Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, does this latest scandal of your government’s use of Kirribilli House for fundraising and entertaining Liberal Party members—and the confusing reactions to it—suggest to you that a code of conduct for ethical behaviour of prime ministers and the rest of the parliament is well overdue? If not, what action will you take to ensure that this kind of political party use of the Prime Minister’s residence stops?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not often commend the Labor Party, but at least the Labor Party today was asking serious questions about a serious policy matter, and it did respond to the government’s very significant announcement today on broadband. However, it has taken the Democrats to get back to the price of prawns and rubbish at Kirribilli, which disappoints me. I would have thought better of the Democrats than to bring up such a pathetic matter.

This Prime Minister does operate on a very strict ethical code of conduct, as demonstrated by his 11 years in office, in which his behaviour has been exemplary. The Prime Minister properly and above board hosted federal council delegates and business observers at Kirribilli and made sure that the Liberal Party paid all the additional costs of so doing. Unlike what occurred with previous Labor governments, this Prime Minister has been exemplary in ensuring that should there be any questions about his hospitality to members of his own party then he has ensured that in all cases the costs associated with such hospitality are paid for by the Liberal Party. He has done so up front, and the Electoral Commission has now received independent advice that there is no need, and certainly no requirement, to disclose any such thing as a gift to the Liberal Party as a result of the hospitality which he as Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to have.

We say openly that while there may have been abuses in the past, and Mr Hawke, I think, is conceding that he may have abused the Lodge and Kirribilli House in the past, of course prime ministers from the Labor Party or the Liberal Party—fortunately there will almost certainly never be a prime minister from the Greens or the Democrats in this country—are going to host people from their own parties. We accept that as a fact of life. In cases like this where it was the delegates of the federal council of the Liberal Party, the party has properly paid for it.

The idiotic proposition that this necessitates some sort of black-and-white code of conduct written up as to what can be done and cannot be done is utterly ridiculous. You would get to the point where it would be impossible for a Labor or Liberal Prime Minister to live in one of the official residences. They will say that it is not worth it; they would rather go and live at home. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that when he came into office the Prime Minister actually wanted to live in his own home at Wollstonecraft. He said that he would rather live at home at Wollstonecraft, thanks very much. But it was the national security advice that he could not do so, and he lives in the official residences.

Let us be realistic. As I said, we accept that a Labor Prime Minister is going to host Labor people at the Lodge or Kirribilli just as a Liberal Prime Minister is occasionally going to host and extend hospitality to Liberal Party members at the Lodge or Kirribilli. In our case—I am not sure whether it was the case under Labor—when that occurs, as in past federal council meetings and this federal council meeting, the Liberal Party properly pays for it. I would have thought that the Democrats would have much bigger issues on their plate than functions at Kirribilli.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister does not consider ethics to be a serious matter. I ask that he acknowledges that for over 30 years committees have been drafting codes of conduct for senators and members without success. In 1975 the Joint Committee of Pecuniary Interests recommended that a joint standing committee be set up for the purpose. In 1977 the Bowen committee recommended a code of conduct for MPs and public servants. In 1986 the Leader of the Government in the Senate moved a motion calling for a committee to consider a code of conduct. In 1989 Democrats Senator Michael Macklin proposed a joint select committee on ethical behaviour. The Prime Minister in 1991 set up a working group to develop a code of conduct—it only met twice and the committee was then dropped. In 1994 the government reconvened the Code of Conduct Working Group that drafted a framework of ethical principles—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Do we have a supplementary question there somewhere?

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is: how is it that there have been so many committees that have established draft protocols and codes of conduct for ethical behaviour yet none has so far succeeded?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not a question; that was some sort of history lesson in 30 seconds. You do not produce ethics by just producing a piece of paper. The Soviet Union had a constitution protecting human rights—that was a great help, wasn’t it! I completely reject the suggestion from Senator Allison that ethics is not serious to us. We take the issue very seriously, and this Prime Minister is the most ethical Prime Minister this country has seen in its history.