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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Minister for Health (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator McLucas today relating to potential conflicts of interest for ministerial staff.

In last night's adjournment debate Senator Nash provided what she described as additional information to the Senate following a question that she was asked by Senator Wong about the removal of the Health Star Rating website. Of course, it was not additional information. Senator Nash had earlier misled the Senate in question time. She said in question time yesterday:

There is no connection whatsoever between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.

She tried to correct the record last night by stating that her chief of staff 'was APA's chairman and because of that previous position he has a shareholding in the company'. In question time today we learnt more. It appears that the chief of staff has a shareholding in APA but receives no income from it.

The real questions here are: is there a conflict of interest and is there a breach of appropriate ministerial and ministerial staff standards and obligations? Of course, I have no personal animus towards Senator Nash at all, so I am genuinely disappointed to have to say that these revelations represent serious negligence in her conduct with respect to her ministerial responsibilities. We now know that the government's statement of standards for ministerial staff has been breached. It is an open and shut case.

In another life, as a minister, I established the first Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff. I am pleased that, with very minor amendments, it has been retained by the Abbott government. Clause 4 of that code says that ministerial staff must:

Divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private company or business and/or direct interest in any public company involved in the area of their Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities.

This just was not done. This critically important obligation has been ignored by Senator Nash and her chief of staff. The standards have been breached; they have not been enforced by those responsible for enforcing them. And we now know, from the response to Senator McLucas's question today in relation to Senator Nash's obligations at the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation that she and her chief of staff attended, that, again, there was no declaration of any interest held by her chief of staff, even though such a declaration is a standing item on the agenda of that forum and has been for a very long time.

This is a serious matter. This is a serious breach. I would strongly counsel, in these circumstances, that the minister, Senator Nash, make a ministerial statement to the Senate about these matters. She said in question time she was not going to inform the Senate of internal discussions in government. That is no longer good enough. What is required now from Senator Nash, and I hope that Senator Abetz and senior ministers in the government will ask her to do so, given these facts, is a full explanation. Nothing less than a full explanation is an option. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with Senator Faulkner that issues of integrity around ministerial appointments and staffing appointments are indeed important, and I acknowledge the role that Senator Faulkner himself took in establishing the code of conduct for ministerial staff. Chief of staff is an important role, and I will come to that in a moment. But Senator Nash has, quite clearly, put on the public record important information in relation to the position of her chief of staff. She answered the question in respect of the information she had available to her at question time yesterday, and we were all here to hear that; and, at the first opportunity, which was during the adjournment debate last night—and I happened to be in the chamber—she provided additional information to ensure the chamber was fully informed of the circumstances in relation to her chief staff, as was appropriate. Obviously, she was asked to further clarify those circumstances today during questions asked of her in question time.

While it is appropriate that all of us who have responsibility in the ministry address potential conflicts of interest that we or our staff in those important roles may have, it is important that the responses that are given are given due consideration. Senator Nash has put on the public record that Australian Public Affairs is a media and public affairs company which is run by Ms Tracey Cain, the spouse of Minister Nash's chief of staff; and that, prior to working for Minister Nash, Mr Furnival was APA's chairman and, because of that position, he has a shareholding; but that, prior to his appointment to Minister Nash's staff, arrangements were put in place so that his previous business activities did not interfere with his obligations under the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff. Now, Minister Nash has clearly put that on the record and it is important that that be understood—that, prior to his employment, those provisions were put in place because, as Senator Nash said in question time today, she knew of Mr Furnival's previous activities working for Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, and other food industry clients prior to coming to work for her as her chief of staff.

But, in addition to complying with those proper ministerial standards, Mr Furnival's spouse gave additional undertakings that the business would not make any representations to either Minister Nash or Minister Dutton, would not make any representations to the Department of Health and would not make any representations, on behalf of any clients, to any minister of the Commonwealth in relation to the Health portfolio. So not only were there provisions put in place to distance the business from Mr Furnival in his role as chief of staff to Minister Nash, but the business itself made further provisions to remove the business from any potential conflict of interest in dealing with government. It actually constrained the business's activities in relation to that.

The opposition should, I think, take note of other concerns that have been raised in the past—for example, when David Epstein, the former chief of staff to Kevin Rudd, was appointed to the Canberra office of major lobbying firm Government Relations Australia.

