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

Mr President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Government's failure to observe the standards of ministerial accountability.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

(Quorum formed)

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

In introducing this matter of public importance, I want to begin by addressing the role of the Prime Minister in the many scandals that have beset her government. Of all the obligations of ministerial accountability, the most funda­mental is this: the obligation to conduct the affairs of the government in an honest and decent fashion. We have spoken in the last three or four years in this chamber on many occasions about the remarkable incompet­ence of the Rudd and Gillard governments. It is now almost impossible to find anyone other than a dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party who will disagree with you that the Gillard government is the worst government that Australia has ever suffered. It is not just the worst government since the Whitlam government or the most incompetent government since that famously incompetent government but the worst government that anyone can remember. That has become the brand of the modern Labor Party.

The Labor Party is a political organisation that delivers incompetent governments. It has delivered incompetent governments at the state level which have seen state Labor government after state Labor government hurled from office with enthusiasm by the electors at state elections in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, and almost certainly in the year to come in Queensland. There has also been incompetence at the federal level. That is brand Labor. I see Senator Faulkner over there. It is well known that I have a high regard for Senator Faulkner. Senator Faulkner is a former federal president of the Australian Labor Party and a cabinet minister in successive Labor governments. I cannot help but feel sadness for someone like Senator Faulkner seeing the political movement to which he has given his life degenerate into farce and scandal in the way the Gillard government has degenerated into farce and scandal.

I have talked about incompetence, but incompetence is not the worst sin. It is a very, very serious sin, but it is not the worst sin. The worst sin any government can commit is its failure to be honest with the people, its failure to respect the people, its failure—in the words of this MPI—to be accountable to the people. We saw that exhibited chillingly yesterday when that unattractive popinjay Mr Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, described—

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

Order! That was a reflection on the character of Mr Albanese, which you may consider withdrawing.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President. I did not know the word 'popinjay' was unparliamentary, but if you so rule then let me withdraw it. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport described with utter contempt a gathering of thousands of Australians who had exercised the most fundamental right you can exercise in a democracy—the right to come to their nation's parliament to express their grievance to government, to petition the government with their grievances. Our democratic system was born from the cauldron of people petitioning on grievances against their government. That is what those people did, only to be dismissed by Mr Anthony Albanese as a convoy of inconsequence. Those words, I am sorry to say, will come back to haunt the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese and all the ministers of this government. The fact that the view of Australian citizens who want to express a grievance against their government, because they think the government has gone wrong, is that they are people of no consequence. That is what Mr Albanese said to them yesterday.

We know this government was constructed on a lie, the most infamous lie in the history of Australian politics: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' But now this government's continued tenure in office depends upon another credibility—not just the Prime Minister's credibility, but the credibility of a man called Craig Thomson, the member for Dobell. Mr Craig Thomson stands accused of a number of serious allegations: allegations of fraud; allegations of stealing members' funds from the trade union of which he was once the national secretary.

I am pleased to say that the New South Wales police today decided to examine whether or not Mr Thomson has in fact committed these crimes. We do not prejudge that. I am bound to say that Mr Thomson's explanations are very implausible. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the proper authorities to pursue. I might also say that Mr Thomson himself has alleged that a crime has been committed, of which he was the victim. He said somebody forged his signature on credit card vouchers. If Mr Thomson is telling the truth, a crime has been committed of which he was the victim. If he is not telling the truth, a crime has been committed of which he was the perpetrator. On either view, there is a taint of criminality about these events. Last week, on each consecutive day, the Prime Minister told the House of Representatives she had full confidence in Mr Craig Thomson. I understand she repeated it again in question time today. So the Prime Minister has staked her entire government's credibility upon the credibility of Mr Craig Thomson. The Prime Minister has made the integrity of Mr Craig Thomson the test of the integrity of her own government. Because the Prime Minister was elected on a lie a little over a year ago when she said there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads, you would think that perhaps that was a heroic thing for Ms Gillard to do—a person whose own integrity is under such a cloud in the eyes of the Australian people joining herself, fusing the integrity of her own government, with the integrity of a person under a cloud such as Mr Craig Thomson. But that is what she has done.

