Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer.

There are a number of serious questions that Senator Sinodinos has to answer in relation to allegations which have been aired publicly. I wrote to the Leader of the Government in the Senate today as a matter of courtesy, indicating to him that the opposition would grant leave for Senator Sinodinos to come into this chamber and give a full explanation. The reasons why the opposition believes this is important are threefold. In February 2013 Senator Sinodinos gave a statement to this chamber. Three aspects of that statement we believe appear to be inconsistent with evidence which has been given at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Those three matters go, first, to Senator Sinodinos's assertion in his statement that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract. Second, in relation to political donations, he did not recollect these being discussed at board level. Third, he was not aware at the time that he was made chair that the CEO of the company had negotiated what ICAC has now described as a sham loan agreement.

I will go into further detail in the context of the substantive motion, but I say this: Senator Sinodinos gave a statement to the Senate as a backbencher; that is true. But it is important to note that all of us in this place have an obligation to be truthful and frank with the chamber. He as minister has subsequently reaffirmed that. He has said in the chamber, 'I stand by the statement I made.' I think it is incumbent upon Senator Sinodinos to attend this chamber to explain the apparent inconsistencies, and certainly the omissions, in his statement to the Senate in February when faced with the factual assertions and other allegations which have been made at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has made a number of statements which really fly in the face of the assertions that Senator Sinodinos made to this chamber.

It is the case that the commission against corruption is investigating these matters. We accept that, but we also believe on two grounds that Senator Sinodinos should attend this place. The first ground in particular is the one I have asserted. That is that senators in this place, when confronted with public allegations which are not consistent with a statement they have made to this chamber, particularly if they are ministers, should attend this chamber and give an explanation which clarifies the inconsistencies and omissions in that statement. We have given Senator Sinodinos a number of occasions—a number of opportunities—on which he could do so. He has chosen not to.

The second basis on which we say he should attend this chamber is the ministerial standards.

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

You of all people—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis brays and cackles again. It is indicative of the contempt with which this government holds the standards of ministerial conduct that the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate so cackles and so interjects. What a first law officer of the nation he is!

The reality is that the statement of standards talks about conduct of the highest personal integrity. It talks about high standards of conduct. The reality is that there have been some extremely concerning, serious allegations which have been made at the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

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

There have been no allegations.

Government senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection from those opposite. They say no allegations have been made. I am very happy to go through some of those, chapter and verse.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brandis and Senator Fierravanti-Wells, cease yelling across the chamber.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sinodinos is asking, for example, this chamber to believe he was not involved with and did not have any knowledge of political donations when donations were made at a time he was an officeholder of both organisations. It is not believable. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard the most outrageous allegation against Senator Sinodinos, haven't we? We just heard it, then, from Senator Wong. Supposedly, somebody has to give an explanation. Really? Is that as good as the opposition can do in this place? So sanctimonious yet so shallow is this Senator Wong. The opposition is so unprepared to vote on the carbon tax and so unprepared to vote on the mining tax before the West Australian Senate election that they will use and consume whatever time there is in this place to ensure that we do not get to vote on those important issues before the West Australian Senate election.

Let us make no mistake that this is the Senator Wong that went to the Australian people saying there will be no carbon tax and then introduced one, who then said that the budget was in good shape, and we have seen how very bad a shape it was in.

Senator Lines interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Lines, you will cease yelling across the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet Senator Wong comes in here, so sanctimonious, claiming that she is so clean. She claims that she is the upholder of all these great standards yet she was the great defender of Craig Thomson and the great defender of Michael Williamson.

If we want to go into people's history before they entered parliament, let us have a look at the corrupt dealings of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, of which Senator Wong used to be an official. Let us put her in the stand and ask her what she knew about the corrupt dealings of the CFMEU when she was an official of it. We on this side of the chamber say that there is possibly something to explain, but not before the Senate, because this was a period before she was a senator or a minister of the crown—albeit we would love to hear an explanation from Senator Wong about all of her activities in the CFMEU.

Clearly, Senator Sinodinos has given a proper, full, detailed, honest explanation to this chamber. Above and beyond that, as important as Senator Wong is, and as bloated as she is with her own self-importance—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Both sides of the chamber will come to order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As important as Senator Wong is, we would say to her with great respect that she ain't quite as important as ICAC! ICAC is the proper place for evidence to be provided, and that is exactly what Senator Sinodinos has said he will do. He will provide full and frank detail and cooperate in every possible way with ICAC.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, stop yelling across the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has said he will do that, and we have every confidence that he will do exactly that. Senator Sinodinos said he will undoubtedly take some tutorials from Senator Doug Cameron and Greg Combet on how to appear before ICAC, because people are called as witnesses from time to time before ICAC. Indeed, we will have that opportunity and we will then be able to see what the actual evidence is. But keep this in mind: Senator Sinodinos has only been called as a witness.

Government senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators on my left, there is too much noise.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No allegation has been made against Senator Sinodinos except this pathetic, puerile attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to say that somehow there was an allegation. But, I don't know, I did not quite understand, at the end of the speech, what the allegation was. I do not think anybody else understood what it was, either.

I simply say that this is a stunt by Labor. I got a letter from the Leader of the Opposition delivered to my office at 10 to nine saying that in 40 minutes this is what would happen. And, sure enough, it has happened. But what is even worse—guess what?—Sky News rang my office to see what my response would be to this, within minutes of this letter being delivered. This is all about a media stunt. It is about mobilising the media. Senator Wong does not believe in this as a matter of credibility for this place, as a matter of integrity; it is a media stunt—nothing more, nothing less.

Government senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left, come to order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a pathetic attempt by this Leader of the Opposition yet again to wind down the time in this chamber so they do not have to deal with the issues of the day that would create jobs for our fellow Australians, like getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax and reinstituting the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which might actually bring the CFMEU to heel—of which the good senator herself was a very important official. The appropriate place is ICAC, not the Senate.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the suspension of standing orders on this matter—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Resume your seat, Senator Milne. Senators on my right will come to order. Senator Milne is only just into the first sentence of her contribution.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators will stop discussions across the chamber. Senator Milne has the call.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian community deserves to have confidence in the Australian parliament, in the Australian ministry in particular. The community deserves to be able to have confidence in the highest standards of behaviour from its cabinet ministers. That is where the principle of ministerial responsibility comes from, not only in taking responsibility for government decisions but also in adhering to the code of conduct, which requires the highest standard of ethical behaviour. All that is being asked for here is a statement from Senator Sinodinos, to enable him to clear his name. If he believes he is innocent in this regard then that is appropriate. Ministers are clearly responsible for their own acts but they are also clearly responsible for their omissions, and it is important that the Australian people hear from Senator Sinodinos in this particular context—and hear more than the statement that he made earlier this year. It was a carefully crafted statement but there were several omissions.

It is also about consistency. I refer the Senate to what the now Prime Minister had to say when he was in opposition: before anybody was charged he had already made decisions about guilt and association. In referring to Craig Thomson at the time he said:

It really is unconscionable for the Labor Party and the Prime Minister to continue to rely on this person's vote. I think that the best thing Craig Thomson could now do would be for him to leave parliament and let someone else represent the people of Dobell. Look, it is a disgrace, it is an embarrassment to the Labor Party which spawned and nurtured and protected this person and it's a disgrace to public morality that this has happened,

The Greens have said from beginning to end that people are innocent until they are proven guilty, and we believe that it is time that Senator Sinodinos came in here and told the parliament exactly what has happened so that the parliament can make a judgement about that.

I would remind the coalition of some of the people who have resigned. Let us talk about Geoff Prosser, for example. He was minister for small business under former Prime Minister John Howard and in 1997 he resigned immediately because of allegations of improper business dealings. Go back even further than that and you had Mick Young, for example, who had to resign over not declaring a Paddington Bear to Customs in 1984. There have been many examples of ministerial responsibility. I could go through a whole list of them that I have got here. But the important thing is that if Senator Sinodinos has nothing to hide then he should come in here and make a full explanation to the parliament. That is all that is being asked at this point. Unlike the current Prime Minister, who immediately alleged guilt before there were any court proceedings, this is the Senate asking for an explanation on behalf of the Australian people.

That is why we need a national ICAC. That is why the Greens have argued for a very long time that we need a national integrity commissioner and that these matters should be dealt with nationally in the same way that they are dealt with in New South Wales by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is important that we have it at the state level, but it is important that we have it at the national level. We have moved for it consistently and it has been rejected consistently by both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. It is time that we had a national commission against corruption so that we have the capacity for the community to know that there are appropriate levels of investigation when corruption is alleged.

It is no use for the coalition to pretend that there is no alleged corruption. That is clearly the allegation that is being made here. Frankly, all it does is undermine the parliament and every parliamentarian to see this revolving door of people leaving politics, going into business, ending up at the heights of their political party, organising political donations, going back into parliament and going back into business. This revolving door has been one of the reasons why people have lost confidence in politics and in parliamentarians. That is why we need to clean it up and that is why we need an independent commission against corruption and it is why Senator Sinodinos should come in here. (Time expired)

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

Let us not forget the man against whom this disgraceful smear is being made. Arthur Sinodinos is one of the greatest Australians who has participated in the public life of this country over the last two decades. For more than a decade, he ran the Prime Minister's office of Australia's most successful recent government, the Howard government. He is an officer of the Order of Australia. He is a person of the highest integrity and the greatest personal decency.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

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

Senator Carr, stop yelling across the chamber.

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

Let us not forget the stature and the quality of the Australian against whom this disgraceful smear is being made. Those who are baying from the other side of the chamber would stop at nothing to smear anyone. It is their modus operandi. We have seen it from Senator Wong. We have seen it from Senator Conroy.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, just resume your seat for a moment. Senators on my left will come to order.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins, I have just called senators to order.

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

Those who may be listening to this broadcast should know one thing in particular. There has been no allegation of wrongdoing made by anyone against Senator Arthur Sinodinos—none. The Labor Party have been seeking to smear by innuendo—guilt by association—seeking to smear the reputation of this very distinguished Australian. But remember this, Mr Acting Deputy President: there has been no allegation of wrongdoing made against Arthur Sinodinos. Senator Arthur Sinodinos is a witness in proceedings at ICAC. Any citizen may be called as a witness in proceedings at ICAC. But neither counsel assisting ICAC, nor other witnesses before ICAC, nor the ICAC commissioner himself—no-one—has alleged any wrongdoing against Senator Sinodinos; nobody.