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

What? You can't possibly think that's a parallel!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator, I—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think a major lobbying firm who is— (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Nash today. Senator Nash's answers to questions today will give no confidence, no comfort, to the public health sector, and they will be of concern to those in the food manufacturing sector. At the heart of this concern is the confidence of the community in the decision-making process of Minister Nash and her office. This is a question of integrity in the process of decision making. It gives me no comfort to ask questions on this matter—but it is a question of integrity. It was very disappointing that the answers to questions had to be corrected by Senator Nash in the chamber yesterday.

Yesterday, Senator Wong asked a series of questions of Senator Nash, to which she said that there was no connection with the food industry. Then, according to Senator Nash, at the first opportunity—which was many hours later—she came into the chamber, at around nine o'clock last night, and, in her terms, gave 'additional information'. She advised the Senate that her chief of staff did have a connection with Australian Public Affairs and that, because of that previous position, he has a shareholding in the company. As Senator Faulkner has quite rightly pointed out, the code of conduct requires a divestment of any shareholding—not a promise that says, 'We will not lobby you,' but a divestment of that shareholding. The question that we are addressing here today is, frankly, not one of remuneration but one of influence. The question goes to whether or not there was undue influence over the process of establishing the website that would assist consumers make better decisions about what food products they want to buy. That is the question at stake here.

I was particularly concerned today when Senator Nash said, in answer to my question, that in December last year she was fully aware of her chief of staff's former activities. I may not be accurately quoting her—I tried to write it down—but that is the intent of what she said. This should have set off alarm bells, not at the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation in December last year but at the point he was employed. This is when she should have known that this gentleman had an absolute conflict in terms of his previous employment and that he had not divested his shareholding. She should have known everything about the relationship between her chief of staff and an advocacy company that was advocating on behalf of one section of the food industry. It should not have been something which, according to her yesterday, she did not have every detail of. She should have been absolutely across this. She knew this was potentially a problem. She should have been more diligent, firstly, in the employment of the gentleman and, secondly, in making sure that any conflict was completely removed.

I am concerned about what this means for the confidence of the public health sector in the delivery of food policy in our country. We need to have a system that ensures the best available evidence is provided to consumers, particularly about manufactured food on the grocery store shelves. Public Health Association head Michael Moore—and I am quoting from the Canberra Timessaid it was 'inconceivable' that the website was only a draft. This was in response to the assertion that the Department of Health people said that it was only a draft and so it had to be pulled down. He said:

I looked at it very carefully, and there was nothing that struck me about it as being a draft. It just doesn't make sense.

(Time expired)

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

First of all, I congratulate Senator Nash on the wonderful job she is doing as the Assistant Minister for Health. As someone who comes from a rural and regional area and who pays particular interest to rural and regional health ministers, I very much appreciate Senator Nash's attention to detail here. Not only do I have admiration for her in the way that she is performing her ministerial job, but I particularly like the open and frank way in which she has addressed the questions that have been asked of her in the last couple of days. This is typical of the Labor Party: it did not take them long to get down into the gutter. But Senator Nash, in her response, was open and frank. She did what any minister should do: immediately she was aware of additional information, she returned to the Senate and made a complete and open statement about it, which is as required. I congratulate Senator Nash for the way she did that.

But the Labor Party are talking about standards? I said to Senator Conroy by way of interjection during his questions: remember Mr Mike Kaiser, the Labor Party member in the Queensland parliament who was thrown out of the Queensland parliament for electoral fraud and employed by NBN Co? According to the testimony of the head of NBN Co, he was employed because the minister suggested to the head of NBN Co that perhaps he should have a look at Mr Mike Kaiser as a recipient of the $450,000 government relations job in NBN Co—a government instrumentality that somehow needed a government relations officer to deal with its owner, who was the government! It was Senator Conroy who was asking these questions today. Time does not permit me to go through some of the indiscretions of Labor ministers from day one. I will not go into the fact that I know a number of former Labor politicians from Queensland who are in jail for electoral fraud. We will not go there.

When Senator Conroy, Senator McLucas and Senator Wong raise these questions, they open up a Pandora's box that may well encourage a closer look at some Labor Party appointments. We all know about Mr Rudd's former chief of staff, Mr David Epstein. His wife was appointed to run the Canberra office of the major lobbying outfit Government Relations Australia when Mr Epstein was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the most senior and influential person within the Rudd Labor government.