Go through it. Whether it be the famously incompetent manner in which the Gillard government and before it the Rudd government conducted the public affairs of this country, whether it be the undisguised contempt with which ministers in the Gillard government regard the Australian people and people who might disagree with them, as exhibited by Mr Albanese's remark yesterday that people who come to petition with their grievances against the government are inconsequential, or whether it is the fact that a government elected on a lie now depends for its very political survival on the integrity of Mr Craig Thomson, for all of those reasons the opposition says, and in saying so mirrors the overwhelming sentiment of the Australian people: 'Give us an election. Resolve the political situation of this country and face the people, because the people are your masters, a fact which you have forgotten.'

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is quite a remarkable proposed matter of public importance. I will read the matter of public importance, which stands in Senator Fifield's name: 'The Government's failure to observe the standards of ministerial accountability,' an issue not canvassed at all in all the time available to Senator Brandis to address it. He did not utter a word about standards of ministerial accountability. It was interesting in itself that Senator Brandis spoke to this matter of public importance, because it stood in the name Senator Fifield, was proposed by Senator Fifield, was submitted by Senator Fifield, who could not himself address the issue and immediately called a quorum at the beginning of this debate to have another colleague come in to the chamber and face the music. That colleague, of course, was Senator Brandis.

You will have to excuse me, Mr Acting Deputy President, but there is something I have to admit to. I have always liked Senator Brandis. Not everyone does, but I do. I see smiles on the other side of the chamber.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am that sort of guy. I am a very nice guy and I quite like Senator Brandis. I noticed that he said he felt sorry for me. I noticed that he said that and talked about my political career. That made me reflect on Senator Brandis's career and why he might not have spoken about standards of ministerial accountability. One's mind really goes back to the time of the Howard government. I remember the major debate, the hour upon hour spent in this chamber when debating the issue of whether or not Senator Brandis had described then Prime Minister Howard as a lying rodent. At the end of these debates I think Senator Brandis admitted to describing Mr Howard as a plain rodent—not a lying rodent, just a plain rodent. That is perhaps why we have not had a discussion about standards of ministerial accountability.

This appeared to be an excuse to talk about Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell. With 3½ minutes to go in Senator Brandis's speech, having not canvassed standards of ministerial accountability, Senator Brandis finally got to Mr Thomson and said we should not prejudge issues relating to him. I think that is probably quite wise counsel from Senator Brandis. He ought to recall how the Howard government and its ministers responded when members of parliament, members of the government, were subject to police investigations, and it happened quite regularly. The last occasion this occurred that I can recall, but there might have been one since then, was when Queensland Liberal MPs Mr Hardgrave, Dr Laming and Mr Vasta were investigated for what were alleged to be electoral spending irregularities. Mr Howard quite rightly said at the time that a lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for. I quote Mr Howard directly about that matter:

It is a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course. And then if it is appropriate I will have something to say.

You know, at the time, and right through that period of the Howard government, the then Labor opposition consistently did not comment on matters that were subject to police investigations. On no occasion did we do that. I was then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and many of these issues were raised in this chamber and in committees of the Senate but never did the then opposition comment on any operational matter—something that I think Senator Brandis and others from the current opposition could reflect on.

It is remarkable how the Liberal Party could propose a matter of public importance on ministerial standards—and this from a party which lost nine ministers and parliamentary secretaries while in government, who had to resign as a result of either rorts or conflicts of interest. Of course, that number would have been higher if Mr Howard himself did not water down his own code of ministerial conduct. Liberal ministers could not reach the standards that Mr Howard proposed were required of his own ministers and because of that he watered down the code. Don't forget it was when the ministerial guide was first published that Mr Howard promised to raise the standard of parliamentary and political life. He released the document, A guide on key elements of ministerial responsibility, and in the introduction to that guide he stressed:

… the necessity of adherence to high standards by people occupying positions of public trust …

And he said:

The Australian people have this as their entitlement …

But of course it was Mr Howard who gave Australian politics the non-core promise, and that commitment to higher standards of ministerial behaviour was precisely that—it was a non-core promise from Mr Howard.

