John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers on the same matter. The government takes the statement of standards of ministerial staff very seriously. We have made that quite clear this week. Under the statement of standards:

… staff are required to take all reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent).

I have known Senator Nash for 15 or 20 years. Her credibility and standing in the National Party are sky high. I think everyone in in this chamber would agree with that—everyone. I commend my colleague Senator Nash for giving very detailed statements to the Senate, and I commend her for their transparency.

What has amazed me in the debate here today is the hypocrisy and irony of what has been stated by those opposite. Senator Wong said that Senator Nash did not answer the question. I have been here for nearly six years. I have seen Senator Wong in government, down here on the ministerial benches. Perhaps I will get the library to research this, but I doubt if I ever heard Senator Wong answer a question in six years. We remember very clearly questions from Senator Cormann to Senator Wong when she was finance minister. All we got were ranting attacks on Senator Cormann and the opposition at the time; we never had a question answered. Whether it was about her involvement in water or in finance, the question was never answered.

Senator Wong spoke first in this debate on taking note of answers. She said that what Prime Minister Abbott had done did not appear to be 'fulsome support for the minister'. Let us turn the clock back. Minister Penny Wong in the previous government gave her support, as a left-winger in the Labor Party, to the left wing then Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. How long did her 'fulsome support' last? It was heading towards election time and the polls were looking terrible, so Minister Wong was one of those who were plotting to destroy the then Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. Is that what she defines as 'fulsome support'? Give us a break! She said: 'Let's do away with the Prime Minister. The polls are terrible. We're going to get wiped out. Bring back Mr Kevin Rudd; he might save the furniture in the house.' The irony of it is simply amazing.

Minister Wong refers to the misleading of the Australian people. Who was it who said, before the 2010 election, 'There will be no carbon tax'? Then Minister Wong, along with everyone else on that side and the Greens, goes out and brings in a carbon tax. They misled the people of Australia. The Greens didn't, of course—we knew their policy all along. But people like Mr Tony Windsor and Mr Rob Oakeshott—if you remember them—along with the Greens, held a political gun to Ms Gillard's head and said, 'We have to have the multiparty climate change committee' and then the carbon tax that we were never going to have. And the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, talks about the misleading of the Australian people. I just find it amazing when people make these statements.

Senator McLucas said she found the answers unconvincing. I have found, in the almost-six years I have sat as a senator in this place, that the answers we were getting from opposition were not only unconvincing—give us a break: we could never get an answer! It didn't matter whether it was to Senator Ludwig about the abolition of the live export trade and the damage to our cattle industry; whether it was on finance; or whether it was to Senator Conroy and all these targets with the NBN, rolling out past premises everywhere. When we got into government, the minister found out that, of the 240,000 premises passed, you can't hook up 70,000—there is no technology to connect to them! But Senator Conroy was saying, 'We're going past all these premises; we're rolling this out'—this plan that was scratched out on the back of an envelope and discussed with the then Prime Minister. Who was the Prime Minister then? It was hard to keep up! I think it was Mr Kevin Rudd at the time. But they were going to bring out a plan.

I commend Senator Nash. She is a decent woman with decent principles and she will do a decent and very good job in her portfolio. I will not play these games that are being played by those opposite— (Time expired)