two weeks have been some kind of bad Groundhog Day. Not only have we completely lost track of the date; I am losing track of whether it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. But I have spent some time this week pondering why we are caught in this time loop. Why are we caught in this time loop, repeating day after day, as Rumpole over there asks the same questions over and over again, with nothing new—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will refer to members by their title.

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

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Isaacs asks the same question over and over again, with absolutely nothing new of substance emerging. But then it struck me: Labor is stuck in a time loop not because it is Groundhog Day but because Bill Shorten had announced that this was the year of ideas—but he did not have any. It seems to me that those opposite were so sick of the year of ideas that they had handed question time over to the member for Isaacs, their Rumpole of the Bailey, because everyone else is sick of 2015, the year of ideas.

What have they done in this grand year of ideas? The first thing they did was spend $60 billion that they did not have. If you want to spend more, the bad news for those opposite is that you have to tax more. It is true—you can defer that to the next generation by carrying more debt. But if you do that it costs a lot more later on, because you have to pay interest on the debt. It is true that they have found $5 billion to make up for that $60 billion. It does not add up. Sixty minus five equals 55. Where did they find that $5 billion?

The first place they found it in this great year of ideas was to put a tax on smokes—we have never heard of that before; that is new!—hurting those who can least afford it. We get lectured every day by those opposite about fairness. What they want to do is put a tax on smokes. Bad news, guys. Let me explain a very simple fact to you: those who are worst off in society are often also smokers. Many of us would prefer that they did not smoke, but they do. If you want to hit those who smoke with a new tax, you are hitting those who can least afford it.

The second big idea they had to pay for their $60 billion of spending was a one-size-fits-all multinational tax policy. They decided that they were going to impose a multinational tax policy on a company regardless of the make-up of that company, which will mean jobs and investment go overseas. I have worked for many of these companies and I know how they work. If you are going to impose a one-size-fits-all tax policy on them, they will simply go.

Their next big idea was a $200 carbon tax. If you are going to raise a carbon target to 45 per cent, we know from modelling that you commissioned that the only way to do that is to impose a carbon tax or a carbon price of over $200. The last time you had that big idea was when you imposed a carbon tax of $23. This is almost 10 times worse, and that is your big idea for this year. Meanwhile, we have been getting on with the job of free trade agreements, telecommunications investment, infrastructure investment and the agricultural competitiveness white paper, and on Monday you will hear about the innovation statement.

With any luck, like Phil Connors, Labor will go away on their break and find virtue in looking for ideas in the interests of Australians in the next year, 2016.

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

What a grave disappointment it is to be standing here at the dispatch box again talking about the absence of integrity on the government benches. It is such a disappointment. You can see how one would be outraged. You can see how someone would be angry at the way this mob is besmirching the reputation of this place and of Australian democracy. You can see how you could be furious about that. But, most overwhelmingly, I am disappointed to still be here at the end of the parliamentary sitting year talking about the absence of integrity on the part of this government. I am particularly disappointed that this Prime Minister seems to have less integrity than Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Howard before him. Prime Minister Abbott, when the then minister and now minister again, Senator Sinodinos, was under a cloud, had the fortitude to do the right thing and seek that he stand aside. Similarly, remember that Prime Minister Howard had the fortitude to have then minister Gary Hardgrave stand aside, but apparently not this Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister, who purports to care about the health of our democracy, who purports to care about whether or not the Australian people can have the trust they deserve to have in the institutions of our society, including this parliament, does not have the integrity of either Tony Abbott or John Howard and has failed to act. It is a failure that really emphasises just how weak he actually is. We already know that he stands for nothing. We already know that he is a man who would have done anything to become the Prime Minister of this nation—and did. He is a hollow man. He is a man who seems to have continued to emphasise style over substance. And the Australian people want substance. Not just is he a hollow man, but he is apparently someone who lacks the spine to even come into this House and do what everyone knows needs to be done, and that is to stand up for integrity.