Time after time, Mr Howard's ministers and parliamentary secretaries were found to be in breach of Mr Howard's own code. The code was administered inconsistently and it was deliberately applied ineffectively. And then the code was junked. It was junked. Ministerial standards for the Liberal Party—just too hard.

How dare they come in here and propose a matter of public importance on ministerial standards given the record of that government? The Howard government was 11½ years of sleaze, ministerial scandal and abuse of power. That is what it was like. Think about the former ministers—Mr Reith, Dr Wooldridge and Mr Anthony—taking lobbying jobs in the same industries they were regulating mere days before their resignations. Think about the bailing out of the Prime Minister's brother, Mr Stan Howard, from his National Textiles business debacle. Think about the rorting of the grants programs to shore up votes in marginal seats. Think about the 'never, ever' GST and the concept that I mentioned before—the non-core promise. Think about the AWB $300 million wheat-for-weapons scandal. Think about the Iraq war and the suggestion that there were weapons of mass destruction. Think about the dogs and the balaclavas on the waterfront. Think about the lies on 'kids overboard'. Think about the cover-up of 'kids overboard'. Think about using Kirribilli House and the Lodge as party central for Liberal Party fundraisers. Think about the shameless use and abuse of taxpayers' money for partisan political advertising. And so it goes on.

How extraordinarily hypocritical—but how courageous—for the Liberal Party to come in here and propose a matter of public importance about ministerial standards. So I thought: in the time available to me, why do we not go to the ministers themselves? We might have a look at some of them. We could start, if you like, with former Senator Herron and his professional practice as a surgeon—which he had to give up because it was in breach of the code. We could talk about Assistant Treasurer Jim Short, who resigned after it was found that he had approved an operating licence for an ANZ Bank subsidiary while holding shares in the ANZ Bank. We could think about the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore, being forced to defend his $100,000 shareholding in Bligh Ventures and his controlling interest in Ralston Pty Ltd, a share-trading company, despite the express prohibition in the code. We could talk about Brian Gibson and Geoff Prosser, both forced to resign—they were of course both expendable in those early days of the Howard government. Former Senator Gibson had exempted a Boral subsidiary from certain provisions of the Corporations Law while he held Boral shares, and Mr Prosser owned three shopping centres and took an active interest in running them. We might talk about former Senator Parer, who was the resources minister. He owned, through a family trust—those of you who were in the Senate at the time might recall—an $8 million share in a coalmine plus interest in a range of other resources companies. The pursuit of Senator Parer was described by the then opposition as 'the great white rhino hide', you might recall. I do not have time to explain why that terminology was used, but it certainly caught on. Of course, in relation to Senator Parer, Mr Howard chose to sacrifice his standards rather than the ministry.

I could go on and on. I do not have time to go through all the Howard government ministers who fell foul of Mr Howard's original code of conduct before Mr Howard watered it down because he was not willing to ensure it was properly administered and implemented. How extraordinary is it that the current Liberal opposition would come into the chamber and talk about ministerial standards, with its record? There is an old expression in politics, you know: 'People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.' That is exactly where you are when you are talking about ministerial standards, although I acknowledge no-one from the Liberal Party has even mentioned, yet, ministerial standards in this debate. As I said on another matter earlier this week, 'You're standing right in the middle of a very, very large glasshouse throwing very, very small pebbles at this government.' I suggest that the opposition gets its act together before it comes in here proposing a matter of public importance on ministerial standards as a ruse for discussing other matters.

