Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to former Senator Day's electorate office.

I refer back to 2013, when Senator Bob Day replaced me in the Senate. As all senators will know, because all senators will have had this experience, the practice—at that time and now—is that the incoming senator takes over the office of the outgoing senator.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Well, it is the practice. You might be able to point to some people who have not done it, but—

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

Including on your side.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The practice is—

Senator Cormann interjecting —

That is the practice. I do not say that it is universal, but that is the practice. Why is that the practice? The reason that that is the practice is that it saves money for the taxpayer, and we are always looking to save taxpayers' money in this place. The question is: why did that usual practice not apply in this case? I do not know the exact answer to that, but I have read a few statements by Senator Day as to why he did not move into the perfectly reasonable offices that I had in Gilles Street in Adelaide. He questioned the transport arrangements. I am not sure how familiar you are with Adelaide, Deputy President. It is a wonderful city full of modern transport options, and one of those modern transport options is the new tram that now goes all the way from Glenelg down to the entertainment centre. One of the reasons that I selected this particular office was that it is only a couple of minutes walk from the tram. The interesting thing about the tram in Adelaide is that, if you catch it in the—

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

Have you got a tram?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we have a tram, Senator Brandis, and it is a beautiful tram. In fact, if Senator Gallagher were here we could talk about trams in the ACT. But the significant thing about this tram is that, if you catch it in the CBD, it is free. So you can catch that tram to anywhere else you might like to go. You can catch it down to the train station and you can catch it to any of the bus connections on any of the through-streets in Adelaide. And it is a couple of minutes walk from my office, and that is why we selected this particular place—because it was easy, for people who might want to come and visit their senator with a particular problem, to get into town and get to the office.

I have had a look—not a close look, but a look—at the office that Senator Day moved into on Fullarton Road. To the best of my knowledge, Senator Sterle, there are no buses, no trams and no trains running along Fullarton Road. I could be wrong about that; there may be one. But, to the best of my knowledge, there are no trams, trains or buses running along the road to Senator Day's current office.

So the question mark that I would raise is this. There was a perfectly good office in the Adelaide CBD that had two years to run on the lease. Obviously the department was more confident about my likely re-election in the 2013 elections than the people of South Australia were. So there were two years to run on that lease. It was perfectly possible for Senator Day to move in there. Why didn't he? That is the sixty-four-dollar question: why didn't he?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because he votes with them every time.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Sterle, I think you might have nailed it. I think you have nailed it, Senator, because this was the opportunity. We saw guns for votes a couple of weeks ago, and now we see offices for votes. Senator Sterle has hit the nail on the head. What we saw here was offices for votes. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must thank Senator Farrell for the insightful outline of public transport in Adelaide. I did not realise they had such an extensive network.

But, as to the matters that were raised in question time today by opposition senators about the matter of Senator Day's electorate office and the matters around the lease and the like, earlier this afternoon we spent an extensive amount of time in dealing with this specific issue, by way of a motion to begin with. That has been debated and a motion was passed that the broader matters relating to this be referred to the High Court. It was supported, as far as I can tell, by all sides of this chamber. So I think it is important to reflect on the fact that that has happened.

But in that debate a number of points were made, and I have had a look at the contributions that were provided by Senator Cormann and Senator Ryan, who spoke on behalf of the government as ministers involved in this issue. So I have looked at Senator Cormann's contribution. Some of the questions I think were trying to paint a picture of a government that did not want to take a particular course of action in case it might upset a senator. But it is quite clear from reading through what Senator Cormann said with regard to his involvement in the processes—and I refer to his contributions—that he made the point that it is important to note that, at the time of executing either the heads of agreement in February 2015 or the lease on 1 December 2015, the Department of Finance was not concerned that Senator Day still had any interest in the 77 Fullarton Road property. Specifically, former Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson had agreed to enter into the heads of agreement and the lease on the express basis that he had satisfied himself firstly that then Senator Day no longer had any interest in the property—and this was expressly confirmed by Senator Day, and also confirmed by the department, which did research in the form of title searches at the time—and secondly that there would be no net cost to the Commonwealth entering into the heads of agreement and the lease, compared to the scenario where Senator Day had accepted the earlier request of the department to move into then former Senator Farrell's office. So measures were put in place to ensure that what is being alleged here was not going to happen.

Earlier on today in the debate on the motion, they did go into some of the steps that were taken when new information came to light throughout the course of the lease and the communications from Senator Day about rent on the office. The key point is that the government was very transparent in providing all of this information about what happened there. And, as soon as new information came to light, the government responded in the most prudent way, through the Department of Finance, in making sure that everything was done in line with the rules that apply to entitlements and with the application of the Constitution, as has been outlined earlier on today.

