Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. I refer to the minister's answer in question time yesterday in which he said he had not discussed matters relating to former Senator Day's electorate office with the Prime Minister, or his office, because it was 'very much a routine matter'. How can the minister consider the possible breach of section 44 of the Constitution to be 'very much a routine matter'?

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

I thank Senator Polley for that question. Senator Day did not approach me with a proposal to breach section 44 of the Constitution. He approached me with an inquiry in relation to his electorate office, in the same way that Labor members and senators approach me, Liberal members and senators approach me and Greens members and senators approach me. In relation to all of the matters that are pertinent to the question that Senator Polley has just asked me, I covered them in my very comprehensive statement, my very detailed statement, to the Senate on Monday and I refer Senator Polley to that statement.

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

Senator Polley, a supplementary question.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, was able to recognise within 15 days of his elevation to that role what the minister failed to recognise in six months as Special Minister of State and three years as a senior minister for the Finance portfolio, has the minister sought advice from his junior minister on how to tell the difference between a routine matter and a potential breach of the Australian Constitution?

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

That is very droll. Let me say up-front that clearly Senator Polley has not studied my very comprehensive statement to the Senate with as much attention as she should have, because if she had studied the statement I made to the Senate she would have been able to ascertain the fact that I denied the payment of any rent. What happened after the election, given that Senator Day was re-elected after the election, given that he chose to re-enliven his claim for payment of rent, given that there was a deadline looming of 14 August, was that the whole issue had to be reconsidered at that point. From my point of view, when I dealt with it, it was dealt with. Of course, all of these matters are explained in some great detail and in some great depth in my very comprehensive statement to the Senate on Monday.

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

Senator Polley, a final supplementary question.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister admit that when it comes to the Bob Day affair he either took his eye off the ball or turned a blind eye to keep the coalition's most reliable crossbencher happy?

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

No and no.