We are talking about a Prime Minister who only in September published a statement of ministerial standards. It was as recent as September that the statement was published. That statement of ministerial standards emphasises integrity, accountability, responsibility—all concepts that we ought to hold very dear here. But this Prime minister will not stand up for those concepts, will not enforce them, does not have what is needed to do that job. He is not up to it. So spineless is this government that today they gagged the opposition leader, they stopped the opposition leader from speaking out on these issues of integrity. It was such a low point. There have been some low points this year—the onion eating, just by itself, must have been one of the lowest points of the year—but actually gagging an opposition leader from speaking about integrity, on a day when we are dealing with a situation where a special minister of state, the person supposedly charged with handling integrity on behalf of the government, has misled the House five times, was such a low point. For the Prime Minister to have his manager of government business, the Leader of the House, actually move to gag the Leader of the Opposition is an utter disgrace.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to alarm you, but it is probably time we recognised that the people who watch this parliament—our constituents—think the people in this place lack integrity. They think we are in it for ourselves. Some of them think we are a mob of crooks, unfortunately. That is not true. It is unfortunate for us. We are not a mob of crooks; we are not people who are in this for ourselves, by and large. But when you have a Prime Minister who is comprehensively failing to uphold integrity standards, then unfortunately that wrong perception gets reinforced. So, it is not just a problem for the Prime Minister—although of course it is a problem for him—and it is not just a problem for the people sitting in this chamber and in the other place, although of course it is a problem for all of us in our capacity to do our jobs when integrity is not upheld. It is a problem for the health of our Australian democracy. And when you do not have a healthy democracy it is a problem for the future of the nation. Those are the stakes.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

This is a question that seems to have attracted some entertainment from the government benches, but this is actually a serious and important matter. The parliamentary secretary might think it is entertaining, but I do not. As an Australian I want us to have a Prime Minister who will uphold integrity standards. Even if he is from a party with whose views I disagree, I want him to uphold integrity standards, and it is about time he did.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a disappointment this Labor opposition is to the people of Australia. Here we are, on the last parliamentary sitting day of the year—the year they self-proclaimed as the year of big ideas—and what do they come up with in this matter of public importance? They come up with nothing other than a bucket of slime. The people of Australia listening to this debate, the people who are out there working and driving this economy, deserve better than this. On the last day of parliament, after the opposition delivered a duck egg—well, they did have one idea, and that was to put the price of a packet of smokes up to 40 bucks; in the year of big ideas, that was their total contribution: let's raise the price of a packet of smokes to 40 bucks, just brilliant; that is all they could come up with—we see this MPI to be nothing other than a bucket of slime.

Whey couldn't they, on this last sitting day of parliament, really come up with some ideas? Why couldn't they come up with some ideas and let us debate how we can increase the exports in our country? How about having a debate on how we can improve national productivity, or how we can continue to cut red tape, or what we can do to enhance our nation's competitiveness? What about things we can do to encourage entrepreneurship, or to encourage innovation and start-ups? What about new job creation? We should be here having a debate on that during this MPI. What about upgrading our nation's roads?—especially when we know people in this country will lose their lives over the Christmas holiday. Why aren't we having a debate about our nation's roads, or building more dams, or upgrading our infrastructure?

What about tackling the problem of Islamic extremism? Why are we not having a debate here on this last day of parliament? Or tackling domestic violence? Here is a novel idea: how about working to bring the budget back to surplus? That might be an idea. We could go one further—we can even look at paying back that hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt that you blokes ran up when you were sitting on this side of the chamber. But, no, we get nothing other than a bucket of slime.

Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Today, 3 December, is the International Day of People with Disability. Why would you not propose for the MPI how we could work together in this parliament to improve the lives of people with disabilities? We all agree on the NDIS, but we have no idea how we are going to afford to pay for it. Why aren't we discussing that? Instead, the opposition just come up with a bucket of slime. They should all be ashamed for putting up this matter. We should not be debating this here in the parliament—we should be debating ideas about making our country a better place instead of this disgraceful slime bucket they have brought to the parliament.

This discussion on the need for the government to maintain standards of integrity can be rebutted with three words: 'pot', 'kettle', 'black'. We are happy to debate integrity with those guys every single day of the week. We can remember those infamous words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' and yet when they all came over to this side and were asked who wanted a carbon tax, they all said 'Aye'. And they want to lecture us about integrity! These are the ones who cooked the books in the 2011 budget to move expenditure forward out of the budget and bring revenue in, trying to create a phoney surplus. They could not even achieve that. We are getting on with the job of doing the right thing by this country. We are working with those free trade agreements; we are working to increase competitiveness. We are working to create jobs and we are working to drive the entrepreneurial spirit of this nation. I hope that over the Christmas period the opposition go away and think about things so that maybe next year they can come up with a few big ideas rather than return to the disgraceful performance that they have put up with over the past 12 months.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are we having this debate on government integrity? Why was the minister responsible for the standards of members and senators raided by the Australian Federal Police? Why, knowing that the Special Minister of State had told 60 Minutes that the member for Fisher had purloined the former Speaker's diary and spent a further three minutes explaining why this was justified, did the Prime Minister appoint him to that august and particularly sensitive position—a position that requires the highest ethics? Some say that 'Lord Turnbull', the member for Wentworth, who maintains that nothing has happened over the last two years, does not watch 60 Minuteshe does not care what they broadcast; he does not know what the plebs think. No, the public is right in guessing that the member for Fisher was elevated not because of his ethical status but because he was a player in the putsch that removed the member for Warringah to satiate the ego and ambition of the member for Wentworth. The appointment is a political mistake that goes to the heart of the Prime Minister's judgement.

