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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

(1) whether the conduct of the Member for Pearce, by refusing to disclose on the Register of Members' Interests the identities of individual donors to a Trust used to pay his private legal fees, has failed to properly register an interest where a conflict of interest with his public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise, and in doing so created a precedent which threatens the integrity of the Register of Members' Interests;

(2) whether the Member for Pearce has knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests;

(3) whether this constitutes a contempt of the House; and

(4) whether paragraph 2(k) of the House Resolution on the Registration of Members' Interests requires Members to provide reasonable identifying details of the sources of gifts that meet the relevant thresholds.

Mr Speaker, I will start by thanking you for considering the matters that I raised and for making the decision to grant precedence in weighing those issues up. Had you not done so, I'd be in a position of having to move a suspension of standing orders instead of us being able to put it to this House.

I note that, for the entire time of your speakership, there have not been many occasions where privileges references have been made, but, in every instance, when you have decided to not give precedence, the House has accepted that and no suspension has been moved, and, when you have given precedence, the House has then resolved to send the matter to the Privileges Committee. I urge the House to do exactly that today. In doing so, the House is not making a decision. I do not want members opposite to feel that they are being asked to adjudicate on the member for Pearce himself, but they are in a situation where the Speaker—elected unopposed—has said that there is a prima facie case here, and the resolution allows the committee of privileges to examine the merits of this.

What they would be examining is no small matter. We have here not the sort of blind trust that members have used previously. There have been a number of times when members come to this parliament having already, in their lives, amassed considerable wealth—good on them; there's no problem with that—and they want to make sure they avoid conflicts of interest, so they therefore put their money into a trust, and someone else handles where the investments go. Up until now, that has been what we have dealt with in the register when we have dealt with a blind trust. The member may not have known where the money was being invested but we knew exactly whose money it was.

On this occasion, we are dealing with something that, if it is allowed to stand and if you are allowed to do this, we may as well not have a Register of Members' Interests at all. The term 'blind trust' is being used—this is a brown paper bag stitched together by lawyers. We have no idea whose money is involved. If we accept what the member for Pearce has said publicly, we know the first thing—he can find out where the money has come from because he was able to say it's not foreign donors and it's no-one on the lobbyists' register. So he has made clear that he can find out whose money is in this trust, from which he has personally benefited for a personal bill. He can find out who it is and he has chosen not to. In choosing not to, he wants us to allow a situation to stand where the Register of Members' Interests does not allow the public to know who gives us money. Think about that. Think about the purpose of having a register. The whole reason it's there is so the public know if a member of parliament gets money. The public have a right to know where that money has come from. What the member for Pearce has done—there is a prima facie case of this, and the privileges committee will get the chance to examine it if this is carried—is something that no-one else in this House has tried on. Since Federation, no member of parliament has tried this—to receive income and not let anyone know who is paying.

The concept that he has no idea, I've got to say, I have difficulty with. There are philanthropists out there who could fund any charity in the world. To think that they look around for the different funds in a time of a pandemic—there's plenty of need out there—and say: 'Of all the different causes, the one I want to give money to is the legal bills of the member for Pearce. But I don't want him to know that I ever gave a cent, and somehow I've found out that this secret trust exists.' We're meant to believe that, if we're to believe that the member for Pearce has no idea at all.

But just start with this simple principle—why do we have a register? If you don't believe in having a Register of Members' Interests, vote against this. I get that. If you don't believe members of parliament should be held to any standards, vote against this. But if you believe that the public have a right to know where money comes from, if it comes to us, then allow the privileges committee to examine it. I don't know what they will find. There have been a number of times when precedence has been granted and I thought, 'Yes, we've got there,' and it has come back without an answer that I thought was great. But that's their job, and as a parliament we've appointed people to the privileges committee to do that job. Sometimes, regardless of party affiliation, those members on that privileges committee have taken their jobs seriously, have taken their integrity of that role seriously and have voted contrary to what might otherwise be considered party lines. The classic example of that would be Bruce Billson. I made the reference that precedence was given, it went through unopposed, we ended up with a unanimous decision coming back from the privileges committee and then the resolution was carried unanimously through the House. That's how matters of integrity should be dealt with. And that's what this House is being asked to consider again.

If we're not going to refer the member for Pearce, think about what's then allowed. Any member of this House can then set up a blind trust, have whatever income they want go into it and receive the money, and all they have to say is: 'I got it from the trust. I don't know where the money came from.' If we start with the principle that disclosure is there to avoid corruption, that the register is there to avoid corruption and that we want to avoid conflicts of interest to avoid corruption then we need to oppose a system where members of parliament can keep secret who is giving them money for personal bills.

