George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Arbib) and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ronaldson and Fierravanti-Wells today relating to the House of Representatives Member for Dobell, Mr Thomson.

Last week, on three consecutive days during question time, the Prime Minister asserted her full confidence in the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson. She asserted that Mr Thomson was, in her opinion, doing a fine job. She asserted that she hoped that Mr Thomson would remain in parliament for many years to come. By that very act, she made the integrity of Craig Thomson the standard of the integrity of her own government. She made the credibility of Mr Thomson's denials the standard of the credibility of her own government. Mr Thomson's credibility and integrity are now the very slender threads by which the Gillard government hangs.

One thing that has emerged as a feature of this burgeoning and rather distasteful scandal has been the way in which the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party was forced to try to cover up what was going on during Mr Thomson's days as the national secretary of the Health Services Union by paying his costs and the costs of the defendant, Fairfax Media Pty Ltd, in the defamation claim that he commenced against them—perhaps the most disastrous defamation action since Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensberry. It has now been revealed by Mr Thomson's belatedly lodged declaration of interests that more than $150,000 from the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party was provided to Mr Thomson to settle that case. Although Mr Thomson claimed that the matter had been resolved on his terms, we know that was not true; we now know that the action was discontinued and he had to pay Fairfax's lawyers' costs. We also know, as has now been disclosed, that the Minister for Sport and the former general secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Mark Arbib, was the central figure in organising that very shabby deal.

Like me, Mr Deputy President, you were present before the winter recess when we heard the valedictory speech of former senator Steve Hutchins. In his parting words, former senator Steve Hutchins was at pains to remind the Senate of the depth of the sleaze, corruption and dishonesty that is the rotten core of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party, particularly the New South Wales Right—the area of Australian politics of which the member for Dobell is a protege and a favourite son. Who is the other protege and favourite son of the New South Wales Right? The former general secretary, Senator Arbib, who brokered the deal. So the Gillard government and Prime Minister Gillard herself are not only tied, hand and foot, to the integrity of Craig Thomson but also bound, hand and foot, to the integrity of the New South Wales Labor Party machine—the machine that former senator Steve Hutchins described in such palpable and descriptive terms in his parting words to the Senate. Let the Prime Minister be judged by the standards of Mark Arbib and the New South Wales Right.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to remind the Senate that Minister Arbib answered the questions put to him during question time today. In fact, he reiterated that the questions were not within his area of portfolio responsibility as the Minister for Sport and his answers are on the record. I am going to take this opportunity to take note of Senator Evans' answer to the first question that Senator Abetz asked him today—that is, the record of the Gillard Labor government.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: there is a question before the chair. The question is that the Senate take note of two nominated answers to two nominated questions. Senator Crossin is not at liberty to raise other questions which are not the subject of the question before the chair.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin, I do remind you of the question. The motion is that the Senate takes note of the answers given by Senators Arbib and Evans in response to questions by Senators Ronaldson and Fierravanti-Wells.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the problem that we have in this chamber. We have on record the answer from Minister Arbib where he quite clearly said that the questions asked of him did not come within his area of portfolio responsibility. Therefore, what we really have is an opposition that are not prepared to debate the real policy issues, because they have no policies—that is the issue. What I was trying to helpfully do was redirect the opposition's attention to matters of substantial policy—the issues to which Minister Evans referred to today in his answers—but instead we are going to spend half an hour debating answers to questions which Minister Arbib repeatedly said he could not answer because they did not come within his area of portfolio responsibility. What we have is an opposition that cannot ask any questions at all about sport. They have never asked any questions at all about how fantastically well the Australian netball team did in Singapore to win an international trophy. They cannot ask any questions at all about how fantastically well the cycling community is doing—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: Senator Arbib did not say that he could not answer those questions; he said that he would not answer those questions.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, we are moving into a debating point.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just say on the point of order that there is no point of order. Senator Brandis is now debating the point.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ludwig. Senator Crossin is now addressing the question, after being reminded a first time.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I am trying to highlight again is that the opposition have no matters of policy they want to debate, because they are a policy-free zone. They have time and time again shown to us in this community, particularly in the last 12 months, that all they are good at is saying no, no, no, no. They have no positive policies at all, except of course that if they got elected they would rip $70 billion out of the coffers of the federal government. In order to do that they would need to cut services, cut public service jobs, cut access to Medicare, cut access to pension payments, cut access to the family tax benefits and cut access to programs. So what they want to do is ensure that we talk about anything in this chamber except their policies, because they have none. They cannot come up with anything at all that they could use to get out there and positively say to the Australian public: 'If we were elected as a government, this is what you could get from us as a benefit.' They are saying, 'In fact, all you are going to get from us is a ripping away of $70 billion of services and benefits that are already provided.' So this opposition is going to go to any lengths, any means at all, to ensure that we debate anything other than alternative policies, because there are no alternative policies.

