Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

It is; thank you, Senator Bernardi. No, in fact it is about Mr Brough and whether there is a case to be answered. This, once again, was the subject of discussion in question time today. As we have heard, the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, says, 'There's nothing new here, so there is no case to answer,' and refuses to engage with serious questions about whether he conducted due diligence in the appointments he made to his executive. Again today we heard from Senator Sinodinos that there are still no answers to very important questions about what due diligence was conducted in the appointment—a very important appointment—of a man who would be Special Minister of State, and integrity and the responsibilities that are involved in that role.

Let us look at the reason that many feel there is a case to be answered. The first and most obvious is that Mr Brough himself confessed on 60 Minutes. Let me go to exactly what he confessed to. The question from Liz Hayes was:

Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you?

Mal Brough's answer:

Yes, I did.

For him to suggest that it was not a clear question and maybe he was not in proper mind when he gave that answer is just ludicrous.

But let us look at the next issue that was canvassed in question time today, and that was with respect to the warrant. Again, I am incredulous that the first law officer of the land can suggest that warrants are just handed out willy-nilly and they do not really matter and it is not really important because guilt has not been established. As Senator Wong's question pointed out, guilt had not yet been established in relation to Senator Sinodinos but he was required to stand down. The only justification that there is no change in the ministerial standards of practice would be us going back to the John Howard approach to the ministerial standards, which is to pretend that they do not exist. So we have them; we just do not apply them.

Given that we do understand that a warrant does require the Australian Federal Police—and remember this is the Australian Federal Police—to establish reasonable grounds and that these cases are not to be taken lightly, it is incredulous that, as Attorney-General, Senator Brandis would suggest that it just does not really matter and that there is no case to be answered. What he hides behind, as I said, is that guilt has not been established. That is not the standard that has been applied in the past. What he is in fact doing is stonewalling. We saw that stonewalling last week when, as representing the Prime Minister here, he refused to take on notice questions to the Prime Minister regarding what due diligence the new Prime Minister conducted in this matter in establishing his new executive.

Today we saw another case of stonewalling when he did not answer my question in relation to what other members of the coalition frontbench were involved in this matter. He has refused to answer that question—a very important question—and one can only ask why. Is it a level of arrogance that this government should not be held accountable? Is it a level of arrogance that due diligence is not something that should be required in relation to very important appointments? Does he think that there genuinely is no case to answer when a minister of the government confesses on national television that he sought to procure Peter Slipper's diary using James Ashby? Of course there is a case to be answered. What is more concerning, though, is the quality of these question time answers and the stonewalling that has occurred for two days now on very important questions. (Time expired)