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

We have seen the demise today of the great Labor warrior. In 15 minutes we have seen the demise of the great Labor warrior, reduced to a speech like that. I cannot believe that Senator Faulkner, the great warrior, has demeaned himself to make a speech like that today. History will show that someone who was a great man for the Labor Party reduced himself to a speech like that today.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I am actually not going to take the bait, except that I will make a couple of comments. Senator Faulkner was talking about thinking about things. Well, I am thinking about Centenary House, I am thinking about the Labor Party's promise before the election before last about political advertising and I am thinking about the ANAO report. I am also thinking about the great lie before the last election: 'There there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.' So I am thinking about lots of things, 'Great failed warrior'. I am thinking how sad it is to see you reduced to this today.

I will now continue with what I was going to talk about, which is ministerial standards. I want to go through an interview today with the Prime Minister of this country, the person who, of course, perpetrated that great enormous untruth before the last election:

SABRA LANE: To Craig Thomson now. Tony Abbott says he's a protected species, the shadow finance minister, Andrew Robb, used parliamentary privilege last night to describe him, Craig Thomson, as a thief and a liar. Why did the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party pay his legal bills?

JULIA GILLARD: Look, this is a question for the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party.

SABRA LANE: We've rung them, we're not getting calls back.

JULIA GILLARD: Well … that is as it may be Sabra, but decisions by the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party are their decisions. But more broadly can I say, in relation to the Opposition here, I don't think people appreciate hypocrisy.

As Prime Minister, what I've said about the Member for Dobell is that there is an investigation in train by Fair Work Australia, and we should await the outcome of that investigation.

…   …   …

SABRA LANE: Well Fairfax has revealed this morning that the mobile phone used to call escort agencies was also used to call Stephen Smith and Mark Arbib. This casts doubt on Mr Thomson's denials—he's previously said that the credit card used to pay for these things was used by someone else, and the implication too was that his phone was used by someone else, have you sought an explanation from him?

JULIA GILLARD: There's an investigation by Fair Work Australia in train…

Our SABRA LANE: But have you sought it?

JULIA GILLARD: I've certainly spoken to Craig Thomson, of course I have, but there is an investigation in train by Fair Work Australia, and I believe that it's appropriate that that investigation work its way through.

The Prime Minister goes on to say:

So, Fair Work Australia will work its way through, we'll await the outcome of that investigation. In the meantime the Member for Dobell is doing his job as the local member in this Parliament.

That was the language used by the Prime Minister up until this morning, and I gather was repeated today under pressure because she had no choice. Let us talk about what she was saying about the member for Dobell. He had her 'complete confidence' and:

I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long time to come.

What was she reduced to this morning?

... the member for Dobell is doing his job as the local member in this Parliament.

This Prime Minister has been backed into a corner. This Prime Minister does not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with Craig Thomson as she knows he should be dealt with. In all the pathetic debate today from Senator Faulkner there was one truth that came out: a former Prime Minister acted and this Prime Minister refuses to do so—despite being confronted with overwhelming evidence that one of her own members has been involved in fraudulent behaviour. She has not even removed this man as chair of the economics committee. For the first time this morning we have seen invoked the defence of Fair Work Australia.

This afternoon, I asked Minister Evans a question in relation to this matter. The line being run by the Labor Party is that this dragged-out Fair Work Australia investigation has got to take its course and that Minister Evans will not interfere. That sounds daggy at question time but when you look at the evidence it is actually damning in relation to this minister's involvement in Fair Work Australia and an ongoing campaign by the Australian Labor Party to make sure that this never sees the light of day, and if it is to see the light of day it will be delayed and delayed in the faint hope that the overwhelming evidence against the member for Dobell suddenly disappears into the ether.

I want to read into the Hansard today part of the conversation between myself, Mr Nassios and the minister—and I believe you may well have been there, Mr Deputy President. The Hansard states:

Senator RONALDSON: Clearly, Mr Nassios, your attitude in relation to some of my questions has changed since last May—

This is Wednesday, 23 February—

and I have got to say that I am very pleased about that. There are some things you have advised me today about which you would not have last time, so on the back of that—I assume that they were questions asked along the same vein—would you now advise me whether you have interviewed Craig Thomson, Pauline Fegan, Criselee Evans, Matthew Burke and Jeff Dickson?

