Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I would submit I am relevant to the point raised by Senator Patrick because my comments also relate to government ministers' statements in relation to questions on notice.

I do want to focus on an answer that was just tabled by Senator Birmingham at the end of question time. It's question on notice No. 3572, which I lodged nearly two months ago. It was a question seeking details from the Prime Minister as to representations made by the former foreign minister Ms Julie Bishop to government ministers on behalf of Mr Lex Greensill or his company, Greensill Capital. It is highly unsatisfactory that it has taken me flagging my intention to raise this today to finally get an answer from the Prime Minister of this country to this question. It does go to government integrity, something that we should be able to expect from our Prime Minister, if not all ministers, in this government. What the question that I lodged nearly two months ago sought was detail from the Prime Minister as to how many introductions Ms Bishop had made between government ministers and Mr Greensill or employees of his firm, Greensill Capital; in what capacity government ministers understood Ms Bishop to be making such communications; and details of the dates and nature of any meetings that did occur between ministers and representatives of Greensill Capital as a result of Ms Bishop's representations.

This matter does have some background, and one of the reasons that we are asking questions about this is that anyone who has followed either the collapse of Greensill Capital or, particularly, developments in the United Kingdom relating to this company, would be aware that quite a scandal has emerged in British politics involving the former British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, who was hired as a lobbyist by Greensill Capital. Various text messages, WhatsApp messages and other information have surfaced demonstrating Mr Cameron's abuse of his former role as Prime Minister of the British government and his personal connections to serving British Conservative ministers in pursuit of his client, Greensill Capital, who, as we know, went on to collapse, putting many funds and many creditors in jeopardy.

What we're concerned about, from the opposition's point of view here in Australia, is whether something similar has occurred in relation to the efforts of the former foreign minister Ms Julie Bishop. It's a matter of public record that Ms Bishop is on the payroll of Greensill Capital. She has now registered as a lobbyist on behalf of Greensill Capital, among other companies. She was a bit tardy in updating her register, but she is now a registered lobbyist on behalf of, among other firms, Greensill Capital. So there has been a connection between Ms Bishop and Greensill Capital in the same way that there has been a connection involving Mr Cameron in the United Kingdom.

On 23 April, I submitted questions to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the finance minister and the Attorney-General about representations made by Ms Bishop, the former foreign minister, on behalf of Greensill Capital. These were very simple questions. All they tried to establish was what contact had occurred between Ms Bishop and various government ministers regarding her client, Greensill Capital. But it seems that ministers needed longer than the 30 days dictated by the standing orders to get their stories straight. The Attorney-General, who, frankly, should be aware of standing orders, responded to my questions on 8 June. That's 46 days to respond, rather than the conventional 30. Interestingly, the Attorney-General did not respond until after Senate estimates was completed. Subsequently, the Attorney-General tasked her acting secretary with seeking clarification from the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party Ms Bishop on the nature of her role with Greensill prior to her registration under the lobbyist code being lodged. As I said: from facts that are on the public record, it does appear that Ms Bishop was undertaking lobbying work on behalf of Greensill Capital prior to her having registered in a public way as a lobbyist for that company. She needs to explain that, and she's been asked to do so by the acting secretary of the Attorney-General's Department. The Treasurer responded to my question on notice on 10 June, 48 days after I submitted my questions and only after it was revealed in Treasury estimates that Ms Bishop, acting on behalf of Greensill, had approached the Treasurer, who then ensured that Ms Bishop and Greensill Capital secured the ear of Treasury officials. All very convenient, all very cosy.

Then the finance minister and the leader of the government in this place also seemed to forget the standing orders and responded to my question on 11 June: that's 49 days after I lodged my question on notice. The Minister for Finance says that he has, 'not ever received communications from the former foreign minister Ms Bishop relating to Greensill Capital'. We can only take him at his word on that. But we do know that the former Minister for Finance and the former leader of the government in this place Mathias Cormann did open the backdoor to his mate Julie Bishop when he met with Greensill Capital in Davos in January 2020. Again, all very convenient and all very cosy—captains of industry and leaders of this government all sitting down having a nice mulled wine around the fire in Davos in the middle of winter.

This meeting that Mr Cormann arranged for Ms Bishop and had with Greensill Capital occurred despite a Department of Finance memo warning the then Minister, then Minister Cormann, that Greensill's scheme for financing, which was being touted to this government, was, 'wages on demand' and 'economically similar to payday lending'. We have a company who the Department of Finance has advised ministers wants to offer a service that is similar to payday lending being promoted by a former minister of this government, Ms Bishop, being facilitated by a former Minister of this government, Mr Cormann, and ministers aren't really keen to talk about what their involvement was. At least though the Attorney-General, the finance minister and the Treasurer answered those questions—albeit exceptionally late.

It wasn't until we flagged today that we were intending to ask Senator Birmingham where the answer to the question to the Prime Minister was that we finally got an answer. There was one minister who it took prompting from this Senate before he was prepared to answer my questions about representations made by Julie Bishop on behalf of Greensill Capital. It wasn't just any minister; it was the Prime Minister of this country. It took 53 days since I lodged my questions, 23 days after they were due, to get an answer—if you can call it that—from the Prime Minister.

