Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers to questions asked by Senator Wong, Senator Gallacher and Senator Jacinta Collins during question time today.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's all about you, isn't it?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is; thank you, Senator Bernardi. No, in fact it is about Mr Brough and whether there is a case to be answered. This, once again, was the subject of discussion in question time today. As we have heard, the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, says, 'There's nothing new here, so there is no case to answer,' and refuses to engage with serious questions about whether he conducted due diligence in the appointments he made to his executive. Again today we heard from Senator Sinodinos that there are still no answers to very important questions about what due diligence was conducted in the appointment—a very important appointment—of a man who would be Special Minister of State, and integrity and the responsibilities that are involved in that role.

Let us look at the reason that many feel there is a case to be answered. The first and most obvious is that Mr Brough himself confessed on 60 Minutes. Let me go to exactly what he confessed to. The question from Liz Hayes was:

Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you?

Mal Brough's answer:

Yes, I did.

For him to suggest that it was not a clear question and maybe he was not in proper mind when he gave that answer is just ludicrous.

But let us look at the next issue that was canvassed in question time today, and that was with respect to the warrant. Again, I am incredulous that the first law officer of the land can suggest that warrants are just handed out willy-nilly and they do not really matter and it is not really important because guilt has not been established. As Senator Wong's question pointed out, guilt had not yet been established in relation to Senator Sinodinos but he was required to stand down. The only justification that there is no change in the ministerial standards of practice would be us going back to the John Howard approach to the ministerial standards, which is to pretend that they do not exist. So we have them; we just do not apply them.

Given that we do understand that a warrant does require the Australian Federal Police—and remember this is the Australian Federal Police—to establish reasonable grounds and that these cases are not to be taken lightly, it is incredulous that, as Attorney-General, Senator Brandis would suggest that it just does not really matter and that there is no case to be answered. What he hides behind, as I said, is that guilt has not been established. That is not the standard that has been applied in the past. What he is in fact doing is stonewalling. We saw that stonewalling last week when, as representing the Prime Minister here, he refused to take on notice questions to the Prime Minister regarding what due diligence the new Prime Minister conducted in this matter in establishing his new executive.

Today we saw another case of stonewalling when he did not answer my question in relation to what other members of the coalition frontbench were involved in this matter. He has refused to answer that question—a very important question—and one can only ask why. Is it a level of arrogance that this government should not be held accountable? Is it a level of arrogance that due diligence is not something that should be required in relation to very important appointments? Does he think that there genuinely is no case to answer when a minister of the government confesses on national television that he sought to procure Peter Slipper's diary using James Ashby? Of course there is a case to be answered. What is more concerning, though, is the quality of these question time answers and the stonewalling that has occurred for two days now on very important questions. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may have escaped the attention of Labor senators in this place—it might have even escaped the attention of Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition—but time is running out for the Australian Labor Party. This year, 2015, was meant to be the year of big ideas for the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

I know that you are not inclined to trust things from a coalition senator, but it is now the end of November and tomorrow is the beginning of December. Time is running out. We thought that this was going to be the year of big ideas, but what did we get in today's question time in the Australian Senate? We had a lame question from Senator Collins with respect to the so-called James Ashby affair and we had a lame question from Senator Gallacher.

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

I will specifically address your question in a moment, Senator Gallacher, because the way that you presented the submarine issue was not entirely accurate. This is where we are up to on 30 November, with one more month and just a few sitting days to go, in Labor's year of big ideas. You would think that, having announced a big idea on the weekend—a big idea that is going to cost Australian families and Australian businesses—and announcing his climate change targets, Bill Shorten might have instructed his Labor senators to come into the Australian Senate and argue—

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

Senator Smith, I am struggling to see the relevance to the question before us. I might just remind you of the question. It is that the Senate take note of the answers to questions asked by Senators Wong, Gallacher and Collins.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for your Christmas leniency and Christmas cheer, Deputy President. Let me refer specifically to two issues. The first is the so-called James Ashby affair. The Prime Minister has made his position crystal clear on this issue. He has said, firstly, that he has confidence in the member for Fisher as the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science. He has said that Mr Brough is cooperating with the police and there is nothing at this stage to suggest that he should stand aside in accordance with the statement of ministerial standards. Finally, the Prime Minister has said that any investigation should be allowed to take its course if it is necessary. Those are the facts. Questions in relation to the Ashby affair do not need to find themselves in the Australian Senate question time. In the year of big of ideas, there should be other issues worthy of prosecution by Labor Party senators.

Let us go back to Senator Gallacher's question on submarine contracts and let us again get some facts on the table. Importantly, what was Labor's record when it came to submarine contracting? Where did Labor leave Australia's naval capabilities at the end of their six-year tenure? The first point is a simple one. The former government failed to make a decision on the Future Submarine project, risking a critical security and capability gap. That was your legacy, Senator Gallacher. Now Senator Gallacher and others say that they want a tender process. Who should we trust on this matter? Let's trust the Australian Defence department. The Australian Defence department says that a tender process, as proposed by Labor, would risk at least another five-year delay in the program and bring about yet another critical capability gap.

We had six years of inaction under Labor's alternative plan and they want another five years of delay—an 11-year capability gap for our naval forces. Instead, what the coalition has done is put in place a very robust process to choose the best possible submarine capability for the best price while at the same time maximising Australia's industry involvement. That has to be a good outcome. Why do we know that is a good outcome? Let's not listen to what coalition senators say. Let's not listen to what Labor senators might say. Let's listen to what Brent Clarke said from DCNS. What did he say? For those who are not aware: DCNS are very significant French naval shipbuilders. What did they say? On 25 May, Brent Clarke—more informed dare I say than anyone in this Senate chamber—said, 'It is pretty simple— (Time expired)

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

I rise to make a comment with respect to answers given to questions by senators Wong and Collins. I commence my contribution by making the observation that there is a very dark shadow hanging over the integrity of the Turnbull government. We know that there was an opportunity for the government, for the Prime Minister, to answer some of the questions which need to be answered in relation to the behaviour of Mr Brough and his own admissions on prime time television, but unfortunately the questions remain unanswered. It is the responsibility of the opposition to continue to seek the answers. The Australian people need to be confident that the Turnbull government is, in fact, addressing the issues that it needs to address.