So the fact that this, one of the most grave motions that a parliamentary chamber can be debating, has been moved, in circumstances where no allegations of wrongdoing have been made against this man, tells you all you need to know about the motives and the modus operandi of the Australian Labor Party. Would that there were anybody sitting on the benches opposite who had served Australia as well, over more than 20 years of public service, as Arthur Sinodinos, but we look around their depleted ranks and there is no-one. There is not one of them who can boast a record of public service as distinguished as that of Arthur Sinodinos.

This government upholds and demands the highest of ministerial standards, and those ministerial standards require the highest probity of every minister. Those are standards by which Senator Sinodinos has conducted himself just as every minister in the Abbott government has conducted themselves. Let me say it again because it cannot be stressed often enough: this motion—this disgraceful motion that has been foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the former CFMEU official, Senator Penny Wong—is a motion designed to humiliate and smear a man against whom there have been no allegations made of wrongdoing, against whom Senator Wong in her speech was unable to formulate any allegation of wrongdoing, against whom no member of Labor Party has been able to formulate any allegation of wrongdoing merely because he is a witness. If the Labor Party have specific allegations of wrongdoing, let them come forward with them. They should put up or shut up before they smear the reputation of a man who is a greater Australian than any of them.

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

In my view it is untenable and unacceptable for the Assistant Treasurer, if he is to remain in that position, to fail to make now a full, complete and comprehensive statement to the parliament about all aspects of his involvement in Australian Water Holdings, given the circumstances we face. The facts of the matter are these. Senator Sinodinos made a statement in the Senate about these matters on 28 February last year. That, of course, was before he was sworn in as Assistant Treasurer. Since that time, all Senator Sinodinos has been willing to do or say in the chamber is that he has stood by that earlier statement. I say that is no longer good enough. I certainly say that is no longer tenable.

Why? Because there is now incontrovertible evidence that Senator Sinodinos's statement of last year, for whatever reason, was not complete, was not accurate and cannot stand. My leader, Senator Wong, has mentioned three elements, and I would reinforce those. In Senator Sinodinos's statement to the Senate last year he said he had no role. He said:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

But we now know he wrote on 29 August a letter copied to the Premier and finance minister about the contractual relationship between AWH and Sydney Water. As a result of evidence in ICAC yesterday we now know further to that that he was present at a meeting about contractual arrangements on 6 September 2011 between AWH and Sydney Water.

We also know that Senator Sinodinos served concurrently as first a non-executive director of AWH and then as its chairman and, at the same time, in a role in the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party as both the treasurer and its president. He said in his statement last year that, at that time, donations from AWH were handled by the management of the organisation at their discretion. We now hear this from counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales: 'From the records I have seen it seems that Sydney Water has unwillingly, unknowingly, been a principal donor to the Liberal Party. But, at the time, Sydney Water could not and would not have known that this was occurring and could not get access to the documents which would have established that it was occurring. All it knew was that the administration costs were excessive, and this blew up into a dispute.'

I do believe it is untenable to argue, given the positions that Senator Sinodinos held, that either as a director or chairman on the one hand, or as an official of the Liberal Party on the other hand, he knew nothing about this. He should have, if he did not. Finally, I point out that the personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, which Senator Sinodinos informed the Senate about in his statement, is a sham as well. That personal loan agreement was in fact a 30 per cent shareholding in AWH. Yes, there are issues that should be addressed in this chamber. Yes, Senator Sinodinos's previous statement was incomplete, appears inaccurate and certainly demands further clarification. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite have not made a case for the suspension of standing orders. Those opposite have not made a case as to why government business should be suspended. They have not made a case as to why debate on the carbon tax repeal legislation should be further delayed. They have not made a case as to why debate on the minerals tax repeal legislation should be further delayed. If suspension of standing orders were granted, if we on this side supported that, we would be complicit in facilitating smear by motion. We would be complicit in facilitating an abuse of Senate procedure.

I think it is important to put some facts on the record in relation to the matters that are before us. They relate to matters that predated assumption of ministerial office by Senator Sinodinos. There have been no matters raised that relate in any way to the performance or execution of Senator Sinodinos's ministerial duties. Let me reiterate what Senator Abetz and Senator Brandis have said already. There are no allegations against Senator Sinodinos. There are no specific allegations against Senator Sinodinos. There is only smear and innuendo.

I listened very carefully to Senator Wong's contribution and I listened very carefully to Senator Faulkner's contribution. I think all of us in this chamber would accept that Senator Faulkner is one of the more forensic prosecutors in this chamber. As I have said previously, we know that, when a Labor attack is failing, 'in case of emergency break glass and deploy Senator Faulkner and his well honed gravitas'. Senator Faulkner did not, in any way, shape or form, level an allegation against Senator Sinodinos. I think it is very telling that the most forensic Labor senator—perhaps the Labor senator most capable of prosecuting cases—has not raised a single allegation against Senator Sinodinos.

I think all of us in this chamber, even those on the opposite side, when they quietly reflect and are being honest with themselves, recognise that Senator Sinodinos is a diligent minister. I think all in this chamber, including those opposite, when they privately and quietly reflect, would acknowledge that Senator Sinodinos is a man of great integrity. He is a man of strong character. He is someone I have known for the best part of 20 years. He is someone I see as a mentor. He is someone whose character and integrity are beyond reproach. He had a professional life before he entered this place. That is not in dispute. And, yes, there is an inquiry in New South Wales into certain matters, and Senator Sinodinos is cooperating in that forum. As has been mentioned, attendance as a witness at an ICAC hearing is not in any way an indication of wrongdoing. Senator Sinodinos has declared that he will be vindicated.

In talking about ICAC, I think it is important that we remember what the inception of ICAC was, what led to its creation by the incoming Liberal government in New South Wales in 1988. It was a response to endemic, systemic corruption in the Labor Party in New South Wales and in the former Wran and Unsworth governments. That is why the ICAC was established, because of the corruption that was manifest in the New South Wales Labor government. I am sure we will hear in subsequent debates a little bit more about that systemic corruption.

Senator Sinodinos has given an account of himself, a good account of himself, in response to questions asked of him in this place. Senator Sinodinos has served this nation well. He was chief of staff to the Prime Minister and was made an officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his contribution. He has made a magnificent and significant contribution to Australian politics, to Australian public policy and to the nation more broadly. He is a distinguished Australian. He is a respected Australian. I have confidence in Arthur Sinodinos's integrity. The smears should cease. The allegations should cease. If you have an allegation, make it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business this day until determined.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:15]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(1) requires the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to immediately attend the Chamber to provide the Senate with a full explanation of his dealings as a director of Australian Water Holdings, with particular reference to political donations, his shareholdings and his role in contract negotiations negotiations and his statement made in the Senate on 28 February 2013 and reaffirmed during question time on 6 March 2014;

(2) at the conclusion of the statement a senator may move to take note of the explanation; and

(3) if no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 noon today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply.

We have heard a significant amount of hyperbole in the contributions of those opposite. I think it is useful if we go through what is being sought by the Senate and by the opposition.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The assertion has been made that the only things confronting Senator Sinodinos are smears and innuendo. I make this factual point: this senator is being investigated by two separate anti-corruption inquiries—Operation Credo and Operation Spicer. Rather, his activities have been the subject of those inquiries.

I also make this point. The opposition are seeking something very simple: we are seeking that Senator Sinodinos immediately attend the chamber to provide a full explanation on a range of matters that are set out in the motion. There are no allegations included in the motion, despite the hyperbole of those opposite.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, you will have your chance to debate this issue in a minute.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite the assertions of those opposite and some of the overblown rhetoric on the other side, in fact all the opposition is seeking and has put before the chamber is a motion that requires the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber to provide a full explanation. If the senator has nothing to hide, if the senator has—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Mr Acting Deputy President, I have Senator Macdonald just persistently interjecting. I would appreciate it—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind Senator Macdonald that interjections are disorderly and Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been asserted by those opposite that this is an abuse of process. I would make this point: the government say they want to have the carbon price voted on quickly, but they did not give leave for this motion to be moved, which required a suspension of standing orders today, and they sought to call a division even on a procedural motion around precedence, which also took up time, which seems somewhat odd if you really, as a government, do want to get on to voting on the carbon bills.

I return now to the issues before us, and I again say there are many matters in the public arena which, given Senator Sinodinos's past statements and his position as a minister of the Crown, really do demand that he come to the chamber and make an explanation. It may be that he has answers to the questions which are raised. It may be that he has a clear explanation for many of the apparent inconsistencies between what he has told the chamber and what counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption has asserted in his opening statement. It may be there are answers to all of these matters. If that is the case, there is a very simple course of action which the minister can take. He can come to this chamber and he can give a full statement. He has chosen not to do that. We gave him plenty of opportunity yesterday in question time, and he chose not to take the opportunity, other than to say he would be vindicated.

There are a few things I want to go through which explain some of the issues between the statement that was made on 28 February by the senator and statements on the public record. I go first to this assertion in the statement:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

I remind the Senate again that this was a statement made on 28 February 2013, acknowledged to be prior to Senator Sinodinos becoming a minister, but he has subsequently affirmed the statement as a minister, by way of his answer in question time on Thursday, 6 March. In relation to the assertion 'I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract', there are two pieces of evidence which have come to light in the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. The first is that Senator Sinodinos, as chairman of the company, wrote to the chair of Sydney Water, ccd to both the Premier of New South Wales and the Minister for Finance, in relation to contractual negotiations. He requests in that letter:

I believe the best way forward is an urgent roundtable meeting that we attend with the Shareholding Ministers to resolve this matter once and for all. I would suggest that you and the Managing Director of Sydney attend this meeting.

In addition, yesterday in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, a Mr Rippon, who I understand is an officer of Australian Water Holdings, confirmed that, subsequent to that letter, a meeting was in fact held, on 6 September 2011, to discuss the contract negotiations which resulted in the awarding of the contract in 2012. I should say: the subsequent event to this meeting—and, presumably, some other discussions—was the awarding of the contract in 2012. He confirms that Mr de Girolamo and Mr Sinodinos were both at that meeting. It may be that Senator Sinodinos has a very clear explanation as to why he can say on the one hand that he played no role in the awarding of the contract but on the other hand he both cc'd to the Premier and attended a meeting to discuss the very issue which included the awarding of the contract and contractual relationships. Maybe there is an explanation, but I think a fair-minded person would say it is a little difficult to understand how you can assert you have no role in the awarding of the contract if, on the face of the public record, there is a letter which requests a meeting to deal with these issues and then a meeting to deal with these issues. It may be that nothing was discussed at the meeting. It may be that there is another explanation. But we do not know, because that question has not been answered by Senator Sinodinos.

