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

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately—The House:

(1)notes:

(a)the Daily Telegraph reports today that the Deputy Prime Minister rang a benefactor for a place to stay and received a gift of rent-free accommodation worth an estimated $12,000;

(b)the Deputy Prime Minister continues to benefit from this gift;

(c)the Prime Minister's own Statement of Ministerial Standards clearly states Ministers "must not seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity";

(d)the Prime Minister alone is responsible for enforcing his own Ministerial Standards;

(e)this is an open and shut case of a breach of the Ministerial Standards; and

(f)that if the Prime Minister will not take action on such a clear and egregious breach of his Ministerial Standards then they are worthless; and

(2)therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to immediately sack the Deputy Prime Minister for clearly breaching the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards.

If the Prime Minister will not act on a breach as clear as this, his ministerial standards mean nothing. These ministerial standards are promulgated by the Prime Minister. On their face, the Prime Minister makes clear in his foreword that they are documents which provide a guide to ministers as to how to act with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.

Let's start with the foreword for this document written by the Prime Minister. The first sentence reads:

Ministers and Assistant Ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.

Does anyone in Australia, let alone this House, believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has acted with the highest standards of integrity and propriety? The Prime Minister's foreword goes on:

They—

that's ministers and assistant ministers—

are required to act in accordance with the law, their oath of office and their obligations to the Parliament.

On this, yesterday and this morning the member for Maranoa, who late last year was promoted in place of his much more experienced colleagues by the Deputy Prime Minister, sought to justify his benefactor's conduct. This is what the member for Maranoa declared about the Deputy Prime Minister: 'If Barnaby Joyce has broken the law, charges should be laid; if they haven't, go away. Put up or shut up.'

Now, we are not asserting criminality. Of course everyone in this place—everyone in this country—is expected to abide by the laws of the nation. But surely the Deputy Prime Minister of our country, the second most senior minister in the government of the Commonwealth, is expected to adhere to a somewhat higher standard than merely obeying the law of this country. What an extraordinarily low bar it is for the member for Maranoa, this newly promoted minister, to be setting for the standard of conduct of ministers in this place.

It ought to be clear that this Statement of Ministerial Standards is setting a much, much higher standard of conduct for ministers in this place—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As they should!

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

As they should, as my colleague the member for Ballarat reminds me. We expect the Prime Minister's statements of ministerial standards to set a very high standard of conduct. That's why this Statement of Ministerial Standards is actually pretty much the same as the statement of ministerial conduct or the code of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Rudd, the standards of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Gillard, and, I might say, the standards of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Abbott. This is pretty much the same, and it's to the credit of the current Prime Minister that he has actually followed the high standards adopted by his predecessors. But let's just go to the third point made by the Prime Minister in his foreword to his own statement. He says:

In addition to those requirements, it is vital that Ministers and Assistant Ministers conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence—

public confidence—

in them and in the government.

Again I would ask: does anyone in this House—does anyone in Australia—think that the Deputy Prime Minister is currently conducting himself, or that he has conducted himself, in a manner that ensures public confidence in them and in the government? I would suggest not. If I can go directly to some of principles in the Statement of Ministerial Standards itself, this is what it starts with at principle 1.2:

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.

These are very high-flown words, setting a very high standard. But it is one that this Deputy Prime Minister has woefully failed. If I read on, further down in principle 1.3, we see that the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards requires that ministers, by their conduct, ensure:

Then, a bit further down, ministers have to ensure:

The Deputy Prime Minister has dismally failed to uphold the principles of these standards—and that's before I even get to the actual wording of the requirement in these standards as it relates to gifts, which is what this motion relates to.

These standards set an actual standard of conduct. They are directed not merely to some pettifogging lawyer's interpretation, as we've heard from the Prime Minister in this House; they are directed to ensuring that people can look at ministers' conduct, can look at the Prime Minister's conduct and can look at the Deputy Prime Minister's conduct and see that they are performing in their office, that they are conducting themselves in their office, as we and as the people of Australia would expect them to. That means disclosing honestly; it means paying attention to the principles that underlie these standards and upholding them.