If you're wondering whether this is just an issue for Labor, remember the extent to which those opposite railed against a Labor senator who disclosed where he had had money come from because it had been to pay for a personal bill and because of where that money had come from. He's no longer a member of parliament and he left because of that. If you think that was a reasonable prosecution of the facts, right now, the member for Pearce is wanting to create a situation where those facts would never be known, where anyone can just set up a trust, where it doesn't matter what business interest, what potential criminal interest, what potential overseas interest gives you money, where all you have to report is, 'I got the money from the trust.' No-one has ever tried this before, not because no-one had cause to possibly think of it—probably some people had—but because everyone just knew it would have been outrageous.

We've all known that you're not meant to do something like this—to say: 'Oh, someone gave me a wad of cash. I don't know who they were. But, yes, I got it. Good on me'—and yet the person who previously had been the Attorney-General of Australia in this House and had charge of introducing the anticorruption body, and then never did, is the person who has set this up. So, when this comes to a vote, I simply ask everybody to think of the way members have voted previously when they have taken their role on the Privileges Committee itself, because on that committee they have always acted with integrity and responsibly and they have said that they owe a duty to the parliament. Well, we all do, and this vote is a test of that, because if this is allowed to stand the Register of Members' Interests is obliterated in terms of being a disclosure document; the concept that we find out what the conflicts of interests are for members of parliament is obliterated; the concept that we have mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption is gone. That's the decision that's in front of this House now.

The Privileges Committee might come back with an answer that I don't expect. That's on them. But it would be the cover-up to end all cover-ups if this House prevents the Privileges Committee from even being able to look at this resolution before us. If all they were allowed to look at was the letter that's been sent to them by the shadow Attorney-General, without the authority of it being a resolution of the House, it would mean they would deal with it differently. The only time the Privileges Committee has an obligation to report back is when the information gets to them by a resolution of this House. Everybody here at different points has made speeches about integrity. Everyone in this House has made speeches about standards. This resolution is a test of whether or not we hold to the exact words that, on different occasions, every one of us has uttered.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his contribution on what is an important matter. I want to deal with Practice first, just to make very clear the circumstances that we are dealing with in relation to this particular issue. Mr Speaker, the first point is that the honourable member for Watson has asked you to grant precedence, which of course he can do if he gives proper notice and he has done that—we acknowledge that. You have given it due deliberation since he raised that earlier point on Monday—and we appreciate that as well. His request of you, Mr Speaker, on my reading of the Practice, is for you to give this issue precedence for the House to consider and to vote on, and that's what we're doing now. That's the extent of the request that's available to the member for Watson under the standing orders of the Speaker. So I want to make that very clear, just to respond to some of the points made in the member for Watson's contribution.

The member for Watson hasn't asked the Speaker to provide a verdict on the allegations that he has put forward to the Speaker as part of his submission. That is abundantly clear and that is very important, Mr Speaker, to note as part of this. Our position in relation to this matter is on that basis. I think it is important to note that, at page 769 of Practice it says, and I quote in part:

… the Speaker may reserve the matter for further consideration, or may give the matter precedence and invite the Member to move one of the above motions …

Referred to in an earlier paragraph on page 679. It goes on to say:

If the matter is given precedence, consideration and decision of every other question is suspended until the matter of privilege has been disposed of, or until debate on any motion related to the matter of privilege has been adjourned.

At page 771, the second paragraph says:

In determining that a prima facie case exists, the Speaker typically refers to the matter briefly, but does not express concluded views on the issues themselves, as it is for the House to decide, in practice after examination by the Committee of Privileges, whether a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed.

I wanted to make that abundantly clear as part of my contribution in explaining the government's position.

This issue has alerted us as a house to much a much broader issue, because there is not only this matter in relation to the former Attorney that has been raised by the member opposite but also a number of other cases which are of a similar ilk. I know that the member for Watson has made a claim in relation to the trust and to the lack of transparency in his contribution during the course of his earlier remarks. But the same principle applies to a number of other members in this place over a period of time in relation to defamation trials, in particular, which are expensive—and we note that—particularly when a member of parliament is taking an action against a corporate entity, a media organisation or a government body, for example. These are difficult matters for members.

I can give examples. For example, Mr Speaker, the same transparency issues raised by the member for Watson arise in circumstances of GoFundMe pages, where there is no transparency about the donors—no transparency whatsoever. You could make the same argument in relation to other members where they have received a donation, for example, from the Labor Party or, indeed, the Liberal Party if it's a reimbursement of costs or an indemnity of costs, because effectively that provides a flow-through vehicle. There's no transparency as to where that money has been donated from. For the Labor Party then to donate that money on to the member of parliament, there's no transparency in that process.

