Senate debates
Wednesday, 24 July 2019
Questions without Notice
Ministerial Conduct
2:36 pm
Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the report of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the application of the Statement of Ministerial Standardsagainst former ministers Pyne and Bishop. Does Mr Morrison guarantee the accuracy of the report?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I've indicated to the chamber before, the Prime Minister, on the basis of Dr Parkinson's report, has confirmed that there's no breach in ministerial standards.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Kitching, a supplementary question.
2:37 pm
Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The report states that:
Mr Pyne advised me that EY is a client of GC Advisory, which is a public affairs, strategic communications advisory company co-owned by Mr Pyne and Mr Adam Howard (Mr Pyne's former Chief of Staff).
The Australian government register of lobbyists lists Adam Howard as the sole owner of GC Advisory and does not list EY as a client. Which is correct—Dr Parkinson's report or the register of lobbyists?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Prime Minister of course completely accepts the advice provided by Dr Parkinson.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.
2:38 pm
Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Given that Dr Parkinson's report now contains at least three errors of fact under question, how can the Prime Minister possibly rely on this report?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I don't accept the premise of the question.