So what are their alternative sports policies? I do not think I have heard the opposition ask Senator Arbib one question in relation to his sports portfolio—not one question, as I said, about the Australian netball team's triumph in Singapore, not one question at all about the cycling fraternity's success or celebrating Cadel Evans's success in France, not one question at all about World Cup soccer, not one question at all about what the AFL are doing to promote the game overseas. There have been no questions about sport at all from the opposition to Senator Arbib, and how disappointing is that? I think once upon a time—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never got a single question all year when I was the minister for sport.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

History will tell us that Senator Brandis was the minister for sport once upon a time, so you would think he would be in the best position to now be able to ask Senator Arbib a whole raft of questions in relation to his portfolio of sport, but there have been none—no questions, not at all. Maybe they do not care about sport. Maybe they do not care about the contribution of sporting fraternities and clubs to our community.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got to keep it going for another 30 seconds. Come on! You can do it!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can certainly do it. I am happy to stand here and debate you all day, every day and every minute of every day. I find that speaking for five minutes is totally easy because all we have to do is reiterate time and time again that you cannot ask questions of decency in this chamber. You cannot ask questions of policy as an opposition. You have to scramble in the race to the bottom— (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the motion that the Senate take note of the answers of Senator Arbib and Senator Evans. I want the record to show that in five minutes the name that was not mentioned by the good senator was that of the member for Dobell. Not one second was devoted to defending the member for Dobell. There was not even the mention of his name in five minutes.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member that dare not speak his name!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, Senator Brandis. What we saw today, and in fact we saw it in relation to Mr Thomson's defamation proceedings and we saw it again with Senator Arbib and with the Prime Minister in the other place today when the Manager of Opposition Business moved a motion for Mr Thomson to come in and make an explanation, is that every time the key players in this debacle, this murky affair, are given the opportunity to come and defend themselves they refuse to do so. The member for Dobell wrote to his colleagues prior to the defamation proceedings being discontinued where he had to pay the costs—so two and two still equals four—and said: 'I am innocent of these matters. I am completely innocent.' We had a media report today where the member for Dobell looked a senior New South Wales ALP figure in the eyes and said, 'I didn't do it.' The member for Dobell had the opportunity in court to have his view of these claims tested and he squibbed it.

Senator Arbib had some extremely grievous allegations made against him over the weekend in various newspapers. Today he had two minutes to answer every one of those claims. You would think that if Senator Arbib were not guilty as charged he would have taken those two minutes, and then the next minute and the next minute after that, to say, 'I am not guilty of these charges.' Did he do so? No, he did not. Did he have the opportunity to clear his name today? Yes, he did. Has he had the opportunity since the weekend to clear his name in relation to these charges? Yes, he has. He has chosen not to do so.

Every single person listening to this debate in the last week knows that this matter has gone from the seat of Dobell to the seat of power in this country. This matter has gone from Mr Thomson to the Prime Minister. Everyone in this chamber knows that it is completely untenable for the Prime Minister of this country to make a claim as late as last Monday afternoon that she had not had any in-depth discussion with Mr Thomson in relation to this matter. This has been in the public domain for in excess of 12 months. This involves one of her own members of parliament being accused of misappropriating funds. Misappropriating funds is about as serious an allegation as you can make against an elected member of parliament, and she was trying to tell the Australian people that she had not had, to use her words, 'detailed discussions' with Mr Thomson about this matter as late as last Monday.

There are two reasons for that. There can only be two rational reasons: either she is going to defend this man to the absolute death to maintain her position as Prime Minister or she did not want to be told the truth because she might have been forced to act against him. There was a demonstration outside this place today. It was a demonstration by people who have spent thousands upon thousands of their own money to come here and protest against the way this country has been run, to protest against the behaviour of the Prime Minister of this country. It is completely inappropriate and continues to be completely untenable for the leader of a political party to sit back and watch a member destroy her party. It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister of this country will sit back and watch a member tear her prime ministership apart as well. The Prime Minister has no choice but to act. The Prime Minister is now completely and utterly implicated in the payment of money by the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party to Mr Thomson to protect him from bankruptcy and it is about time she came clean.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to partake in this debate on taking note of those answers that have been provided to questions asked of Senator Evans and Senator Arbib. The previous government senator spoke about the need for discussing policy in this chamber. I think that is quite a relevant matter on this particular date and at this time. Senator Ronaldson spoke about protesters out on the lawns of Parliament House, claiming they were protesting about certain issues they have with this government. Surely they have also come here to listen to what policy the opposition has? When it comes to policy, we hear silence. Those policies that they have put forward are not going to deliver.

