Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) to questions without notice asked by Senators McEwen and Wong today relating to a function for the Liberal Party held at Kirribilli House and political donations.

In Australia, the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has two official residences: Kirribilli House, on the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, and the Lodge, here in Canberra. We have heard a number of interjections from senators, particularly those who were here in the period prior to 1996, about the level of policy content in our questions. I recall that a lot of the questions from a lot of the senators who were here prior to 1996 were about dog kennels, Thai teak tables and expenditure at the Lodge. We have two official residences in this country for Prime Minister Howard: Kirribilli House and the Lodge in Canberra. It is interesting that one of the first decisions Mr Howard took on taking office as Prime Minister 11 long years ago was to establish a second official residence at Kirribilli House. One residence was not good enough for Mr Howard; he had to have two—one here in Canberra and one in Sydney. One residence was good enough for the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating—and we used to get constant questions in this chamber about the alleged dog kennel and the Thai teak table. But for Prime Minister Howard, it was necessary to have two residences.

Over the last 11 years, Senator Ray, Senator Faulkner and others have highlighted the significant additional cost to the Australian taxpayer of the Prime Minister maintaining two official residences. No-one complains about the Prime Minister having one official residence. What was good enough for Paul Keating? For that matter, what was good enough for Sir Robert Menzies? I recall that the Lodge was good enough for them. But one of the first decisions Prime Minister Howard took was to introduce a second residence—Kirribilli House. As I have mentioned, my colleagues Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner have, over the last 11 years, highlighted the additional costs involved in having two official residences for the Prime Minister—the cost of alcohol, the cost of capital upgrades, the cost of security, the cost of food, the cost of curtains and the like.

As I say, no-one complains about one official residence—but two! And recent events were exposed at estimates as a consequence of the Liberal Party national conference. No-one opposes the Liberal Party national conference running business observer functions. I think this function cost about $8,000 per head. But it was a shambles. Former Senator Baume, now Mr Baume, used to say a lot in here about piggeries in relation to the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. Mr Baume drew attention to the total shambles of the Liberal Party conference. Apparently it was an organisational disaster. Business observers could not understand how the supposed party of business could be so disorganised; it was a shambles. None other than former Senator Baume had to write and complain in order to get a ticket to the function—presumably the function at Kirribilli House.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was so popular.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘It was so popular,’ says Senator McGauran. There is no complaint about fundraising for business activities or for delegates, but involving Kirribilli House—the second official residence of the Prime Minister—in that fundraising activity is where the line needs to be drawn. As I said, the business observers function was apparently at a cost of about $8,000 per head. Part of the commercial fundraising package was a cocktails, wine, oysters, prawns and soup event at Kirribilli House. Kirribilli House is owned by the taxpayer and paid for by the taxpayer. It is the second residence of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. The quoted cost of that package, with associated security for some 225 guests, was $5,186.78. It does seem a suspiciously low attributed cost when you compare it to the commercial costs at a local restaurant, the Guillaume restaurant, with harbour views, where the cost is $30 a person. It does seem a suspiciously low cost on a commercial basis for providing this— (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly this is a fixation that the Labor Party have, as demonstrated by the interest they have taken with the recent conference that was held in Sydney. A function was held on 1 June at Kirribilli House. The decision to hold the function took into account previous advice that has been provided by the department—

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reading weasel words is not a good idea.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please continue.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will when Senator Ray stops interjecting. It was thought to be appropriate to hold such functions at Kirribilli House, and business observers were invited to attend the function. The decision to hold that function took into account previous advice given by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that it was appropriate to hold such a function on a full cost-recovery basis as long as it was not a fundraising function. The function was attended by 225 guests. The total function cost was $5,186.69, which covered food, $2,128.50; beverages, $1,476.52; casual staff, $829.57; and hire charges, $752.10. The cost of the function has been reimbursed by the Liberal Party. The food and beverage served at the function was purchased separately for the function and existing stock was not used. Audiovisual costs for the function were billed directly to the Liberal Party. The cost of full-time staff was not charged to the Liberal Party, as that cost would have been incurred in the normal running of the house. As I said, the full costs were billed to the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party has reimbursed those costs.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’ve heard this before. I think you used this statement yesterday.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Campbell, order!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the fixation the Labor Party has with Kirribilli and the Lodge. All you had to do was listen to Labor senators at estimates recently, when they got fixated with such things as sewing machines at the Lodge. They went to great lengths to complain about a $647 sewing machine that had been purchased for the Lodge. What a fixation! For anybody that knows anything about running houses—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark Scott stitched you up at estimates!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, Senator Campbell, you do not know much about running houses, because you would know that a sewing machine is very useful in a household. In any case, you would otherwise have had to send items out, incurring further cost to the taxpayer. The point I am making is that this is the sort of fixation that you lot over there have with this sort of thing. One need only go back to the time when the Lodge and Kirribilli were occupied by those opposite. We do not hear anything about when your lot occupied Kirribilli and the Lodge. Nothing is said about the entertainment costs that were incurred at that time.

