Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. My question relates to matters not covered by his so-called very comprehensive statement to the Senate yesterday. I refer to ASIC reports that show the director, secretary and sole shareholder of Fullarton Investments Pty Ltd, both at the time the 77 Fullarton Road property was transferred to it from Bob Day's company and when the Commonwealth entered into a lease at the property, was Debra Kim Smith, the wife of former Senator Day's long-term business partner. Given that the connection between former Senator Day and Fullarton Investments could have been ascertained by a basic ASIC search, isn't it clear the government failed to do even the most basic of due diligence?

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

Relevant searches were done by the Department of Finance at the appropriate time. These are now all matters that will have to be considered by the High Court. It will be a matter for the High Court to determine what the constitutional question is on the issues that have arisen since the 1 December execution of the lease in relation to the 77 Fullarton Road office.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's department knew Mr Day previously owned the property, so a basic ASIC search would have revealed his relationship with Fullarton Investments. And given that former Senator Day was even using the email address BobDay@77Fullarton.com.au, isn't it clear that the government chose to turn a blind eye?

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

No, that is not clear. The other thing that is not clear is the constitutional position. With all due respect to Senator Gallagher, she is making an assumption on what the finding of the High Court will be in the matter, and that is, of course, very presumptuous indeed.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Final supplementary question, Senator Gallagher.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the government entered into a quarter-of-a-million-dollar lease at Mr Day's request, failed to do the basic due diligence on the arrangement, and was either negligent or turned a blind eye to former Senator Day's ongoing financial interest, isn't it clear that the government was doing all it could to keep its most reliable crossbencher happy?

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

(—) (): The answer to that question is no. Of course, the thing that Senator Gallagher is completely ignoring is that, as a result of decisions that the government made, not a single dollar in rent was paid. At the time of executing the lease, the advice available to the government was that the Department of Finance—which conducted relevant searches—was not concerned about an ongoing interest base of then Senator Day in the 77 Fullarton Road property. When subsequent information emerged which suggested that there may be a link, we made a decision, under the circumstances, not to pay any rent. As such, it was understood at the time that there were no issues in relation to section 44 of the Constitution. Subsequently, the government received legal advice, namely on 27 October, that in the opinion of eminent counsel Mr Jackson QC the lease at the time of the breach— (Time expired)