George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

This debate began at 9.30; it has been going for almost two hours. And we had to put up with almost two hours of the smearing and the trashing of and the attack by innuendo on the reputation of a great Australian, before the Labor Party, through Senator Faulkner, made the concession that disclosed and revealed the hollowness of their attack when Senator Faulkner said, 115 minutes into this debate:

I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. Not for one moment … I would not do that.

Well, Senator Faulkner, what are you doing? What are you doing, with the stature you bring to this chamber as an experienced Labor Party elder statesman, by your contribution joining with the disgusting innuendo to that very effect that we have heard from Senator Wong, your leader? Nevertheless, let anybody who is listening to this broadcast know that Senator Faulkner, the Labor Party's elder statesman in this chamber, asserts:

I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. Not for one moment …

We have been, all morning, throughout the course of this debate, interjecting on Labor Party speakers, or demanding in our own speeches, that if the Labor Party has an allegation to make then let them make it. And it took two hours of the trashing of the reputation of this fine Australian before Senator Faulkner, their elder statesman, announced in the chamber: 'We have no allegation to make. We make no allegation.' So what has all this been about? What it has been about is a cowardly attack by Senator Wong and her colleagues on a much greater Australian than any of them will ever be.

Shakespeare defined a coward as a person who is 'willing to wound but afraid to strike'. What we have seen this morning in the chamber is a Shakespearean example of cowardice by Senator Penny Wong and her colleagues. They have been willing to wound Senator Sinodinos; they have been willing to trash his reputation not only as an honest man but as a great Australian. But they have been unwilling to strike, because every time we have called upon them to make their allegations they have failed to do so. Now, at last, their elder statesman, their most forensic prosecutor, comes into the chamber and says, 'We have no allegation to make.'

What a disgraceful performance from you. You should be ashamed of yourself. The case against Senator Arthur Sinodinos is the 'When did you stop beating your wife?' argument. That is all it is. It is smear, pure and simple.

What the debate has therefore been reduced to is a debate about whether or not a statement that Senator Sinodinos gave to this chamber on 28 February last year is full and accurate in all material respects in view of some evidence that was given at ICAC yesterday. Let us get this straight. No wrongdoing has been alleged against Senator Sinodinos at ICAC by counsel assisting, no wrongdoing has been alleged against Senator Sinodinos by any witness at ICAC and now we know, late in the piece, that no wrongdoing is being alleged against Senator Sinodinos by the Labor Party. But there has been a quibble about whether or not, in three respects identified by Senator Faulkner in his contribution, Senator Sinodinos's statement of 28 February last year is adequate.

In most of the discussion from Senator Wong, in 24 wearisome minutes of sleaze and innuendo, and from Senator Faulkner, in 20 minutes of posturing outrage which culminated in the concession that they had no allegation to make, both speakers concentrated on these words of Senator Sinodinos:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

What they did not read to you or to the Senate are the words that follow. Senator Sinodinos went on to say:

I was by then in the Senate and Mr Michael Costa—

Senator Back interjecting—

Mr Michael Costa! You would not believe it, would you, Senator?

Senator Back interjecting—

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

We have Senator Wong, and Senator Faulkner, the tribune of righteousness, here. But we are getting a bit weary of Senator Faulkner's Diogenes act, as he wanders around the landscape of Australian politics with a lamp, searching for an honest man like Diogenes in classical Greece. We are wearying of your Diogenes act, Senator Faulkner. If you are being really straight with the Senate, you would have read the next sentence:

I was by then in the Senate and Mr Michael Costa, who succeeded me as chairman, was responsible for securing that agreement. I understand from public statements by New South Wales government ministers that this process was conducted at arm's length between the two parties to the contract, AWH and Sydney Water.

One can but wonder why it is that that highly relevant sentence, immediately following upon the sentence on which the opposition seek to crucify Senator Sinodinos, was deliberately omitted, because it certainly gives you the context, doesn't it?

When one is seeking to establish what in fact happened in a course of commercial dealings—and that is what I used to do for a living, Mr Acting Deputy President: commercial cases—it is always wise to bear in mind the chronology. It is always wise to bear in mind the sequence of events.

Senator Faulkner lights upon two pieces of evidence that were given to ICAC yesterday: a letter of 29 August 2011 to the chairman of Sydney Water and a meeting on 6 September 2011 where it is said that Senator Sinodinos was present and perhaps he was. But Senator Sinodinos, on 13 October 2011, became a member of the Senate and the day he became a member of the Senate, on 13 October 2011, he resigned his position as a non-executive director of AWH and the contract was not awarded until January 2012.

What Senator Sinodinos said in his statement to the Senate is that he played no role in the awarding of the contract. Of course he didn't, because it was a contract awarded by Sydney Water, not a contract awarded by AWH. And the contractual negotiations, as we know, although the Labor Party decided to try to overlook this small, material matter, were conducted by Mr Costa in the months immediately prior to the awarding of the contract, in January 2012. That is why Senator Faulkner, who chooses his words very carefully, was not able to characterise the letter of August 2011, almost five months before the contract was awarded, as being about the contractual relationship. It was deliberately vague, weaselly words about the contractual relationship. There was no contractual relationship in August 2011. There was a contractual relationship months after Senator Sinodinos had left the board, executed in January 2012.