Mr Nassios: Certainly if we could go one by one.

Mr Evans: I just ask whether we take advice about whether we should be detailing who you have interviewed in a current investigation. I would have thought that was a bit unusual to be providing publicly who you were interviewing if an investigation is continuing. Has that been done in the past?

Mr Nassios: I cannot recall it being done in the past. When the senator was asking me these questions last time I felt that it would not be helpful to my investigation to divulge that sort of detail. I certainly cannot say it would hinder my investigation at this point.

I will repeat that:

I certainly cannot say it would hinder my investigation at this point.

Mr Evans said, 'I think it would be best if we got some advice as to whether you made those lists of witnesses who have been interviewed available.' The comments today from this minister were, 'I have no intention of interfering.' And, separately, 'It would be totally inappropriate to interfere.' On 23 February this year, what did this minister do? He interfered with evidence that was about to be given to the Senate in relation to Craig Thomson, the member for Dobell, involving Fair Work Australia. Mr Nassios, from Fair Work Australia, had made it quite clear to me in May last year that he was not prepared to answer my questions as to who was interviewed because it would potentially interfere with his investigation. On 23 February this year, when asked the same questions, Mr Nassios said he was prepared to do so. Mr Nassios said that, because it would no longer interfere with his investigation, he was prepared to answer them:

Certainly, if we could go one by one.

That was the response he gave, which I read out before, in relation to Mr Thomson, Pauline Fegan, Criselee Evans, Matthew Burke and Jeff Dickson.

This is a government that is completely and utterly devoid of any ministerial responsibility. This is a government that will stop at nothing in relation to the making of wafer-thin excuses to protect its wafer-thin majority. This is a government that stands utterly condemned. I will just finish on this note. I was talking before about the demise of the great warrior. The one person that the great warrior mentioned only in passing was the member for Dobell, because the now failed great warrior of the Australian Labor Party knows full well that the evidence against Mr Thomson is overwhelming. He did not seek to defend Mr Thomson today because he knows it would be completely and utterly untenable to do so.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly a privilege to follow on from the great warrior, Senator Faulkner, and the fine words that he added to this MPI debate this afternoon, which the opposition have brought in here, on the failure to observe the standards of ministerial accountability, a subject which the opposition have very intimate knowledge of. How quick they are to forget the appalling record of ministerial accountability in the Howard years. They have almost goldfish memories, not being able to think about anything beyond the perhaps six or 12 seconds that a goldfish can hold on to information.

I remind those opposite that, before they come into this place and put forward an MPI on the failure to observe the standards of ministerial accountability, they will have the opportunity, using their memory banks, to think a little bit more, beyond that of a goldfish's memory, to the actual extent of the ministerial accountability in the Howard years. Of course, we all remember that when John Howard came to power he noted:

The most important thing any government can do is build a sense of trust, a sense of integrity, a sense of honesty and a sense of commitment to the Australian people.

I do not think anyone in this place would argue with that. Of course, he followed on from those statements by creating A Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility as a key benchmark against which the conduct of ministers, their conflicts of interest, the use of power of office for personal gain and other things could be measured. Of course, at the very first hurdle, the guide failed in its task. Let us have a little trip down memory lane to highlight exactly the ministers in the coalition who did fail in the Howard years. First, there was Assistant Treasurer Jim Short, who approved a banking licence for a subsidiary of a company in which he owned $50,000 worth of shares—the ANZ Banking Group. But Prime Minister John Howard declared that, because Mr Short had not been deliberately dishonest, he was not culpable under his set code.

Then we had Senator Brian Gibson, who was parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer and failed to ensure he had sold his shareholdings in Boral Energy, approving an application by that company to be included in the Victorian electricity exempt futures market. The Prime Minister made the point then of indicating that Short and Gibson both still had his support. History shows, though, that both Short and Gibson did in fact resign, and with characteristic opportunism John Howard changed his tune, from Short's resignation 'certainly not being as a result of any pressure' to it later being a symbol of his own conviction that 'Gibson and Short had to go'.