If I reflect on one of their policies on climate change, it is going to deliver nowhere near its intention and what is claimed. In fact, we know now it will cost this country $70 billion. There is a $70 billion black hole created by those opposite as a result of their thoughts on creating a policy on how they will deal with climate change. That is the sad reality in this particular matter. When it comes to Mr Thomson, I do not know a great deal about this gentleman—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Never met him!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but I do know some of the work that he has achieved—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Furner, can I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. Senators on my right have given a fair hearing to senators on the left, so I ask senators on my left to do the same for Senator Furner.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do know a bit about his work in the time that he has been in parliament. I would like to reflect on his work as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. One particular inquiry I had an interest in was on the bill—and it was certainly a bill that was well defeated in this chamber—to overturn Queensland legisla­tion dealing with the wild rivers declaration. If you recall, we as a government were quite successful, with the support of former Senator Fielding, in opposing a private member's bill of Mr Tony Abbott and, I think, a senator from the Northern Territory. Mr Thomson quite comfortably, approp­riately and competently dealt with the inquiry on that particular matter and demonstrated the commitment and the respect that he has from this government to lead such committee. It is important that people have the opportunity to understand that his work has been appropriately achieved and has been respected by this parliament.

One of the telling points about policy of the opposition was made by one of their senators, Senator Helen Coonan, who I do have a degree of respect for. I have witnessed some of the work that she has done in some of the inquiries that I have been involved in. In an interview last Thursday she was questioned about the likelihood of an election some years down the track and she took a poignant position on the need for the opposition to start rolling out policy. If that poignant point she made an issue about is the case, I would wonder why she is resigning from the Senate. Surely, if there is a need to create policy as an opposition, now is the time to have people like Helen Coonan in this chamber to put forward good policy as the alternative government? But that is not going to be the case because she is leaving this place, and that tells a story about the opposition. There is no opportunity for them to deliver on policy.

We know some of the policy that they have put forward is going to cost this country $70 billion and no doubt cost jobs. It is already out there in the media that the opposition are going to sack 12,000 public servants. We already know because it is on the record in the media that they are not going to discount making some changes to the pension. These are the policies that they are not putting forward but that we hear about in the media. That is where they deliver their policies—in the media. They do not come into this chamber and debate them. They do not come into this chamber and put forward policy that can be debated. They put it out in the media. We should not ever forget the underlying policy that brought them to defeat in the last election, and that was Work Choices. We know that is going to be on the agenda next time around to strip away workers' rights and conditions. (Time expired)

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

Wasn't that a sterling defence? I would love to have Senator Furner on my side! I would like in the time available to me to reflect somewhat on the member for Dobell. I have gone back to read his maiden speech. His maiden speech is very interesting because it tells us a lot about the member for Dobell.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I will not go there, Senator Brandis, on the issue of maidens! The speech starts off—surprise, surprise!—by saying:

At this stage, I need to acknowledge the fantastic advice and assistance I received from—

none other than—

Mark Arbib, Karl Bitar and Sam Dastyari from the New South Wales ALP head office.

Of course Senator Arbib is the most likely person for the member for Dobell to have consulted with on this issue. If I had to put my money on the person who is most likely to have brokered the deal to pay the legal costs then I think that I would be safe in putting my money on Senator Arbib. Of course, there are a number of other issues. I know that Senator Ronaldson and Senator Brandis have been pursuing these matters, but it is interesting to note, just on the legal costs, the belated declaration in the register of members interests that:

In May 2011, the Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch) paid a sum of money this in settlement of a legal matter to which I was a party …

We have seen reports of $40,000, we have seen reports of $90,000 and we have seen reports of $150,000. But the person who could actually tell us how much the legal fees really were—they could be $150,000, they could be $200,000, they could be a quarter of a million dollars—is most likely, given what we have read in the newspaper, to be Senator Arbib. Not much happens in the New South Wales Right without Senator Arbib knowing about it or being the puppet master. He may now be quietly tucked away in sport and recreation, but he is still pulling some of those strings.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

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

Absolutely, Senator Ronaldson.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know what his recreation is!

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

Yes. Then we have Mr Dastyari. Senator Arbib has referred us to the New South Wales Right. Mr Dastyari, tell us the deal that was brokered. Tell us how many people in head office actually know. There is not only Mr Dastyari, who runs the show there, there are also the financial controllers and the assistant secretaries—somebody must have authorised this money. Come clean and tell us how much it was and who did the deal.

In my remaining time, I will reflect on one other aspect of the maiden speech of the member of the Dobell. He was pontificating. He was having a go at the Howard government, talking about messages. He was having a go at the Howard government because of its workplace policies. He said:

I started by saying that the language we use as politicians should be simple, straightforward and honest, easy to understand—childlike, one might say. That had me thinking about messages we teach our children as to what is good and bad, from an early age. A lot of these messages are based on our religious beliefs.

He told us that we should:

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

He also told us:

If you have done the wrong thing, say you are sorry.

Well! Then he went on to talk about aged-care staff and healthcare workers, and how they are downtrodden. Mr Thomson, how do you think they feel about their hard earned union fees being used in this manner? Their fees have been trawled through and totally misappropriated. They have been used in brothels, been used for trips, been used for all sorts of things. How do you think those workers feel, today? You keep talking about standing up for the workers, but this is an absolutely appalling example. The Prime Minister needs to answer some serious questions. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.