Senator Collins identified that it was Mr Brough's own words last year in the 60 Minutes program which have electrified the debate. Senator Collins has already drawn attention to this. When asked on 60 Minutes if he has asked Mr Ashby to produce copies of Mr Slipper's diary for him, the now Special Minister of State admitted, 'Yes, I did.' That is quite a significant statement by a person who is now the Special Minister of State.

We need to understand that Mr Brough is not only a minister of the Commonwealth; he is also a Special Minister of State, and being a Special Minister of State entails being responsible for a whole range of matters to do with integrity of government, including the Australian Electoral Commission and the entitlement system for members of the parliament. This is a responsibility which requires him to exercise the highest standards of judgement and integrity. When a person presents themselves and in their own words identifies the fact that they have prima facie committed an act which may well be contrary to the law—and that is a matter that needs to be determined—when a person makes an admission like that, and the person holds that particular position of Special Minister of State, I think it is incumbent on the opposition to ask questions about this and to seek the appropriate assurances and answers.

In the other place the Prime Minister was given an opportunity to be more fulsome in his explanation. In terms of identifying the decision-making processes behind, for example, the elevation of Mr Brough to the position of Special Minister of State—we know that Mr Brough was a supporter of Mr Turnbull in the change of prime ministership—the question remains hanging in the air as to whether or not Mr Brough was elevated into the position because of the fact that he has been of some political assistance to the Prime Minister. What decision-making processes were brought to bear by the Prime Minister in elevating Mr Brough? Surely Mr Turnbull was aware of what had been said on the 60 minutes program last year. He would have been aware of what transpired in relation to the events concerning Mr Slipper. These are matters which are on the public record.

In answer to Senator Collins's question, Senator Brandis gave the indication that the fact that a search warrant has been issued in respect of Mr Brough, and that police have visited Mr Brough's home, is something which should just be brushed off, not worthy of much comment. 'Nothing to see here. Let's move along.' But we do know that search warrants are not issued lightly, and there must be some reasonable grounds before these things are exercised, so there are questions to be answered— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me no pleasure to rise and have to rebut some of the spurious arguments that have been put forward by those on the other side. It concerns me, in fact, not least of all that those who are most vocal in their interjections are the ones who are probably muckraking the most over this circumstance. What we do know is that the Prime Minister of the day will choose those people whom he believes are appropriate for the portfolios in which they will serve the people of Australia. Simply because one of the Prime Minister's chosen ministers is assisting police in establishing the facts and circumstances surrounding the demise of Labor's sleazy own pick for Speaker of the House of Representatives under Julia Gillard's tutelage I think is not cause for alarm. What would be more alarming would be if there were no cooperation taking place, but indeed there has been. The fact that Mr Brough has nothing to hide came through abundantly clear in the 60 Minutes interview, to which those opposite continue to refer.

What I do not think is appropriate, and I think the Australian people share my point of view, is politicians acting as judge, jury and some sort of character executioner by standing in this place and using parliamentary privilege to throw down all sorts of smears of which they have no further evidence. We have seen accusations of hypocrisy being levelled before in this space. If I may recall, many of those who are firing the arrows and the bullets from the other side were the same staunch defenders of one Craig Thomson.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure I need to remind you, but I will anyway, for those opposite who continue to chirp and interject, that Craig Thomson has been convicted of using a union credit card for all sorts of expenses that took advantage—

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I understand that Senator Bernardi is uncomfortable defending anybody who has the name 'Malcolm', but could you please direct him to debate the issues in the questions that were asked. Mr Thomson, to whom he is now referring, did not come up in any way, shape or form in question time. I would ask you to bring him back to trying to defend Mr Brough.

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

Senator Bernardi on the point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am simply drawing parallels about the conduct of individuals in this parliament versus in the previous parliament, Mr Deputy President. It is entirely relevant.

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

I do not believe there is a point of order.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I was saying, there are those who are quick to rush to judgment of a matter and circumstances in the current environment, who are equally quick, and unwisely so might I add, in their defence of Craig Thomson. Mr Craig Thomson was a valuable and trusted member of the Gillard government, as was repeated on occasion after occasion. He was also trusted by the membership of the Health Services Union, although he spent their money on prostitutes and on a range of dodgy expenses, for which he has found himself in the courts. We knew on this side how guilty Mr Thomson was but we chose to let justice play out, rather than rush to judgment ourselves.

The difference here is that those on the other side are making accusations while the police are conducting their inquiries. I find this extraordinary. The parliament deserves better than the kangaroo court being levelled by the Labor Party. We have to encourage all members in this place to participate as fully as possible in any police investigation so that they can clear up any abnormalities or misconceptions. While that is taking place, we should be spared from the childish accusations from those on the other side who have suddenly discovered 60 Minutes a year after the program went to air. Not one of them has the character to condemn one of their own. Not one of them has the character to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong. The only thing they are capable of doing is pursuing petty, partisan, political point scoring—the four Ps, for those on the over side. That is because they have nothing else going for them. They do not have a base, a principle on which to stand. The only thing they have is their partisan politics and that is something we need less of in this place. (Time expired)