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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer, in his last answer, and the Prime Minister have been deeply critical of the member for Fairfax's actions in relation to Queensland Nickel. The Prime Minister said the member for Fairfax had 'let down the workers' and the only thing that the Prime Minister was concerned about was that the workers were looked after. So why, according to reports, did the Prime Minister receive $50,000 monthly payments from PlayUp while PlayUp workers were not being paid? Hasn't the Prime Minister let down the workers at PlayUp?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to dignify that question with an answer. The honourable member knows full well that that question has nothing at all to do with my responsibilities as Prime Minister and relates to a commercial transaction which, I might say, was quite misreported in the The Australian Financial Review. But I will, on this occasion, address this matter. This is not a matter within my responsibility as Prime Minister, but I will address the matter nonetheless, given that the member has raised it. The facts of the matter are these: when we were in opposition, my wife and I invested in a company called Revo, which had an online business—a start-up technology company.

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

Gambling.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not correct. When I became a minister I sought to sell the shares in the company. The company is a private company. It was the company's request. The shares were sold, at their request, to an entity associated with it called Revo Nominees. The purchase price was to be paid in 12 months or when a capital raising had been completed, whichever came earlier. Those were the facts and that was all disclosed. Twelve months came and went and the money was not paid. My son, representing our company—or my wife and I—sought recovery of the money. It came to a negotiation with the company and some payments were made. Regrettably, as is often the case in those circumstances, most were not.

But everything was completely and utterly at arm's length—absolutely at arm's length. From our position vis-a-vis the company, the honourable member should know that and the innuendo he has sought to raise is completely unworthy. The reason I say it is unworthy is this: the member for Fairfax's position with respect to Queensland Nickel is that he, at all times, was in charge of Queensland Nickel. He ran that company; he was responsible for it. We had no management involvement with the Revo company. Our position was simply as an investor and then subsequently as a creditor. So our dealings were entirely at arm's length, and, in that sense, his attempt to draw some contrast is completely improper and he, as a Queen's Counsel learned in the law, knows how improper it was.