The second point I would make is in relation to donations. Let us recall that this is at a time when, on the basis of the evidence, extraordinarily corrupt conduct appears to have been occurring within AWH. Amongst the allegations about the misuse of money, which has been made on the public record, is an allegation of the use of money from Sydney Water being used in effect to make donations to the Liberal Party. As far as I can see from the time frames, at all material times in relation to this issue, Senator Sinodinos was an office-bearer in both the Liberal Party and Australian Water Holdings. He was a director and then chairman, and I believe he held two different offices, one of which was treasurer, inside the Liberal Party. He asserts—he has very carefully worded it, and I will read it—in his statement on February 2013:

In relation to the political donations by Australian Water, these were handled by the management of the organisation at their discretion. I do not recollect donations to political parties being discussed at board level.

Then he goes on to talk about disclosure laws. So he does not go in his statement at all as to whether he knew that money that was being paid by Sydney Water was, amongst other things—it was not the only improper use of that money—being used to provide donations to the Liberal Party.

The assertion by counsel assisting the commission is as follows:

Australian Water Holdings were making big donations to the Liberal Party—$20,000 here, $30,000 there—and on what I have seen, those donations were bundled up into the expenses and charged back to Sydney Water. From the records I have seen, it seems that Sydney Water has unwillingly, unknowingly been a principal donor to the Liberal Party.

It might be that Senator Sinodinos can explain how it is possible to be a director and chair of an organisation that is engaging in this activity and not be aware of it. It might be that he can explain how it is possible for him to be an office-bearer of the Liberal Party at this time and not be aware of substantial donations. I think it is even more difficult for him to explain how he can be an office-bearer of both organisations—the payer and the payee—and not know about it. He may have an explanation for these matters. If he does, I think it is incumbent upon him—and in my submission to the chamber it is incumbent upon him—to attend and make that explanation. I think the public is entitled to know how it is possible Sydney Water—and, remember, ultimately this is the users of Sydney Water who are paying for this—money was funnelled to the Liberal Party at a time that Senator Sinodinos was both an office-bearer of AWH and an office-bearer of the Liberal Party and for him not to know about it. I suggest that it would be in Senator Sinodinos's interests for him to explain that fact. A failure to do so leaves the public, and the Senate, with this observation: Senator Sinodinos omits discussing this in his statement to the Senate, but on the public record there are very serious allegations of the misuse of this money. That is the second apparent inconsistency between his statement and his—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, it is an apparent inconsistency—it may not be inconsistent; he may have an explanation. But it does seem very odd, I am sure, to any reasonable person watching this debate or looking at these documents, for it to be believed that one could not know anything about what was occurring, when one was an office-bearer of both organisations.

The third point that Senator Sinodinos needs to address is in relation to the—I think it has been described as a sham—loan agreement with the Obeid family. Senator Sinodinos does go to this issue in his statement. He said, and again, the words are very precise:

I became non-executive chairman of AWH on 3 November 2010. I was not aware that, at around this time, the CEO of the company had negotiated what has been reported as a personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings. I believe that there should have been such a disclosure made to me.

What we now know is that on 4 November 2010—so this is the day after Senator Sinodinos became chair—the loan agreement was struck. The heads of agreement was signed on 4 November 2010. This particular transaction has also been the subject of evidence and comment at the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry, and is one instance of apparently corrupt conduct within AWH. Senator Sinodinos in his statement deliberately does not go to when he knew about that arrangement—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deliberately? How do you know that?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I used the word 'deliberately', that is true; I should probably replace it, I agree with that. In his statement, Senator Sinodinos does not go to when he knew about the arrangement. I would say to the chamber: if you are the chair of a company, and a multimillion dollar agreement—which is described subsequently in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry as being a sham loan agreement—is entered into the day after you became chair—I do think it is incumbent upon Senator Sinodinos to explain when he became aware of that. It does seem somewhat odd that you could be chair of a company which enters into such an extraordinary agreement—on the day after you have become chair—and you would have no knowledge about it. It may be that Senator Sinodinos knows nothing about it. It may be that he knows something about it. It may mean—

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

Well, maybe you are just making something out of nothing!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection. The suggestion from the first law officer of the land is that I am making something out of nothing; I know that the Liberal Party does not like to look at the facts in this matter. There are extraordinarily serious allegations being made in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry that include—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There are extraordinarily—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please take your seat, Senator Wong. I will remind the Senate for the fourth time that senators have the right to be heard in silence and that interjections are disorderly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Unlike Senator Brandis, I do not think the public is airily dismissing the allegations which are being made at the Commission Against Corruption inquiry. I do not think the public thinks that having a corrupt set of activities by an entity, whereby money from water users is channelled to inappropriate purposes—including payments to the Liberal Party and a sham arrangement with the Obeid family—is something that can be airily dismissed by a man who is supposed to be the first law officer of the land.

It may be that Senator Sinodinos has a clear explanation as to how, the day after he became chair, this sham arrangement which is the subject of a corruption investigation could have been entered into. It may be that he did not know about it. It may be that he did know about it but was misled as to its nature. I do not know. But I say to the Senate: if you come into this place and you give a statement which references some of what has occurred but omits key facts about what else has occurred, then you are entitled to be asked by this Senate to provide further details. That is particularly so when there are assertions on the public record which go specifically to the omissions in your statement, and it is particularly so when you are a minister of the Crown. Whilst all of us in this place have an obligation to be truthful and frank with this chamber, I would remind those opposite that, amongst other things, the Statement of Ministerial Standards also requires in relation to ministers that 'their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia, and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity'. That is what is required of ministers: that their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity. If Senator Sinodinos has something to say in response to the allegations and assertions which have been put on the public record in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry, I think that, as a minister, he should come in and make that statement.

I am going to close now. I just want to make a comment about the statement of standards. This is a government that has been in office for around six months. In that short time we have seen the trashing of ministerial conduct and accountability and a contempt for this parliament. I would say this: this Prime Minister is a dangerous combination of arrogance and weakness. He is arrogant in leading a government which refuses to be accountable to the public and weak in failing to uphold his own statement of ministerial standards. A prime minister who stood by the high standards of conduct which are expected of ministers in his own statement of ministerial standards would have required the Assistant Treasurer to attend this Senate and make an appropriate and full explanation.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'In this country politicians are not judge and jury, and there are proper processes that have to be followed. We live in a society where there are proper processes. There are proper authorities who look at evidence and make decisions about how that evidence should be treated. They make decisions about enforcement. Those authorities are not the parliament.' So spoke, guess who? None other than Senator Wong, chief prosecutor in this case. Oh, what tangled webs we weave!

Senator Wong has really been caught out today, has she not? She has tried to be the Penny Mason of the Senate and she has failed—and failed dismally. She has not been able to make out any case against Senator Arthur Sinodinos—not a single case. Indeed, I am reminded that, in matters such as this, mere repetition is no substitute for evidence. If this presentation of Senator Wong had been heard anywhere else, there would have been no need for myself or anybody on the government side to get up to run the defence case, because there is simply no case to answer on any of the matters that Senator Wong tried to put before this place.

I have to give Senator Wong full marks—she gets 10 out of 10 for sanctimony, 10 out of 10 for smear—but she gets nil out of 10 for substance. There was absolutely no substance to any of the matters that she raised. I must say that Pecksniffian attitude of those opposite—of the Green-Labor alliance, yet again in full collusion with each other in support of this motion—is absolutely gobsmacking. At the very worst it appears that, somewhere along the way, somebody may have made, if you add them all up, donations to the Liberal Party of some $70,000-plus in this case.

An opposition senator: It was a bit more than that.

Even if it was a bit more than that—$75,000 or whatever it may be—do we recall a leader of another national party personally negotiating a deal with somebody for the biggest donation ever in Australian history? He personally negotiated it, and the person who gave the money said afterwards, 'I think it was a good investment.' The person who negotiated it and received it said, 'I will be forever grateful.' That would not have been the Australian Greens by any chance, would it? Here they are running into the parliament and claiming somehow Senator Sinodinos should give an explanation with particular reference to political donations. When Senator Brown—when he was Senator Brown—was in this place, the Australian Greens and Labor were invited to provide such an explanation from Senator Brown, but where were they? Absolutely nowhere to be seen! Somehow a donation of on thirteenthof that—less than 10 per cent—is worthy of a full and detailed explanation!

It is interesting that in this motion there is absolutely no allegation made against Senator Sinodinos nor is there any suggestion of inconsistency in statements by Senator Sinodinos. All he has been asked to do is provide a full explanation of his dealings and his role in contract negotiations. I would have thought if you were to bring somebody before the Senate to explain something, you would ask them to explain one statement as opposed to another statement to show some inconsistency—and then there would be some substance to the motion. Talk about a trawl! I thought Labor and the Greens, like us, were against supertrawlers, but this beats them all. This motion was a great supertrawl—an attempt to catch anything that might be in the water. Senator Wong, after 20 tedious minutes, pulled the net in and—do you know what?—there was nothing in the net. There was absolutely nothing in the net! There was no substance to those matters that she sought to assert.

What Senator Wong was saying was very interesting. She was saying, 'We're not actually making any allegations; we're just half hinting at them.' Yet, the smear was in, because Senator Collins was interjecting non-stop in the previous motion and saying, 'The facts speak for themselves.' I think Senator Collins has already prejudged the issue, as have all those on the other side. Let's not have this pretence that you have not prejudged the issue. Of course, you have. That is why Senator Faulkner came in and made statements such as that there was 'incontrovertible evidence'. The case is shut—it is closed—if there is incontrovertible evidence, is it not? It means that Senator Faulkner once again got out of the naphthalene—out of the mothballs. You always know when Senator Faulkner is about to make a speech in this place, because there is this waft of naphthalene across the chamber; you immediately know that Senator Faulkner has been brought out of the cupboard again because he is the past master at smear. The only reason he comes into this place is to either eulogise some Labor luminary that has passed on or to smear people on this side. Does he make a contribution to public debate? No, absolutely not. All he wants to do is play the very ugly partisan: 'All Labor good, all Liberal bad; all coalition bad, all Labor good.' We know what his tactic is. As Senator Fifield said, the Labor Party look around their ranks, depleted as they are in intellectual talent, and then they have to reach into the naphthalene and get out Senator Faulkner to make his character-destroying contributions. Senator Collins and Senator Faulkner have both already prejudged the issue, yet Senator Wong is pretending and claiming that they have not prejudged the issue. Well, I think the facts speak for themselves.

What has brought Senator Wong to this motion seeking a full explanation? It was the circumstances in which the very questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, yesterday, had to be ruled out of order. So incompetent and so incapable of understanding the processes under the standing orders of this place, the Leader of the Opposition was humiliated by having her own questions ruled out of order. Just in case anybody listening is thinking that, as there has been a change of government, the chances are that there was a Liberal in the chair, no, there was not. In fact it was the Labor President of the Senate who ruled out of order the Labor leader's questions in the Senate. That is how incompetent those questions were; that is how out of order they were. You would have thought—and this is no reflection on Senator Hogg; I think he does an exceptionally good job—that, if there would be any bias, it might be just slightly towards the Labor Party. But he, as a Labor Party senator, as President of this place, could not bring himself to find some excuse to rule in favour of Senator Wong's questions. Having fallen flat on her face in one of the most embarrassing displays by a Leader of the Opposition in this place, she tries to regroup and regain her credibility by coming in here at 9.30 this morning to move this tawdry motion to try to smear Senator Sinodinos by implication.

We as a government will not have anything to do with those sorts of tactics, and that is why we have stood up to oppose this outrageous smear and this outrageous tactic. Let us make no mistake; the other part of the Labor-Greens tactic is that they do not want to be seen as being on the record as having voted against carbon tax repeal, mining tax repeal, or the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They are all matters that they want to hide under the carpet whilst the Western Australian Senate election is in the offing.

Senator Sinodinos has made a statement to this place. Has an allegation been made against Senator Sinodinos? No, there has not been any allegation. Has he been called as a witness to assist ICAC? Yes, he has. Is he assisting? Absolutely, and he has said that, when and as he is called, he will appear and give a full and frank account of himself. I think it is important to understand that nobody is suggesting that Senator Sinodinos should stand aside. Indeed, in this morning's The Canberra Times there was an article by Norman Abjorensen which said:

Nowhere is it alleged that Senator Sinodinos acted improperly, dishonestly or corruptly. He will give evidence at a later hearing to explain his role, and that will be eagerly awaited.

I say amen to that. That is how it should be and, indeed, that is how it should be according to Senator Wong, whom I quoted at the very beginning of my speech. They are the standards that Senator Wong applied when she was a minister, yet now, in opposition, those standards seem to be out of the window.

When Andrew Leigh, the member for Canberra, was asked about the proposition that Arthur Sinodinos should step down he answered: 'I don't think so on the evidence that I have seen.' Mr Albanese, the attacking Rottweiler of the Labor Party, said, 'These are serious matters, but they are matters that are before proceedings and therefore should not be pursued.' You have to love this, don't you? The only person that has asked for Senator Sinodinos to stand down is the ALP member who rejoices in the name of Thomson, not Craig on this occasion but Kelvin Thomson. He said, 'Mr Sinodinos should step aside.' Mr Thomson enters this public debate about credibility and about ensuring the highest of standards in public life clothed with the fact that he was the MP who provided Melbourne gangland figure Tony Mokbel with a personal reference. The credibility that he brings to this debate is the great standard he set as an MP by providing a reference to a gangland figure, and he says, 'According to my standards, Senator Sinodinos should step aside.' Nobody else has said that in any way, shape or form. Indeed, you have heard time and time again that there has been no allegation against Senator Sinodinos and no suggestion that he has acted improperly, dishonestly or corruptly.

The suggestion is made by Senator Wong that, at all stages, Senator Sinodinos was a part of the board or was an office bearer. Well, yes, but was Senator Wong an office bearer within the Labor Party when Michael Williamson, who is now in jail, was the National President of the Labor Party? Should we clothe her with all his misdeeds? According to the Labor Party standards at the moment, yes, we should, but my own view is that, no, we should not. We need to be mature and consistent in relation to these matters.

Senator Wong suggests that, without an explanation from Senator Sinodinos, this parliament would somehow be treated with contempt. This is the same senator who, in cahoots with Greens senators, voted over 200 times in three years to guillotine legislation through this place. Oh, that is not contempt! Anything Labor does by definition must be good.

Can I simply say that, in relation to an explanation, Senator Sinodinos has provided one. He will provide whatever evidence is asked of him by ICAC. Therefore, the question is: why should we be passing a motion which invites the Senate to further consider this matter in the event that Senator Sinodinos does not provide a statement before 12 noon today—a statement which supposedly tells us that he has to give a full explanation of his dealings as a director of Australian Water Holdings? This motion calls for a full explanation of his dealings in all areas—nothing is excluded—and with particular reference to political donations and his shareholdings. We all know that any entitlement that he may have had to shareholdings were renounced over 12 months ago—all on the public record. We know all about that, so why does that need to be spoken of—and 'his role in contract negotiations negotiations'? This is an example of how hurriedly and sloppily this motion was put together: 'and his role in contract negotiations negotiations'. They cannot even get the motion right. They were that excited that whoever did it typed the word twice. Senator Wong could not have even proofread it, and into the chamber it goes—defective on its face, defective in substance and defective in the effected sanctimony and self-righteousness that is behind this.

The Labor Party and the Greens know that there is no need for Senator Sinodinos to present himself to this chamber. What is more, they know by their own standards, according to Senator Wong on 30 April 2012 and indeed on 25 May 2012 in those statements that I read out at the very beginning of this debate, that when there is a proper process in place it should be followed, that the proper standards should be applied. Yet Senator Wong could not help herself. She told us—if I got the quote down right—'It's a little difficult for a fair-minded person to consider certain statements by Mr Sinodinos.' What she was suggesting, which was quite breathtaking, was that she, Senator Wong, was the epitome of the fair-mind person—I think not. And I think, as she reflects in her office, as we are in this chamber, she might think that chances are it is a bit over the top to try to claim that status for herself.

Very simply, there are no allegations against Senator Sinodinos, no substance and no reason why he needs to make a full explanation and talk about the 'negotiations negotiations'—whatever that might mean. Senator Faulkner, in his contribution, might actually deal with the substance of the motion rather than the smear. At the end of the day, there are proper procedures in place for these matters to be ventilated, and they will be. In the meantime—and I want to stress this—we as a government are absolutely committed to getting on with the business of running this country, of getting rid of the carbon tax, of getting rid of the mining tax, of re-instituting the Australian Building and Construction Commission and of cutting green and red tape. Chances are it is no coincidence that, on the very day that we announce hundreds of millions of dollars of extra red tape costs being removed from the Australian economy—something that we promised at the last election—the Labor-Greens alliance in this place come up with this stunt to try to divert attention from the fact that we as a government are getting on with the job of creating an environment where the Labor legacy of unemployment can be dealt with and people can be given hope again that they do have a future, that we will bring down the cost of living and that there will be a job for their children and their grandchildren. That is the real task of this place, and that is what we as a government will continue to pursue to the very best of our ability, and we will not be distracted by these pathetic stunts by Senator Wong, Senator Faulkner and the like.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this motion on behalf of the Australian Greens. This is a motion calling on Assistant Treasurer Senator Sinodinos:

… to immediately attend the Chamber to provide the Senate with a full explanation of his dealings as a director of Australian Water Holdings, with particular reference to political donations, his shareholdings and his role in contract negotiations … and his statement made in the Senate on 28 February 2013 and reaffirmed during question time on 6 March 2014;

The motion goes on to say:

… if no statement has been made … before 12 noon today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate … may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply.

For those who may be listening to this debate and a little confused about the background to it, I just indicate that this motion to have the Assistant Treasurer attend the Senate and give a full explanation is in relation to statements that he has made in the Senate previously—statements which, in the view of many of us, are characterised by omissions. We are concerned about the omissions in those statements, as well as what has been said in those statements. We know that Senator Sinodinos served as a director of Australian Water Holdings for three years, at a time when it was lobbying for a lucrative state government contract, which could have earned the senator between $10 million and $20 million from his shareholdings in the company.

In relation to the hearings into Australian Water Holdings by the ICAC in New South Wales, Senator Sinodinos has been requested to attend and provide evidence. Counsel assisting the ICAC, Mr Watson SC, has said:

It's … difficult to offer observations on the conduct of Mr Sinodinos—

and we acknowledge that Senator Sinodinos has not given evidence before the ICAC yet. Mr Watson continued:

It's quite transparent that Mr Sinodinos's true role in Australian Water Holdings was to open lines of communication with the Liberal party and there will be evidence that he tried to do so.

This goes to the heart of why the Australian Greens are supporting this motion at this time. It is because, increasingly, there is a murky revolving door that the Australian public are becoming aware of, with great concern, where business is linked, by donations to political parties, to the parliament. It is a revolving door. We have business donations to political parties and representatives in the parliament—and it goes round and round. It is murky territory that we see more and more in Australian public life, and the public, I think, is becoming increasingly concerned about that.

We need to have transparency. We need to be able to get to the bottom of what is occurring in these kinds of dealings that we are hearing about all too often. Given that, at this stage, we do not have processes for a national investigation of this kind of conduct, unfortunately it is then left to the parliament to try and require full explanations to be given.

I go now to some of the key elements of ministerial responsibility, which is such an important aspect of the Australian system of parliament. I refer here to the key elements recognised in the code of conduct that ministers are required to sign up to when they take on that important role being a minister. They are obligations in relation to dealing with lobbyists, obligations to disclose investments, bans on lobbying after someone has become a minister and bans on fundraising at the Lodge and Kirribilli. They go to show the importance with which the whole parliament treats matters to do with the conduct of ministers. We know that, in our Australian system, ministers are clearly responsible for both their acts and their omissions, and ignorance of a matter does not excuse a minister. These are just fundamental principles that I am referring to here. These are important principles.

When it comes to actually being able to investigate those and having some means of ensuring that ministerial responsibility is upheld, academics in Australia have pointed out consistently that the code of conduct should be enforced by an independent commissioner such as a parliamentary ethics or integrity commissioner, because in the absence of the means of enforcing that concept of ministerial responsibility, too often there are allegations, there are concerns raised, which are never properly, fundamentally, dealt with. In the absence of that kind of national commission, we now find ourselves in this position, where we are trying to require the minister to come and face the Senate and provide the full explanation that we believe the Australian public and this House are entitled to.

Because we need to have this transparency, the Australian Greens have consistently said that we need to have a national integrity commissioner to look into these kinds of issues. We have had various matters over recent years, and probably not so recent years, where issues about ministerial responsibility have been of great concern but there has not been an ability for adequate follow-up. We have ICACs in some states, such as in New South Wales, which is of course where some of this information is being examined. There is a bill before this parliament that the Australian Greens introduced, the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013, a private senator's bill, because there is currently no national anticorruption agency that can investigate claims of misconduct and corruption across the federal parliament and Commonwealth agencies. This is a glaring omission in making sure that members of parliament and Commonwealth agents are acting with the degree of integrity that the Australian public has a right to expect.

A national anticorruption and integrity commission, as envisaged by this Australian Greens bill, would protect the integrity of the federal parliament, parliamentarians and all Commonwealth departments. It would maintain integrity and help prevent corruption. At the moment, South Australia and—well, that is not true anymore; South Australia does have an anticorruption commission now; so, according to my notes, Victoria is the only state that does not have an anticorruption commission.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Incorrect.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that is incorrect too.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's incorrect.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So these notes may be out of date. Then—thank you, Senator Fifield—that makes the case even more for why it is a glaring omission that the states have these commissions but there is no national one. The Greens private senator's bill will provide the infrastructure to challenge corruption by establishing the National Integrity Commission as an independent—and that is an important word: independent—statutory agency. It would establish three co-dependent offices. The National Office of the Integrity Commissioner would be based largely on the successful New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption model. It would absorb the existing Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, and create a new office of the Independent Parliamentary Adviser to advise MPs and ministers on entitlement claims and the ethical running of their offices that the public rightly expects. We know as members of parliament and senators that often there is a somewhat grey area in understanding the requirements in relation to entitlements, and I think many of us would welcome the ability to be able to go to an independent adviser who could tell us how we should be acting in that situation.

The Australian Greens' bill would also establish a parliamentary joint committee on the National Integrity Commission to see that that commission was accountable to the parliament. The National Office of the Integrity Commissioner would actively prevent and investigate misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments and agencies, and among federal parliamentarians and their staff. As I said, at the moment there is no ability to look into those things. This would fill the largest gap in our country's anticorruption framework. Its powers would be based largely on provisions in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.

Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have such a commission. In the absence of such a body, when legitimate questions have been raised about the Assistant Treasurer's dealings and about the omissions from the statement he made on 28 February, the only means available to the parliament to pursue the matter is to require the Assistant Treasurer to attend the Senate and give a full explanation—today.

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

I have been invited by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, to put a case in support of Senator Wong's motion and I certainly intend to do so. I believe that, in the circumstances we face, it is absolutely essential that Senator Sinodinos come into this chamber and make a full and comprehensive statement explaining all aspects of his involvement with Australian Water Holdings, a company of which he was firstly a non-executive director and then the chairman.

I have been very consistent in these sorts of circumstances, regardless of which political party has been in government, in taking the position that the proper course of action for any minister whose actions, behaviour or propriety have been questioned is to come into the Senate and lay out the facts. This is particularly important in this case because Senator Sinodinos, then a backbench senator, did make a statement to the Senate on 28 February 2013 about these matters. Since making his statement over a year ago, Senator Sinodinos has made it very clear that he has stood by that statement—in fact all previous statements—on the issue of Australian Water Holdings.

The problem that Senator Sinodinos faces is simply this: there is now incontrovertible evidence that that statement—the only statement that Senator Sinodinos has made about this matter—of more than a year ago was not a complete statement and not an accurate statement. We know that. As a result, a further statement is required. The original statement cannot stand, given the circumstances and given the evidence we have before us now.

I will focus on three elements of the statement. I touched on this in my brief contribution to the debate on the suspension of standing orders a little earlier this morning. We know that Senator Sinodinos was firstly a non-executive director and then became chairman of Australian Water Holdings. We know that concurrently he served first as treasurer and then as president of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. But we now also know that, while Senator Sinodinos was serving as an officeholder in both organisations, Sydney Water became a principal donor to the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. But Sydney Water did not know this. We now know it; Sydney Water did not.

As counsel assisting the ICAC, Mr Geoffrey Watson SC, said:

From the records I have seen, it seems that Sydney Water has unwillingly, unknowingly been a principal donor to the Liberal Party.

At the time, Sydney Water could not and would not have known this was occurring and could not get access to the documents that would have established it was occurring. All it knew was that the administration costs were excessive, and this blew up into a dispute.

Courtesy of what has occurred at the New South Wales ICAC hearings, we also know that, as Mr Watson has said:

Based upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers valuation, if the PPP came through Mr Sinodinos would have enjoyed a $10 to $20 million payday.

It is presently difficult to offer observations on the conduct of Mr Sinodinos. He has other involvements which will come under scrutiny in Operation Spicer.

Mr Watson also said:

It is quite transparent that Mr Sinodinos's true role in Australian Water Holdings—

and I stress this—

was to open lines of communication with the Liberal Party. There will be evidence that he tried to do so.

Now, the fact is—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

You just listen to my contribution, Senator Brandis, and you will learn something. The truth is that the company, Australian Water Holdings, were making major donations to the Liberal Party and charging them back to Sydney Water. That is the first thing we now know, and, of course, that was not known at the time that Senator Sinodinos made his statement. I am concerned that credulity is being stretched to breaking point on this matter that a non-executive director, then chairman, of Australian Water Holdings, while at the same time Treasurer, then President, of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, had no knowledge, in either role, of this extraordinary amount of money being channelled to the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party from AWH.

The second issue that I would like to focus on in the brief time that is available to me relates to the awarding of a contract to AWH by Sydney Water. In Senator Sinodinos's statement to the Senate last year he said:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

But we do know now that Senator Sinodinos, as chairman of Australian Water Holdings, wrote a letter to Dr Thomas Parry AM, the chairman of Sydney Water Corporation, on 29 August 2011 about the contractual relationship between AWH and Sydney Water. We also know for the record—and completeness of the record—that that letter was copied to the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales Minister for Finance. Further, according to the evidence in ICAC, we now know that there was a meeting about these contractual arrangements, on 6 September 2011, between Sydney Water and Australian Water Holdings. I commend page 153T of the ICAC transcript, where it is made clear that Mr Rippon, then Mr Sinodinos and Mr di Girolamo were present.

The third issue I raise is about Senator Sinodinos's statement of last year to the Senate in relation to the Obeid family, where he said:

I became non-executive chairman of AWH on 3 November 2010. I was not aware that, at around this time, the CEO of the company had negotiated what has been reported as a personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings.

To be fair to him, he goes on to say:

I believe that there should have been such a disclosure made to me.

What we now know is that the personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family that Senator Sinodinos referred to in his earlier statement to the Senate is a sham. We now know that that personal loan agreement was no such thing. It was, in fact, a 30 per cent shareholding in AWH. We know that Senator Sinodinos—then Mr Sinodinos—attended meetings with Eddie Obeid Jr, and we assume that Senator Sinodinos would have had some understanding of the Obeid family involvement—

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

Well, do not make the allegation if it is based on an assumption.

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

I was going to say that he would have had some understanding of their involvement in the Labor Party and the Australian political process. But, although he had meetings with Eddie Obeid Jr—who is from a very notorious family, I might say—he has indicated that he did not know that the Obeid family had an interest in Australian Water Holdings. I am perplexed by that. I am perplexed that someone who has had such a long experience in politics attended meetings with the person about such matters and it apparently never occurred to him that he had interest in the company.

Let me be clear about this. I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. Not for one moment am I suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. I would not do that. I am not doing it. I would not do that. But I do suggest that Senator Sinodinos, in these circumstances, should make a full and complete statement to the Senate about his involvement in Australia Water Holdings, particularly as the only statement he has made—which he stands by—was made more than a year ago and on at least three parts that statement warrants further explanation to this chamber.

I am not going to take the time of the Senate to make clear again my view about those individuals in the Labor Party who I do know have acted corruptly in certain matters. Everyone knows the contempt in which I hold those individuals. And I do not accept an argument, and I will never accept the argument that appears to be being mounted, that if someone acts improperly in one political party then that is apparently some sort of defence broadly for the political behaviours of others. I do not accept that and I state again: in fact, unlike others, I do not argue wrongdoing on Senator Sinodinos's part. I am not arguing he has acted corruptly. I am arguing he should make a full explanation to the Senate for the reasons I have outlined.

I happen to believe that that is even more important given Senator Sinodinos's ministerial responsibility for the Corporations Act, for corporate governance. I have mentioned before the duties of company directors: care and diligence, good faith, proper use of position and proper use of information. We all know that ministers in any government must be able to assure the parliament—and, of course, to assure the Australian public—at all times that, in their private capacity, they have upheld the law and have demonstrated high standards of personal integrity. Of course, any individual who is the director of a company also has serious responsibilities about their conduct.

But what I argue for is full transparency on these matters. That is what this motion calls for: a full explanation from Senator Sinodinos. In these circumstances I would say to the Australian Senate that the case is absolutely overwhelming. I would urge Senator Sinodinos to make such a statement. I happen to believe, as I said yesterday, that it is very much in his interest to make such a statement. Any minister in that circumstance, I believe, should make such a statement, and I believe that Senator Sinodinos in this case simply has no choice.

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

This debate began at 9.30; it has been going for almost two hours. And we had to put up with almost two hours of the smearing and the trashing of and the attack by innuendo on the reputation of a great Australian, before the Labor Party, through Senator Faulkner, made the concession that disclosed and revealed the hollowness of their attack when Senator Faulkner said, 115 minutes into this debate:

I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. Not for one moment … I would not do that.

Well, Senator Faulkner, what are you doing? What are you doing, with the stature you bring to this chamber as an experienced Labor Party elder statesman, by your contribution joining with the disgusting innuendo to that very effect that we have heard from Senator Wong, your leader? Nevertheless, let anybody who is listening to this broadcast know that Senator Faulkner, the Labor Party's elder statesman in this chamber, asserts:

I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly. Not for one moment …

We have been, all morning, throughout the course of this debate, interjecting on Labor Party speakers, or demanding in our own speeches, that if the Labor Party has an allegation to make then let them make it. And it took two hours of the trashing of the reputation of this fine Australian before Senator Faulkner, their elder statesman, announced in the chamber: 'We have no allegation to make. We make no allegation.' So what has all this been about? What it has been about is a cowardly attack by Senator Wong and her colleagues on a much greater Australian than any of them will ever be.

Shakespeare defined a coward as a person who is 'willing to wound but afraid to strike'. What we have seen this morning in the chamber is a Shakespearean example of cowardice by Senator Penny Wong and her colleagues. They have been willing to wound Senator Sinodinos; they have been willing to trash his reputation not only as an honest man but as a great Australian. But they have been unwilling to strike, because every time we have called upon them to make their allegations they have failed to do so. Now, at last, their elder statesman, their most forensic prosecutor, comes into the chamber and says, 'We have no allegation to make.'

What a disgraceful performance from you. You should be ashamed of yourself. The case against Senator Arthur Sinodinos is the 'When did you stop beating your wife?' argument. That is all it is. It is smear, pure and simple.

What the debate has therefore been reduced to is a debate about whether or not a statement that Senator Sinodinos gave to this chamber on 28 February last year is full and accurate in all material respects in view of some evidence that was given at ICAC yesterday. Let us get this straight. No wrongdoing has been alleged against Senator Sinodinos at ICAC by counsel assisting, no wrongdoing has been alleged against Senator Sinodinos by any witness at ICAC and now we know, late in the piece, that no wrongdoing is being alleged against Senator Sinodinos by the Labor Party. But there has been a quibble about whether or not, in three respects identified by Senator Faulkner in his contribution, Senator Sinodinos's statement of 28 February last year is adequate.

In most of the discussion from Senator Wong, in 24 wearisome minutes of sleaze and innuendo, and from Senator Faulkner, in 20 minutes of posturing outrage which culminated in the concession that they had no allegation to make, both speakers concentrated on these words of Senator Sinodinos:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

What they did not read to you or to the Senate are the words that follow. Senator Sinodinos went on to say:

I was by then in the Senate and Mr Michael Costa—

Senator Back interjecting—

Mr Michael Costa! You would not believe it, would you, Senator?

Senator Back interjecting—

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

We have Senator Wong, and Senator Faulkner, the tribune of righteousness, here. But we are getting a bit weary of Senator Faulkner's Diogenes act, as he wanders around the landscape of Australian politics with a lamp, searching for an honest man like Diogenes in classical Greece. We are wearying of your Diogenes act, Senator Faulkner. If you are being really straight with the Senate, you would have read the next sentence:

I was by then in the Senate and Mr Michael Costa, who succeeded me as chairman, was responsible for securing that agreement. I understand from public statements by New South Wales government ministers that this process was conducted at arm's length between the two parties to the contract, AWH and Sydney Water.

One can but wonder why it is that that highly relevant sentence, immediately following upon the sentence on which the opposition seek to crucify Senator Sinodinos, was deliberately omitted, because it certainly gives you the context, doesn't it?

When one is seeking to establish what in fact happened in a course of commercial dealings—and that is what I used to do for a living, Mr Acting Deputy President: commercial cases—it is always wise to bear in mind the chronology. It is always wise to bear in mind the sequence of events.

Senator Faulkner lights upon two pieces of evidence that were given to ICAC yesterday: a letter of 29 August 2011 to the chairman of Sydney Water and a meeting on 6 September 2011 where it is said that Senator Sinodinos was present and perhaps he was. But Senator Sinodinos, on 13 October 2011, became a member of the Senate and the day he became a member of the Senate, on 13 October 2011, he resigned his position as a non-executive director of AWH and the contract was not awarded until January 2012.

What Senator Sinodinos said in his statement to the Senate is that he played no role in the awarding of the contract. Of course he didn't, because it was a contract awarded by Sydney Water, not a contract awarded by AWH. And the contractual negotiations, as we know, although the Labor Party decided to try to overlook this small, material matter, were conducted by Mr Costa in the months immediately prior to the awarding of the contract, in January 2012. That is why Senator Faulkner, who chooses his words very carefully, was not able to characterise the letter of August 2011, almost five months before the contract was awarded, as being about the contractual relationship. It was deliberately vague, weaselly words about the contractual relationship. There was no contractual relationship in August 2011. There was a contractual relationship months after Senator Sinodinos had left the board, executed in January 2012.

Again, Senator Sinodinos's allegedly sinister presence at a meeting on 6 September, months before the contract was awarded, was, according to Senator Faulkner, about the contractual relationship. Senator Faulkner, I know that you are not a man of commerce. I know that Senator Penny Wong is not a woman of commerce. I know that on the entire Senate Labor benches there sits not one man or woman who has ever been a director of a public company or who has ever advised a public company. But, if there were, they would know what anybody with the remotest acquaintance with commerce well knows: that there is all the difference in the world between pre-contractual discussions, negotiations, and the award of a contract. The fact that a person, months before a contract has been entered into, might write a letter or attend a meeting at which the possibility of a contract coming into being at some unspecified time in the future may or may not have been discussed hardly contradicts the statement, 'I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water,' because plainly he did not. The contract was awarded to AWH by a company in which Senator Sinodinos had no involvement, Sydney Water, and the negotiations for the contract, as opposed to vague discussions about the possibility of a contract being entered into in the future, took place after he had left the board on 13 October 2011 and were conducted by his successor, Mr Michael Costa.

Senator Faulkner made two other observations. He quoted Mr Watson, the counsel assisting the ICAC inquiry, who apparently said yesterday, 'It is quite transparent that Mr Sinodinos's role was to open lines of communication with the Liberal Party.' Well, perhaps it was. That does not contradict a word, a syllable, in Senator Sinodinos's statement to the parliament in February last year. Senator Sinodinos is a Liberal and he is a man of commerce. I hate to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but there is a relationship between the Liberal Party and the business community, and we are proud of it. We actually believe in private enterprise. We are not a protection racket for no-hopers and union officials like our political opponents. We actually believe in private enterprise. So Senator Faulkner's next killer point is that there was a relationship between Australian Water Holdings and the Liberal Party, and Senator Sinodinos as a prominent Liberal was part of their relationship. So what? It has got nothing to do with his statement. How is it wrongdoing? How is it wrongdoing for a director of a public company to have a relationship with the Liberal Party? I tell you what, Mr Acting Deputy President: if that were wrongdoing then there would be hundreds of public company directors in Australia today, if not thousands, who are guilty of that same wrongdoing. So that was, if I may say so with all due respect, hardly a particularly compelling point.

Finally, Senator Faulkner refers to the Obeid family. He settles upon a statement made by Senator Sinodinos in his parliamentary speech in which he says:

I became non-executive chairman of AWH on 3 November 2010. I was not aware that, at around this time, the CEO of the company had negotiated what has been reported as a personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings. I believe that there should have been such a disclosure made to me.

So Senator Sinodinos has said he did not know about this. He said it unambiguously. And not a word has been said by the Labor speakers in this debate to suggest that there is any reason to doubt that fact. The best Senator Faulkner can do is to say, 'We assume that Mr Sinodinos would have had some knowledge.' That is it. Senator Sinodinos says that he had no knowledge. He considers that the matter should have been disclosed to him, but it was not. Why does Senator Faulkner say that Senator Sinodinos should have had that knowledge? Because he met Mr Obeid Jnr. How does it follow from the fact that Senator Sinodinos met Mr Obeid Jnr on one or two occasions that one should assume that Senator Sinodinos knew that the Obeid family had a personal loan agreement secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings? Where does that assumption come from?

Nothing that has been said in this debate reflects on the integrity of Senator Arthur Sinodinos. Nothing that has been said in this debate contradicts a word of what Senator Sinodinos said in his statement on 28 February last year. To those who say, 'Let Senator Sinodinos come into the chamber and give another statement,' might I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this week—yesterday, indeed, I think it was, or the day before yesterday—in question time, when asked about these matters, Senator Sinodinos said: 'I have nothing to add to my statement of 28 February 2013. It is accurate and I stand by it.' So as recently as this week Senator Sinodinos has given the Senate a statement affirming what he said last year.

So here we have it. For more than two hours now an attempt has been made on the basis of a 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type of argument to smear the reputation of a great and good Australian. For two hours we have demanded that the Labor Party formulate their allegations. Eventually their senior prosecutor declared they have no allegation to make. He declared—let me quote again—'I am not suggesting that Senator Sinodinos acted corruptly, not for a moment. I would not do that.' So we are reduced to the much more timid position, notwithstanding all this bold rhetoric we heard from the other side of the chamber, that there are contradictions between the statement on 28 February and the evidence disclosed in ICAC yesterday. In fact, there are not, because Senator Sinodinos did not negotiate that contract; Mr Costa did. That is a fact that the Labor speakers went out of their way to avoid disclosing. The signature of Senator Sinodinos on a letter and his presence at a meeting months before do not constitute securing the contract, and anybody with the remotest understanding of business would know that perfectly well. The other bases on which the statement is sought to be contradicted are suppositious, ephemeral and wrong. This is a great wrong done to a good Australian, and the Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call Senator Carr.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. There have been three speakers for the motion and only two speakers against the motion. In calling Senator Carr, there will have been four speakers for the motion and only two speakers against the motion. When Senator Whish-Wilson was in the chair, he called Senator Wright after Senator Abetz rather than calling Senator Faulkner at that time. This means that when you were making the call in the chair, Mr Acting Deputy President, and called Senator Faulkner you called two non-government speakers in a row, whereas the convention in this place is that debate in the chamber alternates between government and non-government speakers. If you can have two non-government speakers in sequence, there is no reason why, in order to balance that, you should not at the moment have two government speakers in sequence. The pattern that is usually followed in relation to the calling of speakers has not occurred. If you grant Senator Carr the call, there will, as I say, have been four speakers for the motion and only two speakers against the motion. There will have been four non-government speakers and only two government speakers in relation to the motion.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: It is a longstanding convention in this place that you go to alternate sides of the chamber. I have to admit that I have not been here as long as some of the senior people in here, but debate usually goes to alternate sides of the chamber. The process was that we went from the ALP leading the motion, to the opposition and then to the Greens. Then we started again with the ALP opposition. The Greens could have been called, but we jumped up. The process consistently followed in this place is the chair has the discretion on who jumped at the time and makes that call. My proposition, then, is that we follow that call. You have the decision on who to give the call.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the same point of order: I agree with what Senator Moore has said—that the call alternates between either sides of the chamber. So there seems to be unanimity between the government and the opposition on this. On this occasion it did not. The first speaker was Senator Wong from that side of the chamber. Then it was Senator Abetz from my side of the chamber. Then it was Senator Wright from that side of the chamber. Then it was Senator Faulkner, also from that side of the chamber. Then it was me. If you accept what Senator Moore has submitted to you, which is the same as what Senator Fifield has submitted to you, you will accept that the next speaker, in order to even the matter up, should be Senator Fifield because we had two speakers in a row from the other side of the chamber speaking in favour of the motion.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, if there was an objection to the order of speakers that was ruled appropriate by the chair I believe that would have been the appropriate time for a point of order to have been taken. When the call went to Senator Wright, a point of order should have been taken at that time. It was not. In any event, it is the practice of the chair to give the call to the first speaker who rises, absent a speaking list. In this debate a speaking list agreed between the parties has not been provided to the chair. In that case, the chair and successive chairs will give the call to the first person who stands and catches the chair's attention. I have done that in this circumstance. That is my ruling. I call Senator Carr.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order in relation to the order of speakers given the call. You are right: a point of order could have been raised at the time that Senator Wright was given the call, but the government was operating on the assumption that the usual convention would be followed and that the speaker called after Senator Wright would, in fact, be a government speaker. I did, in fact, prior to the calling of Senator Faulkner make an informal petition to the chair that Senator Brandis be called rather than Senator Faulkner. So although a point of order was not raised on the floor in relation to Senator Wright, as I say, I had been operating on the assumption that the ordinary course of events would ensure that the matter was corrected and that Senator Brandis would be called. As you will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, I did make an informal petition to you before the calling of Senator Faulkner that it would be appropriate for Senator Brandis to be called. My purpose in so doing was to try to avoid this particular circumstance arising which we now find ourselves in.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were getting almost to a debating point then. It is correct, for the record, that you did approach me informally as to the order of speakers and I advised you, similarly informally, that the next speaker then would be Senator Faulkner. You had the option then, when the call was made, to take a point of order. None was taken. That matter is now resolved.

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

I rise on another point of order. Following from your ruling that, absent a speaking list, the practice of the chair is to give the call to the senator who seeks the call first or at least is noticed by the chair first, as I sat down Senator Fifield was rising to his feet. He, in fact, jumped before Senator Carr did. So applying your own ruling, you should have called Senator Fifield at that point.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, as I said, absent a speaking list it is the practice of successive chairs to call the senator he or she sees first. In this case, without equivocation I say that I saw Senator Carr rise first and gave him the call.

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

I rise on a point of order. I was in the chamber and quite clearly Senator Fifield rose almost before Senator Brandis had sat down. I witnessed that and I think the anxiety of Senator Carr—

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order before the chair.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order—

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, resume your seat. A motion has been put. Without discussion it has to be put. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Carr be agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(1)   reaffirms the principle that ministers are accountable to the Senate, and through the Senate, to the Australian people;

(2)notes the failure of the Assistant—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fifield.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. In order to stand up and speak, the senator is required to seek leave. Given that the vote has concluded on the previous matter, we should be returning to the order on the Notice Paper.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that has just been passed enables Senator Wong to take that action. The advice that I have received is that Senator Wong should be able to proceed to move her motion.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: the opportunity for Senator Wong to move the motion was contingent on the failure by Senator Sinodinos to comply with the motion. The motion was passed after 12 o'clock. Point (3) of the motion says:

If no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 noon today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply.

There has not been an opportunity for Senator Sinodinos to fail to comply, because the motion was passed after 12 o'clock, the vote on which has only just been concluded.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise on a point of order, Mr President: on reading the motion that we have just passed in this place, there is no limit on how or when Senator Sinodinos could come in before 12 o'clock and make a statement. He did not come into the chamber before 12 o'clock—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion had not been passed!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point (3) of the motion we have passed says that if no statement has been made by 12. We have passed that motion. It could have been passed at any time. It has now been passed. Senator Sinodinos had every opportunity to come into this place before 12 o'clock—

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

He could not!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! Senator Moore, I am not going to tolerate this. If there are views to be expressed there is an appropriate way to take the appropriate point of order. Shouting across the chamber at each other does not resolve the issue.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sinodinos was fully aware—I am sorry I will take that back. I believe that Senator Sinodinos was fully aware of the debate that was going on in this chamber this morning. We have a three-point motion that clearly identified a time—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn't passed by then!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the end that motion was passed and that allowed a time for Senator Sinodinos to come in and take action. He did not choose to do that. My understanding of the motion we have passed allows us to take further action.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to recognise you, Senator Abetz, but you know that I insist that everyone who stands on their feet should be heard in silence, with respect.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. On the point of order, the motion that the Senate has just passed said that it required the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber. That has now passed.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At five past 12.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, at five past 12, Senator Fifield—absolutely right. Point (3) of the motion says that if Senator Sinodinos has not abided by this motion by midday, he is deemed to have failed to comply.

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Wait a moment, Senator Abetz.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so, Mr President, if there is any suggestion of procedural fairness and decency, one would imagine that, if a senator is to be called upon to provide an explanation to the Senate, that senator should have a formal communication made to him or her indicating that the Senate requires something of that senator. In this motion that requirement is deemed to have been required before he actually receives the notice. In other words, this motion says that if he fails to comply to something before midday he will be deemed to be in breach, but the Senate only decided this after midday. The clever tacticians on the Labor side have really got themselves into a dilemma yet again. Like their own leader's questions being ruled out of order yesterday, we now have their own tactic in absolute disarray. How can somebody comply with something if the deadline is set and voted on after the deadline?

This is an absolute and utter shambles, but fairness clearly demands and determines that any resolution of the Senate be communicated to the senator so that senator can respond to it. If the deadline you give to the senator is midday but you actually pass the motion past midday and say, 'Guess what? You are caught already; you're already in breach because of our motion,' it shows how bad the Labor Party's tactics are or, indeed, that they have no understanding of what appropriate procedure or fairness is. If the Labor Party genuinely wanted midday, they should have curtailed their speakers and should have had Senator Carr move immediately that the motion be put, rather than wait until a circumstance where the vote was taken after midday.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order. What we have here is a further pathetic defence of Senator Sinodinos' refusal to turn up in this chamber to give an explanation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a point of order; it is a debate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be very clear—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If you did not interrupt me, that would be very helpful indeed. I am prepared to take a point of order, but I am not prepared to have this debated.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sinodinos had every opportunity to be in here at the conclusion of that debate, rise to his feet, stop hiding—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is debating the issue now—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

rise to his feet and speak on this matter.—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He chose not to be in this chamber—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is debating the issue. I will take representations on the point of order.

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

I am confining myself to the point of order, Mr President. The Clerk might be able to advise you, but, as far as I could tell, the motion was passed at eight minutes past 12. Until eight minutes past 12, there was no motion. At eight minutes past 12, a motion in the terms before you was passed; compliance with which was not possible, because, the hour of 12 having expired, it was not possible for Senator Sinodinos at eight minutes past 12 to make a statement in obedience to the motion by 12. If you look at subsection (3), Mr President, of the motion just passed, the key words are 'a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply'. The motion that we have just passed allows Senator Wong to move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. Because there was no motion with which Senator Sinodinos could have complied, there has been no fulfilment of the condition.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we need to work our way through this. Let me say one thing on the points of order that have been raised today and then let us work our way through it. On the point of order about the time the motion was put, I am reliably informed, because I was not in the chair, that it was prior to midday. I am going on the advice of the Clerk because I was not here.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order! I am not in this to debate it with you, Senator Macdonald; I am trying to assist the process. I can only go on the advice that I am given by the Clerk at the table. The advice that I am given by the Clerk at the table is that the motion was put prior to 12 noon, and the practice of the Senate is to dispose of the business that is before the chair. The next thing that happened was, as you found out, you cannot interrupt that process. In a not improper way you raised yourself to your feet and I refused to take the point of order. I have been consistent there, and the Clerk advises me that it was proper for Senator Wong, as the next matter, to stand to her feet to move the motion that she did.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I have Senator Macdonald, who has been seeking the call.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I will respect that. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As I understand it, the nub of the proposition the government is making is that Senator Sinodinos has had the opportunity to comply with the order and come to the chamber. I would make two points. The first is that we heard from Senator Brandis twice this morning, we heard from Senator Abetz I think twice this morning, and we heard from Senator Fifield many times this morning. With respect, they are not the senators we wish to hear from; it is Senator Sinodinos we wish to hear from.

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By making an offer, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicates to me that Senator Sinodinos wishes to come to the chamber prior to question time, or later today in order to comply with this order, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate says that we should not move this motion because Senator Sinodinos has not had time to comply, my invitation to him is this: if he as Leader of the Government stands up in this place and says—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am making you an offer.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If it is not a point of order, it is not a point of order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She should be sat down.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wish to work out a resolution to this matter with the Leader of the Government, I cannot do it by point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Mr President, I think this demonstrates the lie at the heart of those opposite because of their submissions. They are not interested.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is now debating it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am making an offer. The opposition would be prepared to look at a deferral of this if Senator Sinodinos wishes to come to the chamber. If the Leader of the Government is not going to bring him to the chamber we will proceed.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I can see you are on your feet.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, at midday there was no requirement on Senator Sinodinos to do anything because the Senate had not then passed the motion calling upon him to do something. So at midday there was no requirement for Senator Sinodinos to do anything.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Fifield interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Yes, you will get your point of order when your colleagues have become restful. Senator Fifield.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I understand that there are some quirks and peculiarities about Senate procedure. For instance a Thursday sitting is sometimes considered to be continuing on a Friday, and that in a Senate sense a Friday can, in effect, be a Thursday. I understand that what you are suggesting is that because a sequence of votes commenced before noon, therefore, the passing of a motion after noon should be deemed to have occurred before noon—in effect, the Senate backdating time. I appreciate that for the records of the Senate—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will just interrupt you. I do not mind you taking a point of order, but I do not like words being put into my mouth.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not putting those words into your mouth.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise if that was the way it was taken, Mr President. What I am referring to is the way that Senate procedure may apparently operate. If the motion is, in effect, backdated as having taken effect at five to 12 rather than eight minutes past 12, that may be the way the Senate seeks to record things. But, for those of us who follow eastern daylight saving time, I think it is only fair and reasonable to take it that, if there is a motion that calls upon something to happen before 12 and the motion is not actually determined until after 12, that is not reasonable.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mr President, if I can continue, the question that was before the chair before 12 was 'That the question now be put'. The question before the chair was not the motion of Senator Wong. It is quite possible that the question 'That the question now be put' could in fact have been defeated. Therefore, I cannot see how the commencement of a vote on the question 'That the question now be put' can be deemed to be the time at which the question on Senator Wong's substantive motion took effect and was passed.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I make one thing quite clear: I am operating in conjunction with the advice that is coming from the Clerk, as I was not in the chamber. You have got to understand that in the first instance. I am being fair to everyone on that. Obviously, we need an action replay screen here somewhere but I have not got that at my disposal, so I am listening to the points of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, can I raise a point of order?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have just asked the Clerk.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might have, but Senator Wong is on her feet.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He told me it was at five past 12.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not the advice that the Clerk gave me.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order! That is now debating it with me, and I do not want to enter into that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make three points.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Mr President, the berating of the Clerk by government senators is not appropriate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking a question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here and I can hear what you are saying.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got very good ears.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is bullying of the Senate Clerk. This is utterly inappropriate and it should stop!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! None of this is assisting the resolution of this matter.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Wong was reflecting on Senator Macdonald. She made a very serious allegation and she should withdraw it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you were reflecting on the senator, you should withdraw that comment.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An accurate statement is not a reflection.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw whatever aspect that he was offended by. Mr President, I make three points. The first is that the motion that the Senate has passed has three separate paragraphs. It does require the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber and give some subject matter which the explanation should reflect. A separate paragraph, at paragraph (3)—which I assert to you is a continuing obligation and separate from the obligation in paragraph (1)—says that if no statement has been made by 12 noon today that I may immediately move a further motion relating to his failure to comply. On that basis I say to you that the Clerk's advice is correct and I should proceed to move this motion. I again say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that, if he says that Senator Sinodinos has not had time to attend, we will defer this motion.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order, which may assist the chamber: the Dynamic Red says that the motion moved by Senator Wong was put at 12.01 pm and that it was concluded at five past 12.