The GoFundMe pages for Senator Hanson-Young, for example, or Senator Bob Brown or others who have raised money provide a very interesting study. In the case of Senator Hanson-Young—which goes to exactly the points being made by the member for Watson about transparency in this issue—the donors to Senator Hanson-Young on a GoFundMe page included Mr Anon, otherwise known as anon. There was a John 51884010. There was a Mary W. There was an Anna B. There was a Buzz Rainbow Wolf. There was a Jeff CB. There was an Anne 559 and series of other numbers ending in a 5. There was Zanda B. There was MG. There was Steph Steph. There was Dave C. There was Bin H. There was Nicky. There was ET—ET donated. There was Leanne W.

I suggest to you that there is no transparency in that process. In fact, it makes a mockery of a suggestion that the GoFundMe page is a transparent process and donors are properly identified in their contribution to a member of parliament to provide support to them in a defamation proceeding. That's the reality. So the principle espoused by the member for Watson is not as virtuous as he might make out.

I can go to the member for Hunter, who has an issue in relation to this, but, Leader of the Opposition, because I appreciate the spirit in which the opposition member has approached this matter, I don't intend to conduct character assessments of those opposite. The point I'm making here is that I think this gives rise to a much bigger issue in relation to members of parliament. That is why on Monday of this week I wrote to the chair of the Privileges Committee. I understand that the shadow Attorney-General has also written to that committee. I believe that there are further issues beyond this which need to be considered by the Privileges Committee. I'm happy to, in a moment, table the letter that I wrote to the Privileges Committee, to Mr Broadbent, and I will make sure that members are able to view that, because I think—and I've detailed this in my letter—that there are bigger considerations and further considerations than those raised in the motion before the House at the moment, and they should be considered by the Privileges Committee. That should come back to the government, if the committee sees it appropriate, to deal with what is a much more significant issue.

I think there are other steps that, frankly, should be contemplated between the government and the opposition in relation to what is a significant issue, because, as the member for Watson pointed out, there are many people who come into this parliament, on both sides, with significant wealth—and good luck to them, as the member for Watson pointed out. There are many members, as I look around, who don't have those deep pockets to defend a defamation trial, in some cases costing over a million dollars. That's the reality.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

If the Leader of the House could pause. For those members interjecting: I will eject members interjecting under 94(a). This is not a normal procedure where you feel you can make contributions against the standing orders. This is a rare matter, and I need to hear people in silence. The Leader of the House.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there is a sensible discussion to be had at the appropriate time between the government and the opposition to see what the appropriate next step might be for this parliament. I think it's a workplace entitlement issue and I think it's a broader discussion that should be had. We are, as a government, prepared to have that discussion.

So I table the letter that on 18 October I wrote to the Privileges Committee and, for the reasons I've detailed today, the government is not going to support the motion that's before the House, because I believe that the letter that I wrote, the letter that has been written by the shadow Attorney-General and the broader issue that, as I point out, is here before us to deal with makes redundant the motion that's been moved by the member for Watson. It's on that basis that the government will be opposing it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to defend the existence of the register of pecuniary interests and I rise to defend this parliament, this House of Representatives and the integrity of this House, because I find it, quite frankly, extraordinary that the government would be in a position of rejecting a recommendation from the Speaker in granting precedence, as you have.

I've been in the position of Leader of the House. I held that position for two terms of the parliament. On no occasion would I have even considered rejecting a motion that was brought forward after the Speaker had given due consideration to whether precedence should be given. I'd be interested in the Leader of the House commenting about whether there has been a time since Federation whereby we've have the circumstances that the Leader of the House is contemplating this parliament conduct, because as far as I'm aware—I've received advice—since Federation there has never been a time when the House has voted down a resolution after precedence was given. In more than 120 years that has never occurred. Why? Because the standing orders are very clear.

Mr Speaker, the standing orders, under 51(d)(i), say that in order to grant precedence you had to give consideration as to whether 'a prima facie case of contempt or breach of privilege has been made out'. And you could only consider that after you'd considered (ii), which is 'the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity'. Mr Speaker, you've given consideration to this, and there's been some commentary in recent times about the seriousness with which you take your job. I've said publicly that you are an outstanding Speaker who has raised the conduct of this House. That's in the interests of us all, but it particularly assists the government to have a Speaker who does their job independently.