In 2012 the Liberals believed they could use chaos to bring the Labor government down—chaos in parliament, chaos in refusing all duties such as chairing this House. From the first minute, the Abbott conservatives wanted to exact revenge on Slipper. The sudden falling out of the then Speaker with his staff member, who made a harassment claim against him, contributed to this atmosphere of chaos. Why did the member for Fisher involve himself in this sordid destruction of the then Speaker? Even without the status of the Special Minister of State as an individual member of parliament, is this the kind of behaviour that has integrity? It is not just a matter of the revelations he made to Liz Hayes on 60 Minutes. As the member for Isaacs recalled, he confirmed this in a subsequent broadcast on ABC radio on 30 July when he was asked:

You're comfortable receiving material from someone else's diary?

The minister responded:

Absolutely.

On 27 February 2014, in the judgements that the Special Minister of State, the member for Fisher, has constantly referred to, the judges said:

That Brough was prepared to … look at evidence produced by Ashby … does not necessarily mean that his purpose was to harm Slipper politically.

He was not exonerated, he was not vindicated; the judges simply said 'does not necessarily mean.' The current member for Fisher mistakenly believes this vindicates him, but the paragraph is clear that the court did not decide the question of procuring the diary excerpts. It merely stated it 'does not necessarily mean' that the current member for Fisher was motivated in that way. Today we saw the beleaguered Special Minister of State claim that the costings decision on the same case had nothing to do with whether he knew about the procuring of the diary. The same judges in the same case awarded $3 million in costs against Brough's confederates, Ashby and the solicitors Harmers. The judges said:

There had not been a trial of all issues. The relevant evidence had not been given, and the reliability of the witnesses had not been exposed to testing by cross-examination. In the event, as noted above, that will not occur because Ashby has discontinued his proceeding.

We have had the raids on Ashby and Brough, and we have had the misleading of parliament, as the member for Isaacs has so ably pointed out, five times. We have had the silencing of the opposition over these censure motions. And, most extraordinarily—I have never seen anything like it—the government has repeatedly refused to defend the member for Fisher on any of these issues. I cannot believe that none of the front bench—the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General—appear to have read the judgements, especially the costing judgement, which says exactly that no judgement was made about these kinds of things. Exoneration was not given, vindication was not given, because these issues were never finally judged. There was no cross-examination. The case was dropped because Ashby, who made all these allegations of harassment by Slipper, dropped the case. As the minister's own state newspaper, The Courier-Mail, has said:

PM's loyalty is admirable but Brough should do right thing and go.

That is clearly the choice that the Special Minister of State should make. In the interests of this parliament, in the interests of parliamentary integrity, how can he sit there as the Special Minister of State when none of his colleagues will defend him? All of them are worthy people who want to speak on other issues, but none of them will specifically defend him on this issue. For the sake of this parliament, for the sake of Australian democracy, he should resign.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I missed the intellectual contribution of new ideas and vision for the future of our nation from the member for Melbourne Ports. I thank the member for Moreton for his comments about integrity because, if we look at the definition of integrity, it is about being honest. To review Labor's track record when they were in government for six years and go through the surplus, the NBN and Defence shipbuilding, let's just examine a few points around what they proposed to do as a government and what they delivered. Were they honest? Did they have integrity? Let's see what the answer will be. Labor delivered a deficit. It was our friend the member for Swan—who has disappeared, not surprisingly, given that he failed to follow through with a surplus that he promised for four years. Even the member for Maribyrnong, now the Leader of the Opposition, said in a 2012 budget media release:

A budget surplus for a strong economy—spreading the benefits of the mining boom to all Australians.

We know from the history that there was no public surplus. There is one myth exposed—and one misleading, deceptive and dishonest statement.