Again, Senator Sinodinos's allegedly sinister presence at a meeting on 6 September, months before the contract was awarded, was, according to Senator Faulkner, about the contractual relationship. Senator Faulkner, I know that you are not a man of commerce. I know that Senator Penny Wong is not a woman of commerce. I know that on the entire Senate Labor benches there sits not one man or woman who has ever been a director of a public company or who has ever advised a public company. But, if there were, they would know what anybody with the remotest acquaintance with commerce well knows: that there is all the difference in the world between pre-contractual discussions, negotiations, and the award of a contract. The fact that a person, months before a contract has been entered into, might write a letter or attend a meeting at which the possibility of a contract coming into being at some unspecified time in the future may or may not have been discussed hardly contradicts the statement, 'I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water,' because plainly he did not. The contract was awarded to AWH by a company in which Senator Sinodinos had no involvement, Sydney Water, and the negotiations for the contract, as opposed to vague discussions about the possibility of a contract being entered into in the future, took place after he had left the board on 13 October 2011 and were conducted by his successor, Mr Michael Costa.

Senator Faulkner made two other observations. He quoted Mr Watson, the counsel assisting the ICAC inquiry, who apparently said yesterday, 'It is quite transparent that Mr Sinodinos's role was to open lines of communication with the Liberal Party.' Well, perhaps it was. That does not contradict a word, a syllable, in Senator Sinodinos's statement to the parliament in February last year. Senator Sinodinos is a Liberal and he is a man of commerce. I hate to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but there is a relationship between the Liberal Party and the business community, and we are proud of it. We actually believe in private enterprise. We are not a protection racket for no-hopers and union officials like our political opponents. We actually believe in private enterprise. So Senator Faulkner's next killer point is that there was a relationship between Australian Water Holdings and the Liberal Party, and Senator Sinodinos as a prominent Liberal was part of their relationship. So what? It has got nothing to do with his statement. How is it wrongdoing? How is it wrongdoing for a director of a public company to have a relationship with the Liberal Party? I tell you what, Mr Acting Deputy President: if that were wrongdoing then there would be hundreds of public company directors in Australia today, if not thousands, who are guilty of that same wrongdoing. So that was, if I may say so with all due respect, hardly a particularly compelling point.

Finally, Senator Faulkner refers to the Obeid family. He settles upon a statement made by Senator Sinodinos in his parliamentary speech in which he says:

I became non-executive chairman of AWH on 3 November 2010. I was not aware that, at around this time, the CEO of the company had negotiated what has been reported as a personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings. I believe that there should have been such a disclosure made to me.

So Senator Sinodinos has said he did not know about this. He said it unambiguously. And not a word has been said by the Labor speakers in this debate to suggest that there is any reason to doubt that fact. The best Senator Faulkner can do is to say, 'We assume that Mr Sinodinos would have had some knowledge.' That is it. Senator Sinodinos says that he had no knowledge. He considers that the matter should have been disclosed to him, but it was not. Why does Senator Faulkner say that Senator Sinodinos should have had that knowledge? Because he met Mr Obeid Jnr. How does it follow from the fact that Senator Sinodinos met Mr Obeid Jnr on one or two occasions that one should assume that Senator Sinodinos knew that the Obeid family had a personal loan agreement secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings? Where does that assumption come from?

Nothing that has been said in this debate reflects on the integrity of Senator Arthur Sinodinos. Nothing that has been said in this debate contradicts a word of what Senator Sinodinos said in his statement on 28 February last year. To those who say, 'Let Senator Sinodinos come into the chamber and give another statement,' might I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this week—yesterday, indeed, I think it was, or the day before yesterday—in question time, when asked about these matters, Senator Sinodinos said: 'I have nothing to add to my statement of 28 February 2013. It is accurate and I stand by it.' So as recently as this week Senator Sinodinos has given the Senate a statement affirming what he said last year.

So here we have it. For more than two hours now an attempt has been made on the basis of a 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type of argument to smear the reputation of a great and good Australian. For two hours we have demanded that the Labor Party formulate their allegations. Eventually their senior prosecutor declared they have no allegation to make. He declared—let me quote again—'I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly, not for a moment. I would not do that.' So we are reduced to the much more timid position, notwithstanding all this bold rhetoric we heard from the other side of the chamber, that there are contradictions between the statement on 28 February and the evidence disclosed in ICAC yesterday. In fact, there are not, because Senator Sinodinos did not negotiate that contract; Mr Costa did. That is a fact that the Labor speakers went out of their way to avoid disclosing. The signature of Senator Sinodinos on a letter and his presence at a meeting months before do not constitute securing the contract, and anybody with the remotest understanding of business would know that perfectly well. The other bases on which the statement is sought to be contradicted are suppositious, ephemeral and wrong. This is a great wrong done to a good Australian, and the Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves.