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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) today relating to ministerial conduct.

Australia is entitled to be assured that its senior representative on the international stage is a respectable and credible person. Putting political differences aside, nobody could doubt that Mr Kevin Rudd, when he was the foreign minister, was a respectable and serious person. Nobody could doubt that his predecessor as foreign minister, Mr Stephen Smith, was a serious and reputable person. But I am sorry to say that the current foreign minister, who likes to posture and present an urbane face to the world, is not, on inspection, a serious and reputable person. All that glisters is not gold, and, although Senator Bob Carr is so intellectually vain that he even wrote a book about how many books he has read, when you look at Senator Bob Carr's record as a public figure in New South Wales, and when you consider the response today in the Senate when he was taken to task for it, that record is one of shame and disgrace. This is what his successor as the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Morris Iemma, said yesterday:

It took Eddie Obeid 20-odd years to build the power and influence he had and for 17 of those Bob—

that is, Senator Bob Carr—

was leader.

He said further:

Well he made him a cabinet minister and not only did he make him a cabinet minister, he waltzed into the caucus room when the vote was happening and very publically voted for him. To send a message that, 'Not only am I gonna vote for Eddie, but here, look at this, all of you should vote for him as well.' And why was he made a cabinet minister? For services rendered and support given.

Those are not the words of a Liberal politician. Those are the words of Mr Morris Iemma, Senator Bob Carr's successor as the Premier of New South Wales.

Such was the cesspit of corruption in New South Wales politics during the time of Mr Bob Carr's premiership, such was the Sumerian gloom into which that state had descended when he led it, that counsel assisting the ICAC inquiry before Justice Ipp, which is sitting in Sydney at the moment, described it as 'the most corrupt government of New South Wales since the Rum Corps'—again, not a politician, not a political opponent, but the QC assisting the Ipp inquiry.

The person who presided over that corrupt government—the person who fostered the political career of the source of the corruption, as we now know, Mr Eddie Obeid—was none other than Senator Bob Carr. Senator Carr might mock his accusers on the floor of the Senate today and he might mock the President of the Senate, who seeks to call him to order, but one thing he cannot escape is the stain on his reputation: that he, Senator Bob Carr, as the Premier of New South Wales, presided over the most corrupt government of New South Wales since the Rum Corps and that he, Senator Bob Carr, promoted, fostered, advanced and protected the political career of Mr Eddie Obeid, in the words of Mr Morris Iemma, 'for services rendered and support given'. That is Senator Bob Carr's legacy, and all the honeyed words, all the courtly phrases and all the intellectual grace and charm which Senator Bob Carr affects with all the credibility of a kabuki actor cannot conceal his record, now exposed for the public of New South Wales and the public of Australia to see: that corruption flourished like a forest plant under Senator Bob Carr's premiership. This, embarrassingly, is the face Australia now presents to the world.

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

I rise this afternoon in response to the answers that were given in question time and in response to Senator Brandis and, no doubt, speakers that will follow him. I take offence at some of the comparisons that Senator Brandis used then in relation to one of my colleagues—in fact, in relation to any senator in this chamber. It is an unfortunate position you find yourself in when you cannot actually take note and debate the facts and you have to resort to some personal intimations. I think people listening to this do not appreciate that.

There are just two things I want to say before I talk about foreign affairs. One is that, of course, Senator Bob Carr has not been Premier of New South Wales for nearly seven years now, so people out there will probably be thinking, 'What is this all about now that he is not only a member of the federal parliament but also Australia's foreign minister?' So let us get that on the record.

Secondly, I just want to say something in relation to what happened today, when we spent 15 minutes on this first question in the Senate—which, of course, was not related at all to any policy matter or any significant area of reform that this government is trying to undertake. One thing I know is that, when we all come into this chamber as senators, we are asked to complete accurately—always accurately and truthfully—our declaration of senators' interests. One of the things we know, which is now fact, is that one senator in this place, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, did not complete his register of senators' interests correctly—surprisingly, you may say, because he was former Prime Minister John Howard's chief of staff. Why would he not have done that? Surely it was not because he did not know to do it; he clearly did.

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

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order on relevance: the question was directed entirely to Senator Carr's conduct and reputation as the Premier of New South Wales. I might remind you, Mr Deputy President, that when Senator Carr, in answer to that question, sought to do what Senator Crossin is now doing—that is, cast aspersions at another senator—the President drew him to the question and, by doing so, ruled that that matter was not responsive to the question.

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

Thank you, Senator Brandis. There is no point of order, as Senator Crossin is responding to the answers given—whether they be in order or not in order—by Senator Carr.

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

You see, it is relevant, because all roads in relation to the declaration of interests by Senator Sinodinos lead to Mr Obeid and to the fact that Senator Sinodinos had shares in a business that was owned significantly by that gentleman and they were not declared on his interests. The point I simply want to make here is that we can spend forever and a day trying to throw aspersions at Senator Carr, throw mud at Senator Carr and malign his nature and his character, but he has been out of New South Wales politics as the Premier for seven years now. He is Australia's foreign minister and, as much as you want to argue about Mr Obeid and what has happened with ICAC in New South Wales, if you are going to have a look at what is going on at this side of the chamber—or purport to look at what happened on this side of the chamber—then you want to have a really good look at what is happening a couple of seats down from you and the failure to declare in your declaration of interests any interests you might have had in this matter at all.

But last week we celebrated International Women's Day, so let us try and turn this debate now to something positive that Foreign Affairs is doing in this country. It gives me a chance in relation to Senator Carr and his portfolio to talk about what work we are doing overseas in supporting women. In the context of International Women's Day, we have through AusAID made a significant commitment to—

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

Senator Crossin, I did rule that you were in order in the first part when there was a point of order taken, but now I think you are straying from the topic, as Senator Carr did not mention that in any of his answers at all. So I just draw you to the fact that we are taking—

Government senators interjecting—

Order! We are taking note of the answers given by Senator Carr. So you cannot have it both ways, Senator Crossin.

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

I do not want to reflect on the decision of the chair, but what the coalition is clearly trying to do is suggest that somehow, in some way, Senator Carr at some stage in his past has been involved in activities that are not scrupulous. That is seriously not the case. It is seven years ago. We have debated this topic, and no doubt it has been raised in the media. But, if we want to talk about Senator Carr and his performance, let us talk about his performance as foreign affairs minister. Why are we not talking about that during question time? Why are we not asking Senator Carr, on the back of International Women's Day, about the role we play for women overseas—

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

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order, it can hardly be relevant for a senator, in addressing a question before the chair, to ask rhetorically why we are not talking about a different question which she then poses to herself.

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

Thank you. Senator Crossin, you have the call, and I will remind you of the matter that we are taking note of: the answers given by Senator Carr.

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

What we are taking note of, I would have thought, is the foreign minister's integrity. As often as Senator Brandis might want to pop up like a jack-in-a-box and suggest that we ought to talk about some negative aspect of this person's integrity and his judgement, we can also talk about the positive role this foreign minister has played. We could also talk about some of the outstanding achievements we have made, particularly when we talk about our commitment to women overseas on the back of International Women's Day. Or we could talk about all of the other senators in this place who actually do lodge a declaration of interest when they are required to, and it is accurate and it is truthful and it does not miss out aspects of our lives that we know have to be recorded in this parliament. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take part in the debate on the motion to take note of answers by Senator Bob Carr to questions from Senator Abetz. Although I am a Victorian senator, I actually feel well qualified to take part in this debate. I used to work for a New South Wales government; I used to work in the New South Wales parliament. I used to work for a government that was led by a good, decent and honest premier in Mr Nick Greiner. I did work for that outstanding minister Mr Bruce Baird. And I did have the opportunity to observe closely the then Mr Carr and the way that New South Wales Labor operated. You might recall a fellow by the name of Rex 'Buckets' Jackson, who was a minister in a government in which Mr Carr himself served. Mr Jackson was the corrections minister in New South Wales—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: as much as I am very interested in the CV of Senator Fifield, I do not think that was part of Senator Bob Carr's response today. If you could bring Senator Fifield back to order, that would be good.

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

I will remind Senator Fifield of the matter before the chair.

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

I am coming to the point. Mr Jackson went to jail for selling early releases for prisoners, as a prison minister. We are always told that these are aberrations, that these are isolated instances, and that they do not go to the very heart of the culture of the New South Wales Labor Party. Mr Carr used to straddle New South Wales as some sort of political colossus, so I must say that it did bring a smile to my face when Senator Carr, on Four Corners, in reference to Eddie Obeid, said that he was:

… a marginal figure, someone lurking in the corridors, never to be taken that seriously…

That is the old Deidre Chambers defence. You might recall Bill Hunter in the movie Muriel's Wedding, when he was the mayor of Porpoise Spit, walking into a restaurant and his mistress, Deidre Chambers, was there. He saw her and he said: 'Oh, Deidre Chambers. What a coincidence!' We are meant to believe that every time Bob Carr had any association, or was even in the same room as Eddie Obeid, it was: 'Eddie Obeid. What a coincidence! Fancy seeing you here!' They were cheek by jowl. Mr Carr chooses to ignore the method, the manner, the when of the appointment of Eddie Obeid to the frontbench. He prefers to say that it was actually Mr Iemma who gave him a special status. It was Mr Carr who first appointed Mr Obeid as a minister of the Crown.

You know whenever Mr Carr is under pressure because he always reaches for some sort of Chairman Mao story. We saw that on Four Corners when he said: 'Forget about how Eddie Obeid was appointed, let me tell you about how I took on the 'Terribles'. Let me tell you about when I had Eddie Obeid in my office and I pushed him out of the ministry. I got so frustrated I had to reach for my Chairman Mao jar, which held my pencils and pens, and I threw it against the bookcase and, oh boy, I tell you, go and see Barry O'Farrell. Book an appointment with Barry, and if you go into the office you will still see the bookcase and you will still see the nick out of the bookcase the shattering jar caused'. That is part of the Bob Carr—

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

Senator Carr.

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

Senator Carr MO, to come up with a colourful story to distract attention. But it was, in fact, Mr Carr who appointed Eddie Obeid as a minister, and Eddie Obeid served as a minister in that government in 1999, in 2000, in 2001, in 2002 and 2003. This was no short-term sojourn on the frontbench; this was five years as a minister of the Crown courtesy of Mr Carr.

But 1999 was not the first time Mr Carr tried to appoint Mr Obeid to the frontbench. He tried in 1995. He backed Mr Obeid over the then opposition frontbencher Mr Bob Martin. It is part of New South Wales Labor folklore that the vote was split at 22-all between Mr Obeid and Mr Martin and the name ended up being drawn not out of a hat, because they could not find one, but out of a briefcase. Mr Martin's name was drawn out and Eddie did not get to be a frontbencher. But Senator Bob Carr, as early as 1995, was fighting to have Eddie Obeid in his ministry. He eventually got there. He got there as the minister for minerals and fisheries. And let us not forget Ms Gabrielle Harrison, who was dumped to make way for Mr Obeid so that he could become the minister for minerals and fisheries. He was known and Mr Coal and Mr Fish.

Bob Carr has been cheek by jowl with Eddie Obeid. He stands condemned. He is not a credible figure to be our foreign minister. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take part in the debate on the motion to take note of answers by Senator Bob Carr to questions from Senator Abetz. I do not know Senator Sinodinos all that well—we do not serve on any committees together—but I have come to the conclusion that he is quite a polite gentlemen. He often says hello to us in the corridors and he is generally very polite, and so I was very disappointed that he had failed to declare an interest on a number of board—

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

Directorships?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

directorships—thank you so much. I think it was about six all up. That is of great concern to me because when we first come to the Senate we are all told how important it is to declare all of our interests. Everybody else manages to do that, but Senator Sinodinos, who is obviously smart—I understand he was handpicked to work for Mr Howard—could not get it right and declare these interests. I wonder whether that was an oversight because he might have been embarrassed that he too has been linked to Mr Obeid.

For the opposition to come in here and try to make a mountain out of a molehill and put it back on Senator Carr personally is absolutely disgraceful. Senator Carr is highly commended on the international stage as the foreign affairs minister. He is highly commended—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Are you standing to interject or just walking around? I know you jump up and down all through question time. It took 25 minutes, I noted, to discuss this issue in question time today. One would have to wonder if those on the other side have got no questions to do with policy. We know that that is probably part of why they ran this issue today.

I want to mention something that happened when Mr Howard was Prime Minister and when one of the other senators failed to disclose his shareholdings in various businesses. That, of course, was none other than former senator Santo Santoro. Senator Santoro was sacked by Mr Howard when Mr Howard was Prime Minister for failing to disclose his shareholdings in various businesses.

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I know it is against standing orders to reflect on serving senators. It must be perilously close to being against standing orders to reflect on a former senator. For the record, Senator Santoro resigned. He was not dismissed, he was not sacked. He chose to leave the front bench in the parliament.

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

It is a debating point, Senator Fifield. There is no point of order. Senator Bilyk, you have the call.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whether he resigned or whether he was sacked—I understood he was sacked, and if I am wrong I am happy to retract that—the issue was it all happened because he failed to declare on his register of interests that he had shareholdings in various businesses. I will quote what Mr Howard had to say at that time, and the reason I am doing this is that I am wondering why Mr Abbott has not taken up the issue with Senator Sinodinos about this. Mr Howard said at the time:

This is a clear breach of the Senate rules and of his obligation to me—

that being Mr Howard. He went on:

He had no alternative but to resign.

So I take it back, Senator, and I apologise—he did resign. He was going to be sacked so he jumped first, obviously. The quote went on:

I am frankly angry and disappointed at the Senator's conduct.

This is still former Prime Minister—

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I do not rise on this point of order merely for the sake of defending my very dear friend Santo Santoro—though I am proud that he is and always has been a very dear friend of mine. The purpose of the point of order is to point out that this is not relevant. I took a point of order earlier on when Senator Crossin was making her contribution and she reflected on Senator Sinodinos. You ruled against me because you said—as I understood you—that Senator Carr in his answer had referred to Senator Sinodinos and therefore that was relevant to the debate. But there was no reference, not remotely, to former Senator Santoro—or, as I should describe him now, Commendatore Santoro—and therefore I would ask you to rule that this contribution by Senator Bilyk is irrelevant.