As I said, give me five hours and I can go on about these things. Senator Conroy and Senator McLucas have started resorting to these sorts of activities so early in their time in opposition, as they have demonstrated here. One could ask other embarrassing questions about Labor Party politicians. I was in the parliament when a group of people almost knocked down the front door of Parliament House. Anyone who has seen the front doors of Parliament House would wonder how anyone could possibly go close to knocking them down. They are made of steel and strong glass. If anyone bothered to go back and look at the TV footage of that, they may see an awfully exact likeness of a current senior member of the Labor Party amongst those who were trying to knock down—

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

Who was it?

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

I do not want to mention names. I am not going to go into that, but once you start along this path, who knows where it might end. I am not sure what the repair to that door cost the taxpayers of Australia; I am sure it was substantial. The lawlessness of that activity would seem to, in my view, prevent those sorts of people from ever being in the chambers of the Parliament of Australia.

Congratulations to Senator Nash. She is doing a wonderful job. I particularly like the open and frank way in which she has addressed these questions and explained the situation, I think to the Senate's satisfaction. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Nash today. I find it quite extraordinary that Senator Macdonald cannot spend five minutes defending Senator Nash and has to resort to trying to insult Labor and pretend that there were various ills on our side. But he cannot spend five minutes defending Senator Nash because she is not defensible. This matter started last week, when a website went live and was then suddenly taken down. On Friday, Senator Nash had the opportunity to answer questions from the Fairfax Media and, guess what, she refused. If it was a mistake or if the website was somehow not quite ready, that is easily defensible. You can show someone a website that is not quite ready. Why would you not put that on the public record on Friday? You would not put it there because it is just not true.

Those in the industry have said that they looked at the website and saw that it was a fine, perfectly good website. Then, when Senator Nash was finally backed into a corner about it, she said, 'Oh, but I was worried that consumers wouldn't be able to understand it.' What an insult it is to suggest that consumers who have been calling for clear food labelling for a very long time suddenly, according to the Assistant Minister for Health, would not be able to understand it.

Senator Nash has now had three opportunities to put the facts on the record. Yesterday, Senator Wong asked three simple questions, one being: 'What did you and your chief of staff have to do with pulling the website down?' Senator Nash told us that she ordered it to be pulled down. Again, Senator Wong had to go back and say, 'You haven't answered the question in relation to what your senior staff member did.' So we finally get a little bit of information around that. But Senator Nash, like the rest of the government ministers, just could not help herself, she had to have a go. She had to imply that Labor's questions were somehow quite out of the ordinary and insulting and should never have been asked. We are just trying to get to the truth of who said what, and when. But she could not help herself yesterday, she had to be condescending.

Then, last night at around nine o'clock, she made a statement saying, 'Oops, I made a mistake.' After trying to tell us she was above reproach and had got it all right, she comes in and suddenly admits that her chief of staff has shares in the company—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What time was it?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it was around nine o'clock, a long time after question time. Today in questioning, she further tried to defend the fact that somehow it is all above board because the shareholding does not return any money. The fact, as she has provided rather unwillingly, is that there is a link between a company who lobbies on behalf of Cadbury and her chief of staff. But we have not gotten to the bottom of this yet because we have not quite gotten to all the truth. Today, as I said, she tried to defend the fact that, somehow, because it is not a monetary matter, it does not matter.

Today, she also told us that she has taken advice from the Prime Minister's Office. When we asked what that advice was about, we were suddenly told that she was not going to declare it. If the senator has nothing to hide, let us get the facts out, but so far we have had a refusal to answer questions from the media. Simple questions put yesterday by Senator Wong were refused to be answered. Further questions put by Senator Wong and Senator McLucas today have again not been answered fully. So Senator Nash is not yet off the hook, and the government cannot defend a matter where we do not have the truth. What is the truth of this matter?

The fact is that her chief of staff should not be in a position that deals with the food industry and its representatives, who his wife represents. Senator Nash needs to come clean and tell us exactly what has been going on. We will not let this matter rest. You can insult us all you like, but the truth is there and we are out to uncover it. Senator Nash, you have been asked three times so far. Let us get to the truth of it. I wonder if there will be another statement tonight. Let us wait and see. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.