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

I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter concerns the member for Pearce and whether his failure to comply with the resolution of the House regarding the registration of members' interests constitutes a contempt of the parliament.

If this matter is allowed to stand we might as well not have a Register of Members' Interests at all. Today is the first sitting day since the matter was made public, and today is the earliest opportunity I've had to present this matter to the House in the comprehensive manner required. The shadow Attorney-General has also written to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests on this matter.

The facts are these. On 1 June it was announced that the member for Pearce would withdraw a defamation case against the ABC. His costs are undisclosed. The member for Pearce has stated, 'My lawyers, whilst they are very good, are very, very expensive,' and I will table that transcript. On 13 September, the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to his defamation case, and I will table that document. The member for Pearce lists:

Part contribution to the payment of my fees by a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust. As a potential beneficiary I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust.

But what the member for Pearce describes as a blind trust is in fact nothing like the blind trusts which have previously been registered. In every other blind trust which has appeared on the register it has been clear whose money was being managed. On this occasion we have no idea.

The central purpose of the register is to manage and disclose interests and potential conflicts. It beggars belief that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust. It is incomprehensible that this strange new breed of philanthropist, who could donate to any cause or charity in the world, would choose this otherwise secret trust to pay the legal bills in a private defamation case and then have no interest in the member for Pearce knowing that they'd helped out. The House needs to consider what this means. If what the member for Pearce has done is allowed to stand, it means that any member of parliament can set up a trust, instruct the trustee to accept donations on a confidential basis only and then receive the cash from any source, all the while saying, 'Well, I couldn't tell you where my donations are coming from, because they were given on the basis of confidentiality.'

What the member of Pearce has done renders the Register of Members' Interests completely worthless. If permitted, this behaviour empowers other MPs to create such a trust as a means of escaping their disclosure obligations as an elected member of this House. At its worst, it provides a means for MPs to get around laws that prohibit foreign donations. Indeed, the only assurance we have that the member for Pearce has not done such a thing is that he simply says he has not. In a statement by the member for Pearce on September 19, which I will table, we learned two things. The first is that, despite the member for Pearce's statement on his register, he actually was able to uncover information regarding the donors to this trust. His statement says:

… on my request the Trustee provided me an assurance that none of the contributors were lobbyists or prohibited foreign entities.

The second thing revealed is that the member for Pearce has made a choice not to uncover further information about the identities of the donors. He states:

Ultimately, I decided that if I have to make a choice between seeking to pressure the Trust to break individuals' confidentiality in order to remain in Cabinet, or alternatively forego my Cabinet position, there is only one choice I could, in all conscience, make.

He also states:

I could not assist any process that would ultimately allow people who have done nothing wrong to become targets of the social media mob and I would continue to respect their position.

So either the member for Pearce does know who the donors to his legal trust are but is refusing to disclose them publicly or he has chosen to not take steps which are available to him to determine their identities. Either conclusion raises doubt as to whether the member has committed a serious contempt under part (c) of the additional resolution adopted on 13 February 1986 regarding members' interests, which I will table. That resolution provides:

That any Member of the House of Representatives who—

…   …   …

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests,

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly.

This is a serious allegation that must be investigated by the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This is not a case of an MP making an honest mistake. This is not a case of carelessness. This is a deliberate and calculated attempt to evade the entire purpose of the register.

Mr Speaker, with that in mind, I ask you to consider granting precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members' Interests regarding whether the precedent the member for Pearce has set threatens the integrity of the Register of Members' Interests, whether the member for Pearce has wilfully refused to take reasonable steps available to him to identify donors to a trust which has part-paid his legal fees, whether this constitutes a breach of part (c) of the additional resolution on the registration of members' interests, and whether members receiving anonymous gifts beyond the threshold set out in (2)(k) of the House resolution on the registration of members' interests constitutes a contempt of the House.

I thank you for your consideration and I table the documents referred to.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and I accept that he's raised the matter at the earliest opportunity, at the beginning of the first sitting day. I will consider the matter in the normal way and report back to the House during the course of the week.