Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I will just pick up on what Senator Collins basically said here, that this debate today is about ministerial standards. I would like to take the Senate to that basic point that should be the subject of this motion to take note of answers to questions. Mr Brough is cooperating with the police, and there is nothing, I think, at this stage to suggest that he should stand aside in accordance with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. I think in any situation like this, any investigation should be allowed to take its course. I remind the Senate of the statement which Mr Brough made and issued on 19 November:

I can confirm reports that the AFP visited me on Tuesday requesting any documentation relating to allegations involving the disclosure of diary notes of Mr Slipper.

I can also confirm that I provided the exact same material to the AFP as I previously provided to the Federal Court.

Furthermore I advised the AFP that I would be happy to meet with them at any time in the future if need be.

On that same day, the Prime minister indicated—as Mr Brough has stated, and I have got no reason to doubt him—that the material that they have received is the same as has been already made public, so there is nothing new in that. There is an ongoing inquiry, and the answer is: yes, I do have confidence in Mr Brough, but of course there are rules relating to ministers and cabinet ministers. However, there is at this stage nothing to suggest that Mr Brough should stand aside or do anything of that kind. Naturally, he is providing complete cooperation in the investigation as he should.

The conduct in question occurred prior to Mr Brough's return to the parliament and his appointment as Special Minister of State and Minister for Defence Materiel and Science. The statement on ministerial standards provides that ministers will be required to stand aside, if charged—and I underscore 'charged'—with any criminal offence.

So let's go back to the appalling way, I have to say, that Senator Cameron this afternoon is seeking to prosecute this situation. As the Attorney has indicated, the simple fact that a person's premises are searched as a consequence of a search warrant does not lead to any conclusion. One cannot draw the assertion of any allegation of criminality but, I think, that is what Senator Cameron is seeking to do here. He is coming to this place, casting an aspersion on a member of the other place by saying, 'This person has had a search warrant issued against them. The police have come to search his premises'—the innuendo being that an imputation of criminality has occurred, which is absolutely wrong. Having listened to the debate earlier, I think that Senator Cameron certainly is sailing very, very close to the wind in relation to section 193(3).

I want to reiterate the comments made by the Prime Minister in the other place earlier this afternoon:

The facts and circumstances of this matter, all of which occurred prior to the last election and have been well known for considerable time …

As I have indicated, there are ministerial— (Time expired)