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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer.

There are a number of serious questions that Senator Sinodinos has to answer in relation to allegations which have been aired publicly. I wrote to the Leader of the Government in the Senate today as a matter of courtesy, indicating to him that the opposition would grant leave for Senator Sinodinos to come into this chamber and give a full explanation. The reasons why the opposition believes this is important are threefold. In February 2013 Senator Sinodinos gave a statement to this chamber. Three aspects of that statement we believe appear to be inconsistent with evidence which has been given at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Those three matters go, first, to Senator Sinodinos's assertion in his statement that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract. Second, in relation to political donations, he did not recollect these being discussed at board level. Third, he was not aware at the time that he was made chair that the CEO of the company had negotiated what ICAC has now described as a sham loan agreement.

I will go into further detail in the context of the substantive motion, but I say this: Senator Sinodinos gave a statement to the Senate as a backbencher; that is true. But it is important to note that all of us in this place have an obligation to be truthful and frank with the chamber. He as minister has subsequently reaffirmed that. He has said in the chamber, 'I stand by the statement I made.' I think it is incumbent upon Senator Sinodinos to attend this chamber to explain the apparent inconsistencies, and certainly the omissions, in his statement to the Senate in February when faced with the factual assertions and other allegations which have been made at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has made a number of statements which really fly in the face of the assertions that Senator Sinodinos made to this chamber.

It is the case that the commission against corruption is investigating these matters. We accept that, but we also believe on two grounds that Senator Sinodinos should attend this place. The first ground in particular is the one I have asserted. That is that senators in this place, when confronted with public allegations which are not consistent with a statement they have made to this chamber, particularly if they are ministers, should attend this chamber and give an explanation which clarifies the inconsistencies and omissions in that statement. We have given Senator Sinodinos a number of occasions—a number of opportunities—on which he could do so. He has chosen not to.

The second basis on which we say he should attend this chamber is the ministerial standards.