So what do we read about gifts in this Statement of Ministerial Standards? At principle 2.21:

Ministers are required to exercise the functions of their public office unaffected by considerations of personal advantage or disadvantage.

Then—and it's very good to see the Deputy Prime Minister has arrived—it says:

Ministers, in their official capacity, may therefore accept customary official gifts, hospitality, tokens of appreciation, and similar formal gestures in accordance with the relevant guidelines—

and here we get to it—

but are required not to seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity.

What do we know from Mr Greg Maguire, the wealthy New England businessman and National Party donor, who has commented in the paper about his interactions with the Deputy Prime Minister? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister rang him up and asked him for a place to stay. That's what Mr Greg—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't.

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

I hear from the Deputy Prime Minister that he now wants to deny what his rich mate has told the newspapers, so perhaps we'll be hearing from him. But here we have the clearest possible breach. We have the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia ringing up a mate, asking him for free accommodation, getting that free accommodation and then, further, in the Register of Members' Interests, which these standards also require the Deputy Prime Minister to comply with, putting this ridiculous phrase. He said that he's received a 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'. What is that meant to mean? Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can explain it to us now, because he certainly hasn't explained it to us up to this point.

What the Register of Members' Interests, which the ministerial standards require this member to actually state and properly disclose, requires is that he disclose gifts valued at more than $300 where they're received from other than official sources. What he chose to do, concealing the— (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. This is a government which has one rule for itself and another rule for everybody else, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the best example of that. Honourable members, as the honourable member for Isaacs pointed out, would know that the declaration of interests is a very important document. It's designed so that the public can see what potential conflicts those of us who are honoured to be elected may have. If you go to the declarations of interests of the Deputy Prime Minister, there's an entry which says 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'. You can just see around the country people looking at that and saying, 'Oh, the Deputy Prime Minister's living rent-free in Armidale, is he?' just based on that declaration, because it's as clear as mud! It is as clear as mud what 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises' means in anybody's book. It means nothing. It says nothing. It tells us nothing.

Why would the Deputy Prime Minister not want the House and people to know he's living rent-free in Armidale? Maybe it's because it would be slightly embarrassing given the lectures he's given the Australian people about working hard and moving to Armidale, where it's more affordable. It is more affordable for some! It's more affordable if you've got a rich mate. It's more affordable if you can ring up someone and say, 'Have you got anywhere for me to stay tonight?' There's a thing called Airbnb, Deputy Prime Minister—you could have tried that. There's a thing called stayz.com. That works as well. You didn't have to phone a friend. The Deputy Prime Minister chose the phone-a-friend option. He's entitled to do that, but he has to be honest about it. He has to tell this parliament about it. He has to tell the Australian people about it.

He was more than happy to tell the Australian people what they should do when it comes to housing affordability. He was more than happy to tell them that they should not seek an Opera House view. Last time I checked, the people in Lindsay, McMahon, Greenway and Chifley didn't have an Opera House view, but they were still struggling with housing affordability and they were still working hard to try to get into the housing market. They didn't actually have an Opera House view. But that's the sort of arrogance we get from this Deputy Prime Minister, saying: 'You're trying to get too much. Your aspirations are too great. How dare you? How dare you want to live in a big city where there's actually work for you to do. Move to Armidale. It's great up here. It's fantastic up here. It's so much more affordable up here.' Well, he was right about that for himself, but he was not right about that for others. That is why this Deputy Prime Minister has been found out. This Deputy Prime Minister has been shown up. He has been shown up as somebody who is not willing to be up-front about his circumstances. He is arrogant in his lecturing of others but is prepared not to be fully transparent about himself.