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

That is an official record, is it?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not doubt what you say.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I am trying to be fair to as many points of view as I can. Senator Milne.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. The Senate agreed to a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer, saying that the motion that was to be moved would take 'precedence over all other business this day until determined'—and that is what was passed. The motion was then moved and debated to take precedence over all other business until it is determined. The motion was then moved and determined in the affirmative—that is, it does not matter what time; it was determined in the affirmative. Part (3) of that motion said—

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have asked other senators to be heard in silence. Senator Milne is entitled to be heard in silence as well.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the motion that was to be given precedence over all other business until it was determined said that if no statement had been made before 12 noon the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. When the motion that was given precedence over all other government business was determined in the affirmative, it automatically gave Senator Wong the right to move the motion that she has now moved, and that is why I support your ruling.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I understand the information that has been provided to you by the Clerk and I believe that it was given to you in good faith. However, the motion that was put at one minute to 12 was in fact not the substantive motion but a procedural motion. Before the Senate at any time there can be only one question, and the question at one minute to 12 was that the motion be put. That was dispensed with—

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

That the question be put.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you: 'that the question be put'. That then was dispensed with

We then moved back to the substantive issue, the substantive question, which was the motion moved by Senator Wong; and that motion, without any shadow of doubt, was put after midday. It was put after midday and the Dynamic Red discloses that. I think, if you were to ask the Clerk what time the actual, substantive motion was put, you would find that it was put after midday, which meant that there was no capacity for the senator who is the subject of this motion to have actually complied with it. Indeed, Senator Milne in her point of order indicated to you that the motion moved by Senator Wong gave that issue precedence over all other matters—which includes the capacity, if he wanted to or not, of Senator Sinodinos to give a statement. So as a result of Labor's own move, of this motion taking precedence over all matters, it was impossible for Senator Sinodinos to comply. I understand the situation you regretfully find yourself in, Mr President. But the actual motion, the substantive motion, there is no doubt, was put after midday, and that is why the Labor Party are now the architects of their own demise in this matter.

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

On the point of order, Mr President: I adopt what Senator Abetz has said. What he said is plainly right. But, further to that, can I draw your attention to standing order 84, from which it is perfectly clear that the Senate may only deal with one motion at a time.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eric said that. You don't need to clarify what he said.

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

What Senator Abetz has said is right. But my point is that the standing orders actually make it clear. That being the case, the only motion to which Senator Wong's motion relates was, according to the Dynamic Red itself—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are now debating it. I understand—

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

a motion put after 12.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand your point of order.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Order!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How desperate they are to avoid him giving a statement.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, could I—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are filibustering their own—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody knows what you are doing.

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

You're the one who screwed up your own—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you don't need to listen to—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on both sides! Senator Fifield, make your point of order.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Can I offer the suggestion that this particular episode and the keeping of Senate time be referred to the Procedure Committee for examination? I think the fact that a senator is required to do something before they are asked to do something—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is—

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

It is a helpful suggestion. Penny, you're getting flustered.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Excuse me! I am not going to take barracking from my left—

Government senators interjecting—

or my right.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because at the moment, Mr President, the Senate is appropriating for itself a Matrix-like capacity to slow time!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like you're doing.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think all senators are entitled to operate in this place on—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How desperate they are.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

eastern standard, daylight savings time—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is now debating the issue.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it could be referred to the Procedure Committee.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. I am going to make—

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

Mr President, on a point of order—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am making a ruling on this matter.

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

But I've got a point of order, Mr President.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I know.

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

I am waiting for the call.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, well, wait until I have made my ruling, and then you can take your point of order. I am entitled to make a ruling. My ruling—

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

Mr President, you said that everyone who wanted to make a point of order would be able to—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but there is a tolerance level as far as far as the chair is concerned as well.

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

But I was in the chamber when this matter was moved.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So was Kim Carr!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I moved it!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This needs to be resolved by the chair. It is unresolved at this stage. I will be ruling that it is well within the province of Senator Wong to move as the first item of business following the consideration of that motion the motion as she moved. That has now got a ruling on the table. I have had consultation with the Clerk on this matter and I believe that that is the position.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order, on both sides! Senators on both sides, this needs to be resolved by a ruling. I have now given the ruling.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on a point of order, Mr President: I am seeking clarification of your ruling. Are you ruling that the Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with something—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is debating the issue. I am ruling—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

before he was actually required to do so.

The PRESIDENT: Just wait a minute. I am not entering into the debate. I have ruled that it was in order for Senator Wong to move the motion, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the resolution of the Senate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate reaffirms—

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

On a point of order, Mr President: I just need some clarification of your ruling—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I have now ruled.

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

I am seeking some clarification. Does your ruling say that despite the substantive motion being—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I have made a ruling that it was in order for Senator Wong to move the motion. Senator Wong—

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

A point of order—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Wong has the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate reaffirms—

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

On a point of order, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One minute, Senator Wong.

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

Mr President, I have a new point of order, and it does not bear on any of the matters that were debated for the last 20 minutes on the question of the time at which the motion was put. My point of order is that the motion that Senator Wong now seeks to move may only be moved by leave, because the resolution—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Mr President, he is defying your ruling.

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

No, I am not. If I may, Mr President, have the call.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear where you are coming from.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

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

Do I have the call, Mr President?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you have. Yes, I am waiting for you—

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

I am just waiting for the interjections to stop.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. You are right. I am listening.

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

The motion that Senator Wong has been given the right to move without leave is a motion described in part (3) of the motion lately passed—that is:

(3)      if no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 noon today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply.

It is those last seven or eight words—'relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply'—which define the motion that Senator Wong has been given the right to move. If you look at the motion—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is now debating the issue. You have taken your point of order.

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

If you look at the motion Senator Wong has circulated, it is not a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. Irrespective of the debate we had just before about whether in fact Senator Sinodinos did fail to comply—and you have already ruled on that and I do not reflect on your ruling on that point—if you look at the terms of this resolution, it is not a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. It says—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we are getting into the debating aspect of it.

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

But Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I am not going to put up with debating points.

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

It is not a debating point.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ruled. There is no point of order, Senator Brandis, and I have given Senator Wong the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(1)   Reaffirms the principle that ministers are accountable to the Senate and, through the Senate, the Australian people—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: it is not in order for Senator Wong to move this motion without seeking leave, because this motion does not relate—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is now becoming a tedious point of repetition. I have—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to Senator Sinodinos's alleged failure to comply.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have ruled on that point of order. There is no point of order. I have given Senator Wong the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, if I may raise a fresh point of order? Just for absolute clarity, can you confirm that there is nothing in any way, shape or form in your ruling that suggests that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with any request of the Senate—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have made a ruling on that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because that is a fundamental proposition—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made my ruling quite clear. That was raised earlier.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have, Senator. I have made it quite clear.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may then seek your indulgence, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there is no indulgence. You have had your chance at a point of order. I have given the call to Senator Wong.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a fresh point of order, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot keep doing this!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have two people on their feet. I call Senator Abetz.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I heard your ruling in relation to allowing Senator Wong to proceed. With respect, I have a certain view on that, but I do not want to relitigate that aspect. I am, however, seeking to obtain from you clarification whether there is, in any way, shape or form, a suggestion that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with an order of the Senate.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already made that very clear. I made no suggestions in my ruling.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right, thank you. So there was—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My ruling was quite clear. Senator Wong has the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

no suggestion of Senator Sinodinos's failure—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I made no suggestions in my ruling about anything. I made that quite clear.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Wong is on her feet.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am on—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you are on your feet.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was on my feet.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not care. You will sit down because Senator Wong got to her feet.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to raise—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me! I have had someone on this side of the chamber—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I have a point of order, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will sit down!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me! You will sit down. Senator Wong is on her feet.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann, you will resume your seat!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still have—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann! I am standing now, something I have not done in my time as President.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! Senator Wong was—

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

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I will give the call in due course as I have done fairly throughout this debate. But I am not going to be put to the test by people. Senator Wong has the call.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I have a point of order, Mr President.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong might have a point of order. I do not know what Senator Wong is getting to her feet for.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(1)   Reaffirms the—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a very specific point of order, Mr President. I am seeking clarification on a very specific point. I have been here throughout the whole debate this morning. I have been here through every aspect of these proceedings and there is clearly a very important point in relation to the motion that was eventually passed by the Senate after 12 pm. It relates to the part that Senator Brandis pointed to before which makes the motion that is about to be moved contingent—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is becoming a tedious point of repetition and I have ruled on that point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking for a clarification, because if there—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have clarified everything in respect of that motion.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you made a ruling that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with an order—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just answered that in respect of a point of order made by Senator Abetz.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not understand the answer.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is very clear, sir. You go and read the record.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ministerial accountability under the Abbott government is on display today!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield has the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking clarification because it is still—