Senator Cormann, a little later on in his contribution, highlighted the point in time after the complaint had been made that rent had not been paid, the steps that he took in trying to protect the government and the Department of Finance from any exposure to any problems in the arrangements, and that, when the concerns were raised by the department, Senator Day's subsequent information raised further questions, and so that is why measures were put in place with regard to the lease arrangements and the vendor financing arrangements. So I think that to suggest that there was anything other than a prudent approach taken by government in dealing with this issue is just wrong. And, as discussed, we have already debated a motion to refer to the High Court the matters relating to the qualification of a senator to sit in this place, and all sides of this chamber agreed that that body is the best one to deal with the question before the Senate. These issues are inextricably linked to that question. The questions today absolutely highlight that.

I would encourage opposition senators to reread Senator Cormann's and Senator Ryan's contributions to the chamber today on this issue, because they do outline, in very detailed form, exactly what they did, when they did it, what they were thinking when they did it and why they took those steps. I think it speaks volumes for the transparency the government has in relation to— (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in respect of the responses given today in relation to what we now know is the offices for votes scandal, as properly described by Senator Farrell in his contribution. Today in question time, we learnt that Senator Cormann was aware at some point prior to the election of this dodgy and rather tricky arrangement that existed in relation to Senator Day and his office. This is something where the government has a lot of questions to answer. Unfortunately, today not a lot of answers were forthcoming for us on this. But what is clear to me is that this is an exercise in favouritism by the government, particularly with respect to Senator Day. I speak from personal experience on this. Like Senator Day, I requested a change of office when I was elected as a senator. I wrote to Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson back in June 2014 and asked if I could have a different office to the one that was intended for me on the departure of Senator Furner. I indicated to Senator Ronaldson that there would be a better location for the office that was being proposed for me.

Of course, in those times we had the pretence of the budget emergency and the government was running around talking about the need to cut government expenditure. So I was told that not only was I not permitted to move; I was told that the current lease on the office that I was going to move into ended on 30 June and there were two options to extend the lease for a further three years each. In his correspondence, former Senator Ronaldson said: 'It is generally expected that a senator or a member will remain in an electorate office for the duration of the lease, including optioned terms.' And he said: 'While I appreciate your desire to establish an office in the other suburb, I am proposing that you remain in the Strathpine office for the lease and option terms given the significant cost associated with establishing a new office.'

It is quite clear to me that, whereas I was obviously not seen as somebody who could deliver votes to the government, other arrangements were made to facilitate Senator Day and to meet his expectations. From my perspective, this is another example of favouritism. Whilst I note Senator Corman indicated that have been occasions when the government has been amenable to moves, the evidence before us at the moment is that it is only where a senator has the potential to vote very frequently with the government that we are seeing such an accommodation being made.

We have also seen that the government has provided favouritism to Senator Day in relation to the $2 million grant that was made by Senator Birmingham to the North Eastern Vocational College in Adelaide. Back then, Senator Day requested that a $1.4 million donation be made to the college. Despite the fact that he asked for $1.4 million, the government upped the ante and provided him with a further $600,000, to make it a $2 million grant to that vocational college. Whilst I do not criticise the funding of vocational education—we certainly support it—there is certainly an issue with relation to the transparency around this.

In closing, alarm bells should have been ringing in the government when we had Senator Day requesting to remain in his office in premises that were previously owned by him. This is something where very serious alarm bells should have been ringing. We are now confronted with the scandal and the unnecessary distraction of this matter being referred to the High Court because of the constitutional implications. This implicates both the Abbott and Turnbull governments, and this is distracting from the main job of getting on with jobs and the economy. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this issue. I think it is yet another sad demonstration of the parlous state of the competence of those opposite for a number of reasons. First of all, as we heard in this chamber this morning, the government has been highly transparent and, as Senator Wong confirmed, there were negotiations and discussions this morning to the opposition's satisfaction. The documents were tabled and the discussion was suspended until 12.30 today to give all parties time to have a look at the documents. But we had five senators opposite raise the same issue. Those five senators, or their tactics committee, should have taken the time this morning to actually read the documents that were tabled and then listen to the two ministers who answered all of those questions during question time and in their statements between 12.30 and 1.30 this afternoon.

This leaves me wondering whether their tactics committee was so incompetent that it did not bother listening to or reading any of the proceedings in this chamber today or whether they just did not bother to provide any of the five senators opposite with a plan B relating to this. And I cannot really see a third option. So they went ahead and asked the same questions on things that had already been canvassed—not only canvassed in this chamber to the satisfaction of their leader in this place; they also voted to refer this issue through to the High Court, where it now justly rests. The government has been very transparent about this. Extensive information was provided on the process and the information. Both the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Finance made extensive statements to the Senate earlier today surrounding the circumstances of the lease of former Senator Day's electorate office. So, while we found it fascinating to hear the exposition of the tram situation in Adelaide from Senator Farrell and to hear Senator Ketter expressing some concern that he could not move his office when he wanted to, the fact is that this matter is now before the High Court, and that is where it should be.

