Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

That is a very interesting contribution by the assistant minister, who is leaving the chamber. Coming in and correcting the record from question time in the adjournment debate, under cover of darkness and after the press gallery has left, does not speak of an open, accountable and transparent government. There are some very serious questions arising out of that little correction which do need to be explored. I will briefly address some of them now.

I may have misheard some of what was said very quickly then, but the minister in question time suggested:

There is no connection, whatsoever, between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.

I may have misheard, but I think she just indicated to the Senate that her chief of staff still had a shareholding in the relevant company. They are very different things.

The minister chose not to respond to two very important aspects of my questions from earlier today. First, I asked her what role her chief of staff had played in the removal of the website just hours after it was launched. That was not answered at question time nor was it responded to in the contribution just made to the Senate. Second, I asked when the chief of staff had declared the relationship to the minister, her department and the Prime Minister's office. I do not believe—but I will certainly be checking the Hansardthat that was answered in full and in detail in the contribution just given.

There are some very serious questions about the matters Senator Nash has responded to today. I say this, to be honest, with some regret because, on a personal level, I have a deal of regard for Senator Nash. But, as a minister, she does have certain obligations to this chamber and under the ministerial standards. To put it very simply, the partner of her chief of staff is or was the owner of a firm whose clients had a direct commercial interest in policy decisions the minister was making. As I understand the contribution just given, she has conceded that her chief of staff had a direct pecuniary interest in a firm which was representing those clients or which had a commercial interest in the policy decisions in her portfolio. There are some very serious questions to be answered by the minister—and, frankly, by the government—about how that arrangement can possibly comply with the ministerial standards and the standards applicable to ministerial staff.