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

Thank you, Senator Brandis.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: you have ruled many times that these debates are very broad ranging and there is latitude given, but in Senator Bilyk's contribution she has been far more relevant than Senator Fifield was when he was giving us his CV about who he worked for and the fact that he is very close to New South Wales. We have heard it all before and we do not need to be told for the first one minute of his contribution in taking note of answers. I again ask you to uphold your previous ruling that it is a very broad ranging debate that we have in taking note of answers and that Senator Brandis's point of order is not a point of order.

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

Thank you very much, Senator Brown. I was going to rule that there is no point of order, but I take note of Senator Brandis's remarks—as I did when it was raised against Senator Fifield—and I remind Senator Bilyk, as I did Senator Fifield, of the nature of the topic that we are debating. You had started to stray off topic for a short while, Senator Bilyk, so I just remind you what the topic is.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was brought up by those on the other side and there was some debate about why they would try to do that to themselves. There is concern, I know, about whose seat Senator Sinodinos might take to get him to the front bench—whether it is when you are in government or in opposition. I know that most people on the other side will do whatever they can to smear and belittle people on this side of the chamber, as they tried to do with Senator Carr, who, as I said, is most highly respected in international area. He has managed to do so much for Australia in the relatively short time he has been the foreign minister. He has secured a seat for Australia as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the term 2013-14. He has announced a road map for reducing sanctions against Zimbabwe. He has developed and finalised a charter for the Commonwealth. Those are just three things out of a number of things that Senator Carr has been able to do in the time he has been in that position. Those on the other side will do anything to throw mud at this side. They know that one on their side did the wrong thing— (Time expired).

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

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Bob Carr to questions asked by Senator Abetz. The question here today really should be: how much of what is happening in New South Wales today could have been avoided had Eddie Obeid not been appointed to the ministry? Yesterday evening on the ABC program Four Corners we heard Mr Carr saying:

It's breathtaking, the wreckage that he has done—a single person who we saw as a marginal figure, someone lurking in the corridors, never to be taken that seriously, could produce this. Well there's something epic ...

You bet you're right, Senator Carr! Had you not promoted him to the ministry and supported him and sponsored him and done all those things, one really wonders whether we would be seeing the worst scandal since the Rum Corps in New South Wales. Also in last night's Four Corners interview Senator Carr said:

I remember he did a very big Lebanese fundraiser in about 1988. So he must've been … He must've been a personality but some time he emerged from the semi-darkness and began to get a special prominence.

Somebody that is just there, in the background et cetera—did not really know him, did not really know much about him et cetera. Funny about that, because in 1988, the very same year, there is Mr Obeid's company donating to Mr Carr's Maroubra campaign. Funny about that—did not really know him, but there he was donating to him.

Then in 1988, the very same year, for then Minister for Planning and the Environment Carr the issue arose about the Valhalla stables lease. Funny about that—all at the same time he is trying to paint the picture that he did not really know him, he was somebody in the darkness, but here we have then Minister Carr after he met Eddie Obeid twice as minister for the environment during the caretaker period for the 1988 election campaign over changes that Mr Obeid was seeking for his Valhalla stables snow-lease development. Yes, we all know about the snow lease and snowfields in other recent revelations, but Mr Carr could never explain the briefing note from the then director of the National Parks and Wildlife dated 3 March 1988 with respect to Valhalla stables and the difference between what was on the public record and his recollection. This briefing note, in part, said:

The minister requested the service, reviewed the request—

that is, the request from Mr Eddie Obeid—

with a view to providing alternatively worded provisions that could meet the requirements of the lessee.

When we see Mr Carr being thanked by Mr Obeid in his maiden speech, it is little wonder. Why was he made a cabinet minister and why, as my colleagues have said so correctly, did Mr Carr go out of his way to make sure that he became a cabinet minister? It was, as Morris Iemma correctly said, 'for services rendered and support given'. As Senator Faulkner said on yesterday evening's Four Corners: 'He'—Eddie Obeid—'ran Labor governments in New South Wales. That's what he did.'

Of course, he was promoted. He was promoted to the ministry of 1999, and from 1999 to 2004 Bob Carr was asked on at least nine occasions, in the New South Wales parliament and other places, about the behaviour of Mr Obeid. On every one of those occasions, Mr Carr stood by Mr Obeid—whether it was repeatedly about Mr Obeid's pecuniary interest disclosures or whether it was about the Oasis Liverpool development or whether it was about Mr Obeid's involvement in the company related to one of the Keating piggery companies. All along Mr Carr never gave any answers. All he did was stand by his little mate. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.