As those opposite may have missed, the government has moved a motion in the Senate, which has been passed by the Senate, to refer the election of former Senator Bob Day to the High Court due to a potential breach of section 44 of the Constitution—again, a matter which was canvassed extensively in this place this morning. There is only one body that now has the power to determine whether former Senator Day was in breach of section 44, and that is the High Court. I think it is critically important that neither house of this parliament, including those opposite, should now try to have this matter tried outside the court and prejudice any deliberations of the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

But what does it say about those opposite that they raise this when they and we had canvassed this so extensively this morning in this place? Again, it is another demonstration that those opposite are bereft of serious policy to discuss in this place. Where were the questions on national security? Where were the questions on defence? Where were the questions on health, education and any of the things that are really important to all Australians? I think this is another example of a tactical misfire by those opposite. Now we see them in the process of bringing down the best opportunity we have had for marriage equality, for legal equality in this country, simply because they have got an attack of the heebie-jeebies because it was not their process that got up but the government's offer of how to get this through. So they are about to stuff that up for the public. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References committee is limping home to a report tomorrow—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. Relevance is my point of order. There were no questions asked by the opposition to any government ministers today about what Senator Reynolds is rabbiting on about, and I would urge you to get her back to the topic.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sterle. That is a debating point. Please resume, Senator Reynolds.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As I was saying, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is limping home to a report tomorrow on an inquiry that they breathlessly set up to try to impugn the reputation of the Attorney-General, but—oops!—it misfired and they kicked an own goal in the direction of the Solicitor-General instead. We now have another inquiry on Nauru and Manus—another one that is absolutely looking at the past and not at policies of the future.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. Once again, on relevance, I raise the point of order that the senator is not going anywhere near the questions that were asked by the opposition today to ministers in question time.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sterle.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Wait for the call, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis.

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

I just wanted you to know that I was seeking the call.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I saw you.

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

Madam Deputy President, the motion before the chamber is not that the Senate take note of questions but that the Senate take note of answers, and the irrelevance of some of the questions was in fact a matter reflected upon by a number of the answers that came from ministers.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Reynolds, you have been slightly wide-ranging, so I just remind you of the motion moved by Senator Farrell.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I apologise if there are so many things to demonstrate how irrelevant those on the other side are, and this latest performance in question time is just another example of the lack of significant policy discussion or leadership in this country. So what else have the Labor Party not done and not talked about? Not only have they been talking about a matter that they agreed should be referred to the High Court and should stick within the jurisdiction of the High Court; they spent five questions on issues that had already been answered and canvassed to the satisfaction of those opposite. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to go to the issues that Senator Reynolds and Senator Duniam have raised. Firstly, let me go to what Senator Reynolds has raised here this afternoon when she talks about the important things for the Australian public. I think it is important for the Australian public to know that government funds, public funds and taxpayers' funds are not being handed over to someone who is almost a bankrupt and who is ripping off ordinary Australians, killing their dreams for a house, and ripping off contractors and apprentices in this country. I think these are the important things for Australians. They want to know that taxpayers' money is being properly spent.

What you have seen here is that we had a situation where Bob Day, the former senator, was doing cosy deals with this government, and there are more questions to be asked on this issue. The answers we had today were crafted answers, but they did not go to the questions. While these machinations are going on in the coalition, what is happening out there is that people are getting burnt really badly by the former Senator Bob Day, and it is not just those Australians that were paying deposits to get a house built and might never get that deposit back again. It is not about the employees of Bob Day himself, who were not being paid. Some of them are owed, I understand, about $160,000. While all this was going on, this government was doing cosy deals with Bob Day, and not only on his accommodation and not only on ripping apprentices off—trying to force apprentices onto youth allowance and VET FEE-HELP instead of a contract of employment and a contract of training. This guy was up to every rort. Bob Day was up to every rort he could get his hands on, and he was ripping people off, and this government was standing by, helping him to do it. That is what it was doing, providing $2 million-plus when it was asked for $1.4 million for its little mate. Two million dollars gets handed over to train 20 apprentices. How ridiculous can that get?

So there will be more questions on this government's relationship with the former Senator Bob Day. There will be more questions about who knew what and when, and what was done to protect taxpayers' money, because this is nothing more than a rort that has gone on. This is nothing more than cosying up to Bob Day because he was the most consistent number on the crossbench for this government. Whatever Bob Day asked for Bob Day was going to get from this government. 'It does not matter if he breached the Constitution; push that aside, hide it under the carpet. He's a regular vote for us. He'll do what he's told in terms of any vote.' That was the driving force behind saying to Bob Day, 'You can stay in the office that you previously owned, with all the linkages that were still there.' That was the reason he was handed over $2 million to train 20 apprentices—20 apprentices for $2 million! That is why they have no idea about any approach to dealing with taxpayers' money effectively when it comes to Bob Day. It was just, 'Do what you need to do.'

I see One Nation senators there, listening intently. Senators, if you want to get an idea about how you get something out of this government then follow Bob Day's lead, because they will not ask any questions, they will not do anything and there will be no probity involved. It will simply be about getting your vote. That is the issue here. They have got no credibility on this issue whatsoever. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.