I've had a quick look at the answer, if you can call it that, that we've received today to this question. Essentially what that answer says is that the Prime Minister is unable to answer my question. The question, of course, was how many introductions Ms Bishop had made between government ministers and Mr Greensill or employees of his firm. Despite taking 53 days since I lodged this question the Prime Minister now comes back and says he's unable to answer because answering this question would amount to an unnecessary diversion of resources of his department. Again, how very convenient and how very cosy that we have the Prime Minister covering for his mate Julie Bishop, refusing to answer questions about representations that she has made as a paid lobbyist for Greensill Capital to government ministers touting the services of a firm that the Department of Finance has likened to a payday lender. How very convenient; how very cosy.

Why is the Prime Minister wanting to cover up for the activities of his former Liberal colleague Julie Bishop? Why is the Prime Minister covering up the representations that she has made to government ministers on behalf of her client Greensill Capital? Greensill Capital is a company likened to a payday lender by this very government. Is it because we're facing a similar scandal to what we've seen in British politics involving former Prime Minister David Cameron? He was exposed for having made all sorts of private contacts to his mates in the current UK government on behalf of Greensill Capital in return for his payment as a lobbyist for that firm. Is that what we're seeing here with Ms Bishop? We don't know, because the Prime Minister won't tell us. We don't know, because the Prime Minister won't even tell us how many introductions Ms Bishop has made on behalf of her client Greensill Capital to government ministers to promote their services, to promote their payday lending services, which would be offered at the expense of ordinary Australians. This Prime Minister, if he has any sense of accountability, should be answering. He should be telling the Australian public what representations his former Liberal colleague Ms Bishop has made to ministers in this government and what work she has done on behalf of this payday lender—so called by the Department of Finance—to try to generate government business in return for a payment that she receives as a lobbyist for this firm. We deserve to know this.

In the absence of answers from the Prime Minister, we can only go on what has been reported, and that is fairly damning. On 12 April this year, the Australian reported that Lex Greensill sought to win influence with Scott Morrison by dropping in a WhatsApp message to the Prime Minister that he had signed up as a premium platinum member to the Liberal Party's Australia Business Network. So we've got Mr Greensill sending WhatsApp messages directly to the Prime Minister, talking up the fact that he's taken out a premium platinum membership of the Liberal Party's business network, but we can't find out Mr Greensill's lobbyist Julie Bishop has been up to. What WhatsApp messages has Julie Bishop been sending to her former colleagues, in trying to line up business for her client, the payday lender, Greensill Capital? What meetings has she arranged with government ministers to promote Greensill Capital's services? We don't know because the Prime Minister won't tell us. The Prime Minister won't be honest with the public because the Prime Minister wants to cover up for his former colleague Julie Bishop. I understand that premium memberships to this Liberal network that Mr Greensill joined cost around $120,000. Is this why the Prime Minister doesn't want to tell us what his former colleague Julie Bishop has been up to? Is it because he's protecting a very valuable donor to the Liberal Party? $120,000! Not a bad donation to a political party! Is that why the Prime Minister is covering up for Ms Bishop and Mr Greensill? Is it because he doesn't want to jeopardise those donations?

It turns out that, after a Liberal Party business network event in September, the Prime Minister himself met with Mr Greensill on 30 October 2019. This has been confirmed by a spokesperson for the Prime Minister. Was this meeting arranged by Julie Bishop as the lobbyist for Greensill? We don't know because the Prime Minister won't tell us because the Prime Minister is covering up for his colleague Julie Bishop. So we've got an Australian businessman, Mr Greensill, running a payday lending outfit which is mired in controversy at least in the UK, if not in Australia at this point, and which has collapsed, owing creditors significant amounts of money, and he is donating money to the Liberal Party, getting meetings with the Prime Minister through WhatsApp messages that he's sending and hiring Julie Bishop, a former federal minister in this government, to tout his services to ministers, but the Prime Minister won't tell us what his former colleague Julie Bishop has been up to. He won't tell us who she's met with. He won't tell us what WhatsApp messages she's been sending to her former colleagues.

Are we facing our own David Cameron style scandal in Australia, similar to what we've seen in the UK, based on a former Liberal minister of this government using her private connections to line up business deals for one of her own clients? We'd like to know that. I think the Australian people would like to know that. But the Prime Minister won't tell us that because he's covering up for his colleagues and covering up for what seems to be a major donor to the Liberal Party. This stinks of Liberals helping out their mates. We know that they treat taxpayers' money like Liberal Party money, and we're starting to find out that they apply special rules for Liberal mates who make nice donations to the Liberal Party and who like to cosy up with former ministers around the fireplace with a mulled wine at Davos. They're the kinds of people who are protected by this government. They're the kinds of people we don't find out about meetings with because this government has too much at stake. It's about protecting mates who've paid $120,000 to sign up as premium platinum members of the Liberal Party's business network. We deserve answers and transparency. It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions.

Question agreed to.