We are all entitled to our views about housing affordability. We are all entitled to our arguments. This side of the House has made the case for action on housing affordability. That side of the House has made the case for inaction. But they have made the case saying that young people want too much and young people shouldn't dare aspire to live in our big cities. Well, that makes this a matter of public interest. This is a Deputy Prime Minister who has been slipping and sliding all week through. He's about to tell us there's nothing to see here because the individual was a close personal friend, so therefore it's none of our business. Maybe he was going to argue that Gina Rinehart is a close personal friend too. Maybe, if there wasn't a TV camera there, we wouldn't have found out about the $40,000, which he then said he was going to spend on his farm. Maybe he was going to spend it on the rent-free accommodation as well—until he was found out. He was found out because there was a TV camera there, but there was no TV camera for the rent-free accommodation. He thought he could get away with it. He thought he wouldn't be found out. He thought he could sneak in a misleading declaration and that nobody would be the wiser.

Well, we all make judgements in life. We all make our decisions. We all have to live with the consequences. This Deputy Prime Minister chose not to make a full declaration to the Australian people. He's entitled to make arrangements for his accommodation. That, in many senses, is entirely a matter for him. But, if it's rent free, if he's receiving a benefit, then the ministerial guidelines are crystal clear, as the member for Isaacs made plain to the House. It is crystal clear. This is not a grey area; this is not a matter of nuance; this is a matter of black and white. This is an open-and-shut case, and that case says that this Deputy Prime Minister should resign. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his statement. I'm only too happy to reply to this. It is obvious that most people—I don't think I'm unique in this—have been through a marriage break-up.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Ms Husar interjecting—

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

The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting. I'm going to make it perfectly clear: both the member for Isaacs and the member for McMahon will listen too without interjection. The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to address the House in the same manner. I will deal very quickly with those who are seeking to disrupt the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, most people would realise at the time of a marriage break-up that it's not unusual for those whom you are close to to offer support. I do pay for a house. I pay for one in Tamworth. I pay for one in Tamworth for Natalie and the girls. I continue to do that and will continue to do that. So the issue that I don't pay for a house in the electorate is not correct. Not for one moment do I suggest that this situation for my family is anything but incredibly difficult, and, as I've said before, I apologise for that.

Now, to go through the chronology of this: after it became apparent that, with the deliberations of the High Court, I was no longer a member of parliament and had to stand, I went through the process of being endorsed. It was at that time that Mr Maguire approached me, as did many other friends, to offer support. At the time, in the discussions he said, 'You're living out of a suitcase and this is something that I should try and help you with.' I took him up on the offer, but I offered to pay for it. He said, basically, 'Mates don't pay for things when they're helping other mates out,' and that's precisely what happened. His daughter had just moved out of the apartment. People say it's a luxury apartment. It's not. It's an apartment in Armidale. She'd moved out. He said, 'It's free; no-one's using it, and you're welcome to use it to basically get back up on your feet.'

Might I remind the House that, at that point in time, I was not a member of parliament; I was merely, basically, a person who was standing for election. Therefore, at that point in time, I was not bound by the ministerial code of conduct because I was not a minister. Nonetheless, it's quite clear that I did not approach Mr Maguire for assistance; Mr Maguire approached me and offered help.

After the election, I disclosed, on my member's interests, that I was living in Armidale in a house that had been provided to me. I believe that I did everything that I believe was fully transparent. In fact, at the time, they said that, 'Because it's from a personal friend, you're not obliged to declare it.' In light of that advice, I said, 'I want to declare it because I want to be fully transparent on this issue.'

I might also say that my personal circumstances have been up hill and down dale in this last week. I acknowledge that. I accept that. That is the price of a political life.

I might also state that, on issues such as this, in this place, it is without a shadow of a doubt that if we start throwing stones then every person is going to start having some questions asked of them, and that, of course, might be the process of the parliament, as to exactly how that works. But, in due course—like most people; I don't think this is unusual in a marriage break-up—things will no doubt settle down. I look forward to making sure that I find another house. Many of those watching this would know that, unfortunately, about 40 per cent to 50 per cent of marriages break down, so this is not something that is completely out of the ballpark.

So I state once more: I did not—I did not—approach Mr Maguire for any help. I did not approach him. What I can also state is that he made the approach to me when I was not a minister; I was not a member of parliament. What I can also state is that I offered to pay for it, but I can also state that basically he said that, as a friend, he would not take any money—that he was quite happy to help me for that period of time. I don't think I can be more succinct than that.

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

The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be agreed to.