Moving on to the NBN: in 2007, Labor promised a National Broadband Network costing close to $5 billion, to be completed by 2013. What did they do? After six years of Labor, only three per cent of Australians had access to the NBN and fewer than 100,000 homes were using it. They achieved just 16 per cent of the original rollout. What rubbish, what myth, what falsehoods, what dishonesty and what lack of integrity. Onto defence: Labor raided defence, cutting or deferring $16 billion from 2009-10 to 2016-17. Defence is very dear to my heart as a South Australian, and I once again remind the opposition of the commitments to the bring forward the Future Frigate program and the patrol vessels. Let's look at submarines, because I might have heard something about submarines from those opposite. Labor delayed the program to replace the Navy's Collins class submarines by four years, after promising it in 2009. I will read from the 2009 white paper, since Labor like to quote the white paper now and again. Labor said it would:

… double the size of the submarine force [and] replace the current Anzac class frigate with a more capable Future Frigate …

What happened? There was nothing on submarines and nothing on frigates. It took us being in government to do something—to deliver, to bring the projects forward, to deliver jobs—

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

Have you delivered submarines?

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be more to come, Member for Moreton. There will be frigates and patrol vessels—more to come. I have not mentioned Labor's school hall rip-offs or the pink batts disaster—that would be a bridge too far.

Going further to integrity, I want to raise something that the ACTU did to many of my colleagues earlier this year with the China free trade agreement forums. They advertised the forums. They knew that I and other colleagues were unable to attend, but they still advertised them. Why was I unable to attend mine in the electorate of Hindmarsh? I attended a parliamentary employment committee hearing that heard from Group Training Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the New South Wales Business Chamber in Sydney, and it actually heard from United Voice. Where were the Labor members on that day? Do they care about employment? No. There was not just one absent Labor member; the member for Gorton, the member for Kingston and the member for Perth were nowhere to be seen. They showed no interest in employment, but, yes, the whole of the coalition wanted to know about how to make our country better and how to get more people employed. The people up there in the gallery are interested in jobs of the future, they want a vision and we are delivering. I see they are waving their hands, saying, 'Thank God for the coalition. Thank God they are fighting for our country.'

Finally, as we come to the valedictory, let's look at our achievements. They are trade agreements, more jobs and a better future. They are childcare packages—and there are some young mums up in the gallery who will be happy about more affordable, flexible child care. I see their hands raised again—hooray for the coalition! I see small business people up there as well—hooray for the coalition! Infrastructure spending; better roads—thank you to the coalition. Climate change—thank God we are talking about climate change today, unlike Labor, who did not make one mention of it in parliament. It is not even on your radar. Violence against women and domestic violence is something that we have launched into. There is mental health—the list goes on. Please do something, Labor. Go to summer school. Go and learn how to be a government. Do your homework. Look in the mirror and come back a better opposition in 2016.

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

Over the last two weeks, and perhaps most especially in an odd last five minutes, we have seen the truth behind the rhetoric about a new politics. We have had a close look at the new Prime Minister's new politics and it is not pretty. It is not good to look at, at all. The Prime Minister today in question time took great pleasure in quoting Billy Hughes. This was funny for a variety of reasons, not least that, of course, the Prime Minister has often been a bit flexible about which party he wishes to attach himself to. Perhaps it is the start of his long journey away from integrity. It is a sad journey for him, and a sadder one for this place and for our country.

An opposition member: Is he defecting to the Nats?

Indeed. The thing about it is that Billy Hughes drew the line. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, will not draw the line. He will not even tell this parliament or the Australian people where it should be drawn—that is his grossest failure of all. He will stand behind those who gave him this high office through the machinations of the Liberal Party instead of standing up for parliamentary standards, standing up for accountability, standing up integrity and standing up for some faith in the new politics he spoke so grandiosely about as he pursued 'Utegate' in opposition and as he acquired the office of Prime Minister. All those words were just that—just words amounting to nothing, Assistant Minister.

The member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, has taken us through this matter today, as he has done over the last two weeks. The case has been built, though, not really by the member for Isaacs—I say this in deference to my senior colleague—but by the minister, the member for Fisher. It is he who has misled the House not once, not twice, but on five occasions. He should have been stood down. In fact, he should never have been appointed. The Prime Minister's judgement has let down all of us in this place, but he has compounded the sin through his arrogance, or, should I say, his hubris—and hubris will be followed, inevitably, by a nemesis. He must act, because the position of the Special Minister of State is, as one of his cabinet colleagues said, 'unviable'.

That was demonstrated by the special minister's performance in question time today. What an extraordinary performance, dripping with false bravado. The commentary that he embarked upon about the judicial proceedings was shameless; 'disingenuous' does not even touch it. He could not have characterised the court decision, or indeed the other processes he is presently subject to, in a more misleading manner. Put simply, he is desperate to create a fig leaf to hide behind. It is not a very convincing one, and that has been demonstrated in this debate as it was in question time today. The past two weeks have been deeply revealing of the character, or lack thereof, of the Special Minister of State; the character, or lack thereof, of this government as a whole; and, in particular, the lack of character—the lack of integrity—of the Prime Minister of Australia.