The idea here that there is any doubt as to the facts is extraordinary. What this motion from the member for Watson does is just ask that the committee consider these facts—consider them and make a determination and a recommendation. It's not a conclusion. In opposing this motion, the government is saying, 'Don't even look at it; just pretend; look away,' to something that is very serious. What we have here is that on 1 June the member for Pearce said that he would withdraw a defamation case against the ABC. On 13 September the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to the defamation case. It discloses:

But it's not a blind trust. He knows where the money is being invested. It's being invested in him, in what's a private legal matter. A blind trust is what the former member for Wentworth, the former Prime Minister, did when he was in this parliament, so that investments could be made on his behalf and he wouldn't know where they were being invested. This is being paid to his lawyers for a private legal matter.

It is a nonsense that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust, because how did they know where to put the money? How did they know? As to the GoFundMe page that the minister referred to, GoFundMe pages are pages people know. They're public by definition; they're on the internet. With this you had to know exactly how to donate money to this trust to benefit the member for Pearce. But the House doesn't know where the donations came from. The Australian public don't know where the money came from. This cannot be allowed to stand. If it's allowed to stand it renders redundant the processes of this parliament whereby all of us cannot receive money from private interests for personal reasons without disclosing it. That's the basis—point 1—for stamping out corruption in this parliament. I make no assertion regarding the member for Pearce, and nor does this resolution. But if this resolution is not carried then anyone can receive money from unknown sources into a so-called 'blind trust' and never declare it. It renders all the things, including foreign donations and interference—don't come in here and talk about national security again if you don't vote for this resolution, because you won't be taken seriously. This opens it all up to foreign interference in our politics. It opens it all up for corporate interests or individual interests to buy influence in this parliament without anyone knowing.

At the moment, some people can try to buy influence, and we know that gets disclosed. People have lost their seats over those issues. We know that Senator Dastyari lost his seat in the Senate as a result of a small amount. This is up to $1 million for the former first legal officer of the land—the Attorney-General—who was responsible, while he held that title, for introducing legislation to create a national integrity commission into this parliament. You couldn't make this up! You could not make the scenario up whereby the government is going to vote against this. I say to the Leader of the House—who, at the risk of receiving substantial criticism on social media, I have some regard for—think about what you are doing with this resolution. You're saying that you are ignoring the fact that the Speaker has determined there's a prima facie case worthy of consideration. You're not pre-empting the deliberations of the Privileges Committee; you're saying they can't even look at it—in spite of the Speaker's determination and in spite of the fact that there is so much public anger about this.

The public out there—I think, wrongly—think that there is a lot more dodgy activity than there is. I think most people go into parliament—overwhelmingly, on all sides—out of the public interest. That's why they do it. But I have to acknowledge that one of the reasons I support a national anticorruption commission with teeth is that a whole lot of the public are really angry about these issues. This will make them damn angry. And they have every right to be damn angry if this parliament is saying that someone who was the first law officer of the land received donations of up to $1 million, that he must know where they're from but that no-one else has a right to know where they're from, that we won't even give consideration to that, and that that's okay. It is not okay! No-one made the member for Pearce engage in this legal activity against the ABC. That was his decision. He's entitled, I guess, under the rules of the parliament, to seek donations, but he's not entitled do it anonymously and he's not entitled to pretend that it is a blind trust when it is not.

There is an absolute responsibility of every member of this House to support this motion to refer the member for Pearce to the Privileges Committee. It's consistent with every single decision that has been made in this House since Federation. Don't set a new precedent which opens us up to corruption in 2021. (Time expired)

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

The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of the Opposition be disagreed to.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs just accused exiting ministers of taking a bribe. It is completely unacceptable. It is completely unparliamentary, and I ask the shadow minister to approach the dispatch box and withdraw that.

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

I'll just say to the minister, if members can just control themselves for a second: I'm the arbiter of who comes to the dispatch box and who doesn't. I heard interjections, but I didn't hear the substance of them. That's what happens when members shout at each other as they're leaving the chamber. The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order?

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

On the point of order: what the House has just done is unprecedented. Right now, the House has resolved—

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

No, the Manager of Opposition Business, we're not going to go over—

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

It goes exactly to what he's just pointed to. He just voted that we'll never find out if somebody has been bribed. That's how he voted.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.

The member for Mackellar will not stand at the back of the chamber and interject. You will not scoff. You've got a seat; either sit in it or leave. I'm going to ask the member for Isaacs to come to the dispatch box and ask him whether he made an unparliamentary remark or reflected on members. The member for Isaacs.

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

I did.

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

I need the member for Isaacs to withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

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

I thank the member for Isaacs.