Those rules were tested again when the Prime Minister's friend Senator Warwick Parer, then Minister for Resources and Energy, was the subject of serious breaches of the code. In 1998, revelations surfaced that Minister Parer held shares in Queensland coal company QCMM, even while he had portfolio responsibility for that resource industry. Not only had Parer not declared his interest on the Register of Senators' Interests—and, without excusing this, I acknowledge that members on all sides from time to time have been guilty of this offence—but then Minister Parer also failed to declare the kinds of conflicts about which one is reminded as issues arise, such as conflicts of interest related to diesel fuel rebate legislation and to the Native Title Amendment Bill, when a coal deposit in his own family trust was subject to a native title claim. There was at that time a very serious debate about Senator Parer's conduct, and I do not wish to go on too much further about that.

But what this whole thing shows is that the episode was clearly indicative of the coalition government's willingness to turn a blind eye when issues of accountability, responsibility and propriety were incon­venient to them. They have short memories, but memories have certainly come up to speed today through their bringing this MPI into the Senate chamber, which we welcome very much on this side, as an opportunity to get on the record that complete history of the Howard years.

Because I do not have enough time this afternoon, I would like to refer the members opposite to an article in a very good journal, the Australian Journal of Politics and Historysenators opposite might want to write this down—in volume 54, No. 2, 2008, pages 225 to 247. It is a very good article by Luke Raffin from the University of Melbourne, titled 'Individual Ministerial Responsibility during the Howard Years: 1996-2007'. In this article, I refer members to page 228, where there is a very good table that highlights the tests of individual ministerial responsibility during the Howard era. I could list a number of ministers and parliamentary secretaries who failed those tests. Why? Because Prime Minister John Howard was happy to water down his code of conduct, instead preferring that proof of actual wrongdoing and personal profit arising from misconduct was necessary.

If this reinterpretation of the code was redundant—and it was—then there was perhaps one more potent example, when Wilson Tuckey became the 14th minister to be accused of breaching that ministerial code, by using his office and his ministerial letterhead to pressure the South Australian police minister to commute a traffic fine against his son. The coalition have short memories indeed. And it was not just that with former Minister Tuckey; twice Tuckey misled parliament about that matter. But that was not enough for former Prime Minister John Howard to act on his own code of conduct, despite admitting that Mr Tuckey had been foolish and wrong, because Mr Howard's standards had now changed to whether or not the minister had actually broken the law.

I could go on and on with more and more about coalition ministers who broke that code of conduct. What this highlights very much is that it is a bit rich for the coalition senators to come into this place with this when they are from a party willing to make exemptions, obfuscate and bend the facts to the point of breaking their—that is, the Liberal Party's and their minor coalition partner's—own code of conduct. It is a bit rich when Tony Abbott's sense of accountability and responsibility in his own job is to go around fearmongering, being negative and misleading people on grade 10 science about the weight of carbon. It is all a bit rich for the opposition to raise this MPI demanding the resignation of a member on this side, not a minister but a member, on the basis of allegations—not on charges, not on convictions but on allegations—against that member before his election to parliament.

On this side of the chamber we demand and expect standards because we believe it is important that the public have confidence in their public administration and in the decisions that their ministers take, that these decisions are always motivated by the interests of the public not the interests of the individual. That is why when Labor came into power the Prime Minister announced standards of ministerial conduct to replace the Howard government's failed, watered down, wishy-washy code of conduct. Our new code of conduct actually takes into account the legitimate concerns that the Australian public have about the prevalence of lobbyists, for example, in modern politics. When this code has been tested, Labor has responded by upholding the highest standards of ministerial accountability.

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

Obviously Senator Singh was given the same speaking notes as Senator Faulkner, which the dirt unit dug up, because there was not one word of defence for the member for Dobell.

