Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that the coalition pursue this line of questioning. Last time you told us that you were on strong legal grounds you ended up in the High Court with your failed Malaysia solution. Having been a government lawyer for 20 years before I came into this place, I repeat: are you confident that you are on strong legal ground, because unfortunately your government does not have a very strong record in relation to this. Indeed, the reason I am asking this here is that unfortunately the coalition were not given the opportunity to ask the minister these questions in the lower house, where our shadow minister responsible was there waiting to ask questions on 15 June. In this debate, comments have been made in relation to Minister Roxon. She has never really come clean over her cosy relationship with the tobacco companies. On that day, when she was supposed to front up to the consideration in detail of the Health and Ageing portfolio in the Main Committee, she just did not show. She did not show because she was running and hiding. Quite frankly, that would have been the appropriate time for questions of this nature to have been dealt with in detail with the minister, but it was very clear that the minister was very embarrassed. She had obviously misled the Australian public, because she had been publicly saying one thing and leading the Australian public to believe that she was taking a certain course of action in relation to tobacco companies, yet privately she was writing to tobacco company executives seeking their financial support. Indeed, it was really quite irresponsible for the minister not to front up, because there were legitimate questions for her to be asked.

Also, a motion was moved by Mr Dutton in the other place on 15 June calling on the minister to attend the chamber and publicly explain certain matters. It was very clear that the government protected the minister on that day when she refused to attend the chamber. The problem with this minister is that, if you do not agree with her 100 per cent, there is this accusation across the chamber that somehow we must be in the pocket of tobacco companies. We have seen it time and time again in this debate. If anybody has been in the pocket of the tobacco companies—and this is a classic case of: people in glass houses should not throw stones—it was the minister herself. I must say that to this day we still do not know the extent to which that the minister herself was in the pocket of big tobacco. She has been prosecuting this issue with such a degree of zeal, but, of course, that zeal sits very uncomfortably with her hypocrisy.

As Senator Cash, I think, mentioned earlier, it was only recently that, despite the Labor Party's edict, so to speak, to place a so-called ban on the party from taking donations from tobacco companies, you have your New South Wales Australian Labor Party secretary still this year offering Philip Morris $5,000 places at a business dialogue and country business forum. The reason we now have to ask these questions is that the minister at no stage has fronted up to answer these questions.

Parliamentary Secretary, have you sought legal advice on the position under the trade related aspects of individual property rights agreements with regard to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill?