Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let's be clear about the facts:

The NSW Police Force is in the early stages of investigating information into the reported creation of fraudulent documentation.

That's the quote that's on the public record from the New South Wales police.

Detectives from the State Crime Command's Financial Crimes Squad have launched Strike Force Garrad to investigate the matters and determine if any criminal offences have been committed.

The way in which this government has chosen to answer questions and to impugn the shadow Attorney-General for daring to ask for an inquiry is a disgrace.

The New South Wales commissioner for police has been impugned in this place today by what the government clearly think is a clever argument. They have diminished Mr Fuller by attempting in this place to create a perception that he was incapable of making a sound judgement about whether to proceed or not to proceed. Mr Fuller, on the facts presented to him, chose to proceed with an investigation. The minute he did that, the Prime Minister should have taken the action that is required of him by the Statement of Ministerial Standards. He should have implemented 7.1, which says:

Ministers must accept that it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether and when a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct.

Well, it is alleged. There are many allegations that linger long around Mr Taylor, the member for Hume. The commissioner of police in New South Wales, Mr Fuller, has determined that there is sufficient evidence for him to launch an inquiry. In the context of that inquiry, Mr Taylor, the member for Hume, should be stood down. If he doesn't have enough integrity to do it himself, the Prime Minister should stand him down.

This bloke has form. I am proud to be the Labor senator who looks after the seat of Hume, and I visit there on many occasions. There's embarrassment in that community about their current member. The $80 million water buyback—this is that guy. The repeated misleading claims on carbon emissions—that's this guy. 'Grassgate'—Mr Taylor accused of misleading the Australian parliament regarding his involvement in a scandal connected to his family businesses—that's who this guy is. He has form. On 24 June this year, when Councillor Moore and a member of the New South Wales parliament declared a climate emergency, which was endorsed by the council, they wrote to the federal government, and it upset Mr Angus Taylor. He was so upset that he wrote a letter to Councillor Moore in response to her suggestions and suggested that the council should take practical steps. The problem is that, in the letter he wrote, he articulated a claim that the council spent $1.7 million on international travel and $14.2 million on domestic travel, which was completely at odds with the figures that remain today on the website he says he acquired them from.

The guy has form and it's all bad. It stinks to high heaven, and this government knows it. Yet they are lining up to defend him—perhaps not all; we have to go to Senator Birmingham's responses today. Their shortness was quite good, actually. I would appreciate that more often. He said:

That is the advice of Minister Taylor.

…   …   …

I refer … to Mr Taylor's statement …

…   …   …

Minister Taylor has made a statement …

That's the degree of defence offered by Senator Birmingham. The reality is that, like rotting prawn shells cooking away in wheelie bins across this country, the stench of Angus Taylor is becoming more rank by the day, and, like a primitive poultice stench, that stench now hangs around the neck of the Prime Minister. Australians deserve better. Apparently Mr Morrison can manage to take out the rubbish in the shire. He should be taking out the trash here in Canberra as well. I call on the Prime Minister, as my colleagues in the other place have, to stand down Mr Taylor. He deserves to go. The police commissioner in New South Wales deserves a lot more respect than a mate-mate conversation by the Prime Minister seeking to influence the outcome of the inquiry. (Time expired)