Senator Singh interjecting—

Do you know why, Senator Singh? Because you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I would like you to address your remarks through the chair.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, those on the other side are trying to defend the indefensible. Senator Faulkner came in here and was perplexed, no less, about today's matter of public importance. Obviously he has not been reading the papers lately. Indeed, Senator Singh—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—might I suggest that you concentrate and read the daily newspapers rather than some obscure journal about whatever, because today's daily newspapers offer the government some very good advice. I take you to the Canberra Times, not necessarily a newspaper that has always been—how should I say it?—right of centre. It is a newspaper that I would equate more with the left wing of politics, but there it is in the commentary in today's Canberra Times, which says:

Voters are not mugs.

Mr Peake said:

Expecting them to believe that an unnamed person used Craig Thomson's credit card and phone and drivers licence for escorts—and escaped without penalty—is reaching too far into fiction.

He goes on to say:

She—

referring to the Prime Minister—

closed down debate in Parliament—

as she did yesterday. What level of prime ministerial standard is that—shutting down parliament, shutting down the debate, as she did yesterday? She undermines the argument that there is nothing to worry about. He continues:

Incredibly, Anthony Albanese says Parliament has no time at all in this week's four-day sitting to allow the Member for Dobell to tell his story.

Let us have a look at the Herald Sun. Its headline reads that the pressure over the Thomson scandal is threatening the PM's credibility. That seems to me to be directly relevant in relation to ministerial responsibility. Mr Hudson makes this comment:

... Labor looks hapless as this issue eats away at its credibility.

This is about a government that have a major integrity problem. They are so desperate to hang onto power. Of course the master, Graham Richardson, told them to do 'whatever it takes'. It seems to me that they ought to be listening to Graham Richardson at this point in time because I think he has read the political tea leaves a lot better than those opposite have. Mr Hudson writes:

The NSW ALP took the extraordinary step of helping to pay legal bills for Thomson.

We know that they are absolutely paranoid that he should become bankrupt because that would disqualify him and make him ineligible to sit in parliament. The figures of $40,000, $90,000 and $150,000 have been bandied about. It could be a lot more. It could be $200,000; it could be a quarter of a million dollars. But nobody from the New South Wales Labor Party is prepared to tell us the conditions of that bailout and how much the actual figure was. Hard-earned union money—there it is being used in this matter. Mr Hudson also writes:

Abbott is right when he says an MP who, at best, is so careless with his own credit card statements should not be in charge of quizzing the Reserve Bank governor about the nation's finances.

That is backing up what the Leader of the Opposition is saying in relation to Mr Thomson. This is about integrity. Every day we open the newspapers and there is another allegation; there is another issue about misappropriation of money. Today it is about something else. It is there every day. This is going to keep going because it is very, very clear that the member for Dobell has a lot to answer for.

Indeed, today's Courier Mail editorial says: 'Hard questions need answers in Thomson affair'. We have asked the member for Dobell to explain himself. Yesterday, in the other place, the Manager of Opposition Business sought leave to move a motion that would require the member for Dobell to attend in the House and give a personal explanation. The manager outlined the various issues so that the member for Dobell could reassure the House about these matters in a personal explanation—a please explain to the Australian public. What happened? It was shut down. There was not enough time to talk about these important issues. One of them said, 'Oh no, the member for Dobell has to explain himself,' so the Prime Minister gets asked a question about whether she has full confidence in the member for Dobell.

While we are on the subject, will any of the retrenched workers at BlueScope Steel receive a $90,000 gift from the New South Wales ALP? I am sure that they have a view on it, which I will hear next time I have a meeting in the mall in Wollongong in relation to that. I am sure they are all very happy about it! They are losing their jobs down in the Illawarra while their MPs and their union bosses are squandering money in brothels and all sorts of other things. What is the Prime Minister's response? Questions of personal explanation are for the individual parliamentarians involved. Well, we gave the opportunity to the member for Dobell to give a personal explanation and what did they do? They shut down the debate. So here is the Prime Minister saying, 'Oh no, he can make his own personal explanation', and when we try to give him the opportunity to give that explanation they shut down the debate. Isn't that smart? Give him the opportunity, but there is no desire to give a personal explanation because he has a hell of a lot to hide. That is what this is all about. This goes to the very core of the integrity of this government.