On this particular occasion, yes, the Prime Minister did hold a function at Kirribilli House. As I have said, the decision to hold the function took into account previous advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was appropriate to hold the function there on a full cost-recovery basis. As I have said, the cost of the function has been reimbursed by the Liberal Party. Certainly advice has been provided to that extent. I think that, as Senator Minchin said yesterday, it is not appropriate for that advice to be tabled at this point.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to announce today that scientists have identified a gene in Liberal Party members that causes them amnesia. Those opposite are great forgetters. They have written Malcolm Fraser out of history. They forget that their current Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, left this country with double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and a deficit, in constant dollars expressed today, of $25 billion. They have forgotten that, but what they have really forgotten are all the questions they asked between 1993 and 1996 about the Lodge. I remember that because I had to sit where Senator Minchin is sitting today—because Senator Gareth Evans, the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, who was the foreign minister, often was not here. I had to answer stupid questions about the mythical heated dog kennels that did not exist. I had to answer questions about teak tables. I had to answer questions about Gould prints in the cabinet room, which, by the way, have appreciated in value five times over. If you wonder why we occasionally pay you back by asking questions about Kirribilli, the Lodge or the Prime Minister’s office, it is simply to say that you did exactly that so you can have a bit back.

Look at the two issues that have come up recently. Take the dining room in the Prime Minister’s office—each extra seat at the table was going to cost $125,000. This typifies this government—not the expenditure but the response. They responded later in the day by saying: ‘We’re cancelling this project. We hadn’t realised the cost.’ That would be believable except that they were told the costs in the previous December. They sacrificed this project not to save money but because the political heat was on them. The Liberal senator who spoke previously said, ‘Surely you can have one of these functions at Kirribilli.’ But this is the first, and this differs. If you just invited the Liberal Party delegates to your national convention out to Kirribilli for drinks, there is no problem because that is the history; that has happened over a number of years. But what you invited as part of a package was your business observers. You advertised it and put it up front; it was part of the inducement to sign up business observers that they could go and have drinks at Kirribilli. Frankly, what difference is there between that and the criticisms by your neocon friends in the United States of Bill Clinton’s use of the White House—the sleepovers and the fundraising that occurred? There is no difference whatsoever! This was an abuse of the Kirribilli residence.

I do not quite share the view of Senator Sherry. I do not mind the Prime Minister occupying Kirribilli and the Lodge. If you go back through the record from 1996, you will not find criticism by me of that actual decision, because, given the cost of security at the other house and all the rest of it, it did not necessarily make bad sense to occupy both. But when you do occupy both, you have a higher responsibility to the Australian taxpayer to minimise the costs. While I am on the question of costs, frankly I do not believe the explanation. I do not think you can cater for 225 people at $20 a head. That has not been my experience in all the functions that I have run. I am told that there was seafood, soup and other things and that the catering costs came in at $9 a head. I tell you what, I want to get a piece of that for all the functions we have to run. I want to know the name of the caterers. We will use them even though you have used them. We will put our principles aside, because this price is too good.

There are other issues that we have raised that we want answers to. If you have actually charged people to go, we want to know whether you had a liquor licence. It is not so much that we want you prosecuted over that, but you insist on the imposition of the law on others—that there be no exceptions, that people be prosecuted if they offend against the law—and you are subject to the same law. You are subject to the Australian electorate act, which says that donations in kind have to be declared. There is no doubt here that there have been donations in kind. We want to know whether you will in fact pass that on to the Australian Electoral Commission.

Finally, I have to say this. Every time I hear a leader get up in this place and say, ‘We acted on advice from the Prime Minister’s department,’ I would like to see that advice—and the reason for not tabling it this time is nothing more than weasel words. If it is a well-argued and cogent case then maybe we will concede some ground, but I bet it is not. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin. In so doing, I would like to correct some of the comments made by those opposite. I was a parliamentary observer at our federal council meeting. It was not, as Senator Sherry said, the Liberal Party federal conference; it was actually a council meeting and that was a very different scenario. Our federal conference is usually held in each state and we have a much larger number of people. Senator Sherry also said the whole thing was a shambles. I can assure you that it was not a shambles and that, as a parliamentarian, I gained a terrific lot from it, meeting with all the delegates and the business observers when I had the opportunity.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you go? Were you there?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said I am not a delegate; I am a parliamentary observer. There is a difference and I will explain it.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you go to Kirribilli House?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not invited to Kirribilli House, because I am not a delegate. I am a parliamentary observer. There is a difference.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you weren’t invited?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not go. I was not invited because, as I am trying to tell you—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator George Campbell! Senator Adams, just refer your comments to the chair and ignore the interjections.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was going on to say, at this national council meeting you have delegates from each state division who are permitted to be there as delegates, and we also have our federal executive. Other people who wish to go are observers, and we have another class of observers—parliamentary observers. I was there as a parliamentary observer, and so were Senator Parry and Senator McGauran. I just wanted to set the record straight.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you have to pay?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course we had to pay. We paid a registration fee. Once again, we were not invited to Kirribilli House, because we are not delegates; we are parliamentary observers.