Today we again saw government ministers unwilling to stand behind the Special Minister of State. They not only shut down the opposition leader; the Leader of the House shut himself down—again! It is extraordinary. Instead, in the debate, they say nothing. Why do they say nothing? Because there is nothing to be said. There is nothing to be said to defend this man. It really is extraordinary. It is extraordinary and it is instructive. In this matter, it is clear that government members do have the courage of their convictions; they say nothing because there is nothing to say.

Sadly, as parliament rises for Christmas, we have to recognise that this is about so much more than the member for Fisher. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It goes to the heart of how politics should work. It goes to the heart of the claims the Prime Minister made that politics can be meaningful to Australians.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A new paradigm!

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

On the other hand, this new paradigm is repelling our constituents. It is turning them away from engagement in debate in this place. This is a debate about our democracy. It is about this parliament doing its job—holding the executive to account—but it could be fixed by the Prime Minister doing his, and standing down a minister whose tenure has been unviable for too long. The Prime Minister signed up to a statement of ministerial conduct; now he must stand by it. Integrity and responsibility are the watchwords— (Time expired)

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

It is my great pleasure to speak on this MPI on the issue of integrity. I reflect on the comments just made by the member for Scullin that politics can be meaningful and that this sort of debate is repelling our constituents. Politics can be meaningful. So what a great disappointment it is, on the very last sitting day before Christmas, that we are seeing the sort of muckraking and debate from Labor that we have seen not just for the last couple of days but for the last couple of weeks. Day after day, we have seen the same thing. It is like groundhog day—and this is how the day began, with motions to try and disrupt the ordinary course of parliamentary business. At a time when this government is doing so much to help Australians, what a shame it is that we are not debating some of the really important issues, as the member for Hughes and the member for Hindmarsh argued so well.

It is International Day of People with Disability. We have joined together in unison as a parliament, with a great deal of bipartisanship, to roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have the National Disability Insurance Agency—in my great city of Geelong, in the great electorate of Corangamite. We have done that together, ostensibly. What a shame that we could not talk about some of those big issues.

In the wake of White Ribbon Day, we know we cannot talk about family and domestic violence just for one day. We cannot talk about things that need to change in our society just for one day; we need to keep those debates going. The last time I spoke on that issue—groundhog day again; it was during an MPI about integrity—I implored the Leader of the Opposition, 'Please, could we have a really constructive debate about family violence,' because it is through debate that we can bring new ideas to this parliament and canvass the various issues raised by our constituents.

Ice is a scourge that is destroying so many families in my communities and in communities across Australia. That is another very important issue. The National Ice Taskforce is doing an extraordinary job, led by former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Ken Lay, along with the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Fiona Nash, with the enormous support of the Prime Minister.

Australians do respect the fact that we contest ideas and that we do not always agree in this parliament. But, please, at this time before Christmas, we do need to talk about the issues that really matter to Australians: national security, jobs growth, innovation, the transformation that we are seeing in our economy and the way in which our government is leading that transformation.

The health minister, Sussan Ley, made an announcement just a few days ago in relation to mental health. Mental health issues affect one in four to one in five people in Australia at some point in their lives. Why can't we speak about that?

I think it is really important to make the point that, in so much of what happens in this parliament, there is an enormous amount of good spirit, goodwill and bipartisanship. This morning I joined my colleague the member for Kingsford Smith, a Labor member representing the southern part of Sydney along the coast, at an event hosted by Surf Life Saving Australia. We are co-chairs of Parliamentary Friends of Surf Lifesaving. We were talking about important issues in the lead-up to summer—staying safe on our beaches, swimming between the flags and the importance of learning how to swim to make sure that we do not see drownings this summer. So much good happens in this parliament, and I am just saying to all Australians who are listening, who are watching this debate or who will be reading the Hansard, please do not lose sight of the good things that members of parliament are doing together.

On this final day of sitting before Christmas, I wish we had had a better spirit of goodwill in the debate that was brought before the parliament. I want to reflect on one other issue that has been debated. If we are going to talk about integrity, I implore members opposite: please debate with integrity. Do not run a debate about tax reform and make false allegations about a GST increase when it is actually untrue. It does the parliament no credit whatsoever. I wish everyone a happy Christmas, I want us to reflect on the good work we are doing together, and I wish happy Christmas to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is now concluded.