The member for Goldstein yesterday made a very pertinent comment to which my colleague Senator Ronaldson referred. He said:

The support being given to the member for Dobell is sickening. Look at the evidence that comes out daily. Look at what we saw today from Fairfax—that he has lied; that he is a thief. Yet the Prime Minister stands up here daily and supports it.

Day in, day out this Prime Minister is going into the chamber and she is standing up for him. Day in, day out we are seeing more allegations.

Senator Ronaldson talked about Fair Work Australia. Here is Minister Evans today in question time telling us it is inappropriate for him to interfere, yet that is precisely what he was doing when Senator Ronaldson was trying to ask very important questions which today still remain unanswered because this minister interrupted and shut down that debate. If he does not have anything to hide, the member for Dobell should go right into that House now and explain to the Australian public. More importantly, he needs to explain to the people of Dobell.

I am patron senator for Dobell. And I can tell you there were hundreds of people at the Mingara Recreation Club a couple of weeks ago to witness the disgraceful behaviour of the member for Dobell, so I can tell you what the people of Dobell think of their local member—that is, he is a disgrace. The sooner the people of Dobell get the opportunity to have a by-election and to elect another person to represent them, the better off they are going to be and the better off the people of Australia are going to be to get rid of this government which is rotten to the core.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of Senator Faulkner and Senator Singh in this motion. I have high expectations of ministerial accountability. There is no script for this debate today, and frankly I cannot rewrite history for the opposition who had minister after minister fall like dominoes when in government, one after the other, after they had campaigned on clean government and their code of ministerial conduct. I do not need to retell the story that Senator Singh and Senator Faulkner have told this afternoon. We know that the former coalition government had minister after minister fall like cards—Jim Short, Brian Gibson, Bob Woods, Geoff Prosser, John Sharp, David Jull, Peter McGauran, John Moore, Warwick Parer—in just a few short years after the Howard government took power. That is not even the end of the list. But the Gillard government has high standards of ministerial ethics. I, the Australian public and the Australian Labor Party expect our ministers to uphold those standards of ministerial ethics. The opposition when in government had many ministers fail their own code of conduct, one after the other. So there was a complete lack of formal accountability demonstrated by those opposite. Why? Because they were not accountable. They have not been account­able, as Senator Faulkner and Senator Singh have clearly demonstrated. Even now they waste this parliament's time as they spend time trying to score base political points. That is not accountability. Cheap political scoring of points is not accountability. There is no accountability from the senators opposite in this place. They do not make a contribution even to substantive policy debates. Why? Because they are devoid of policy.

So let us talk about ministerial accountability and what Australians expect from their ministers. Take things like education and skills. We know that nearly 20,000 fewer apprentices commenced a trade in the 12 months to March 2007. There were only 78,000 apprentices. We have 97,000 apprentices which started a trade in the last 12 months, and that is a record number. Take the national curriculum. They failed to deliver a national curriculum for 11½ years. We are rolling out the first national curriculum here in 2011. The Gillard government is increasing university educa­tion enrolments by half a million places, whereas we know that enrolments were just 400,000 in the year 2008-09, 20 per cent fewer than we have now. So, taking education and skills, critically important issues for our nation, where is the shadow ministerial accountability on policy and where is the shadow ministerial accoun­tability on the cost of living when we know that we have an opposition with policies that will simply drive up the cost of living because they have no accountability? They have no accountability for their direct action on climate change policy. They say they want to implement it through direct action but they want to do it without a department and they have no plan to implement it. Take regional Australia: they will axe the Regional Infrastructure Fund; they will axe that $6 billion fund. Take the age pension: in 11½ years of government they failed to deliver a substantial pension increase. Take the cutting of mental health services—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has now expired.