As far as parliamentary delegates went, they did not get an opportunity to mix with business observers, simply because they were involved with the council meeting. This particular social event was an opportunity for delegates from all the states to meet with the business observers. It was one of the real opportunities they had. They were invited to a social event and that was very—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you lot go home?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was for delegates. I used to be a delegate, but now that I am a politician I am no longer one. We did not go home; we did other things. Business observers who attended Kirribilli House were really delighted with the opportunity to meet with our conference delegates from each state, as I said. The business observers and the council delegates had this rare opportunity to be able to meet and greet and talk to one another at this function because, as I have already explained, the council delegates had been involved with the council meeting over the two days that it was held. They were there talking to the ministers and senior advisers; they did not have an opportunity to speak with business observers. This is why that group of people went to Kirribilli House. As I have said, it really was a great success. All the states meeting together and our delegates, who are lay party people, to catch up with them, talk to them and socialise with them was very good. To set the record straight: the invitation to Kirribilli House was for our council delegates to meet with business observers.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say after those valiant efforts by Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Adams they should be commended back in the party room. I notice none of the other heroes over that side put their hands up to try to defend the indefensible, and I must say that, after Senator Adams’s contribution, I am a little bit more confused about who went. There might have been more than 225 guests at this nosh-up. Was it just the business observers paying the $8,000-odd for the introduction to Kirribilli House, the prawns, the rock oysters—I am assuming they would be Sydney rock oysters—and posh soup? I cannot work out what the posh soup was; maybe Julian can tell me. Maybe it was vichyssoise. I do not know, that is about the only posh soup I know of, but you would probably know of a few more. Then you have the fine wines. If you work it on the basis that there were only 225 people—I am assuming that is 225 people who paid the $8,000-odd—I am not sure if there are any freeloaders on top of that. Are those freeloaders the Liberal Party Council delegates? I am not sure from the contribution just made by Senator Adams if they are included because it may be that there are more people who have gone to this function. So if we divide this so-called cost of the function of $5,000-odd, we might have to divide it by more. That would mean that for the prawns and the Sydney rock oysters—one oyster, one prawn and the posh soup, if there are only 225 paying people it comes to $9.46 a head. That is still only 225 paying people plus these fine wines—it does not mention beer and it does not mention spirits, so I am assuming it is nice, fine wines. That is $6.46 per head. Where in Sydney can you dine and drink for that sort of money at that sort of venue? You can go to anywhere around Sydney—start at Doyles at Watsons Bay—do you think you can go in there and grog on and put your snout in the trough for two hours, have some prawns and some oysters for $9.46? Do you think you would pay $6.56 for some wine? If you go to Catalina further along, do you reckon you could do that for that amount of money? Could you dine in these nice, prime locations? Go to the Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron, which is right near Kirribilli House. Do you reckon you could dine at the Kirribilli Workers Club, as some people call it, for $9 for food and $6 for some grog? Not on your nelly! The only place you would be able to dine for that sort of money in that sort of location might be Harry’s Cafe de Wheels down in Woolloomooloo, and you do not get that same sort of ambience from that part of Sydney that you do looking across from Kirribilli House.

I have never been to Kirribilli House. I think Senator Campbell has in his days of dealings and all of that. I have been outside Kirribilli House protesting, but I have never been inside. I do not know when the opportunity might arise for me to go in, but I would like to know how you could feed anybody at that location and at that venue serving that type of food for that figure. You simply cannot. No wonder we question how much this cost the Liberal Party to put on. There is no way in the world, if there were 225 paying guests, that you could do this for just over five grand. I agree with Senator Ray. I do not object to the Prime Minister using this as an official residence, and I would not even object to him taking the Liberal Party Council there to show them the place, but when it is used as a fund-raising venture they should pay for it. That is the point we have been making for some time. We have seen instances of how much it costs for charities or whoever else to rent out the Great Hall; I think it is $46,000 for a few hours. What do you imagine the real cost would be to rent out Kirribilli House for the amount of hours that those Liberal Party delegates and functionaries were exposed to on that evening? I think it is outrageous. As we delve more and more into this we will find that it has been rorted by the Liberal Party and it is something that the Prime Minister, who always tries to say he is above all this, will live to regret.

Question agreed to.