Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that leaders of unions and employer organisations always act in the best interests of their members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?

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

I thank the member for Forrest for her question. The member for Forrest might like to know that the Leader of the Opposition has in fact been referred to the Registered Organisations Commission for his failure to provide evidence over the $100,000 donation that he gave to GetUp! in 2005, in start-up capital, that was not necessarily done in accordance with rule 57 of the AWU in getting proper authorisation.

Now, if the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to hide, minutes would have been produced which show that the necessary motions were passed. The Leader of the Opposition has yet again adopted the tactic that he always adopts, which is to simply stonewall anything unpleasant—whether it is about the union movement when he was the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, whether it is about the donations that he received from companies like Unibilt or AustralianSuper when he was the candidate for Maribyrnong. There's quite a charge sheet when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition not providing evidence to back up the assertions that he makes.

Yet again we see him being tricky and sneaky with the issue of undermining the relationship between Australia and New Zealand—a very important relationship. Until yesterday, the Labor Party were trying to pretend that they knew virtually nothing about what was going on in New Zealand with the questions that were being asked by a New Zealand Labour MP. They were trying to pretend these stories had come out of the Fairfax media. Then we discovered last night that Senator Wong tried to get the story out as late as possible in the day that in fact her chief of staff was the person who had initiated the questions in the New Zealand parliament.

Today, the member for Grayndler confirmed that, far from these being general questions about New Zealand citizenship rules, the conversation was about the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Quite specifically, he said so on FIVEaa radio this morning and a show with me. We discovered, in fact, that it was the chief of staff to the shadow minister for foreign affairs who was going through the bins in New Zealand, turning over leaves and rocks, looking for dirt on the Deputy Prime Minister. The foreign minister is absolutely right: this is a very serious matter. What the Australian Labor Party has been prepared to do is work with an opposition party of a foreign power, in New Zealand, to undermine the Australian government. Now, you hear all their faux laughter, led by the member for Isaacs. That's his job, as the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, but actually this is a serious matter, and the Leader of the Opposition has to answer for it. The leader of the Labour Party in New Zealand understands it: she said it was inappropriate conduct. Why isn't our Leader of the Opposition here strong enough to say the same thing? (Time expired)