Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

It has certainly been a weird week in national politics—a truly amazing week. I would like to reflect on some of the events that we have seen over the past week. At the press gallery ball, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition confronting a staff member of the Prime Minister, effectively threatening him and trying to bully him. We have seen the opposition accusing the Prime Minister of corruption—pretty much the most serious accusation that you can make against a Prime Minister—without the slightest shred of any evidence. We have seen a public servant telling an inquiry that he thought he had an email from the Prime Minister’s office—there was no copy of it available—but he could be mistaken.

We have seen the Liberal Party—the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Liberal Party—after weeks of scuttling around the corridors to the gallery and elsewhere peddling this email and, indeed, confronting one of the Prime Minister’s staff members with its existence and also being the first to publish the contents of the email—namely, Senator Abetz in the Senate inquiry hearing on Friday. Subsequently, we have seen them back-pedalling furiously from any connection with this email, once it had been established that the email was a fake. We have seen them claim that their accusations of corruption against the Prime Minister, which were made so unequivocally on Friday, were entirely based on Mr Grech’s evidence and had nothing to do with any purported email—this was after their having peddled the existence of such a document around the place for weeks. This claim, according to their own words, now rests purely on the fact that Mr Grech said at the Senate inquiry that he thought he could recollect such an email but, then again, he might be wrong and he did not actually have any copy of it. This is hardly a firm foundation for an accusation of corruption against the Prime Minister.

We have even seen things get to the ludicrous point yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition suggested that perhaps the demeanour of Mr Grech in the Senate inquiry could be explained by the fact that he is a little bloke and he was sitting next to another bloke from Treasury who was a big bloke and who was maybe physically intimidating him. That illustrates the level to which the opposition’s dialogue on this issue has got. That illustrates where things have got to. Finally, and most recently, we have seen members of the Liberal Party leaking to the ABC, telling Chris Uhlmann from ABC TV, that the Leader of the Opposition had extensive connections with Mr Grech.

Today, to culminate all of this, we have hit the jackpot. After his own case has collapsed in total embarrassment, the Leader of the Opposition is now moving for a judicial inquiry into the entire affair. We have established a few political firsts today during question time. We have had not once but twice the opposition trying to gag ministers while they were answering questions. We have had two suspension motions moved during question time. I cannot remember that happening before. In fact, we have had three in one day. We have had one of those suspension motions ruled out of order because of the fact that the opposition did not realise that they could not put exactly the same motion twice within the one session. To cap it all off, we have had the Manager of Opposition Business stand up and complain about the member for North Sydney being thrown out because he was moving the matter of public importance debate today, not knowing that in fact it was the Leader of the Opposition who was to move that matter of public importance.

That is a pretty good list of political firsts today, but they are all put into the shade by the ultimate political first—the Leader of the Opposition moving for a judicial inquiry into these events. He is effectively standing up and demanding a judicial inquiry into himself. That is the true import of what the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing. This must be the first occasion in Australian political history where a leader of a party has stood up and demanded a judicial inquiry into himself. That would have to be an Australian first. There are some odd aspects to his proposal, even on the terms as he expresses them. The proposed judicial inquiry would investigate the behaviour of the Prime Minister and his staff. Yet, as far as we understand it, the opposition is now conceding that the alleged email from the Prime Minister was a fake and, indeed, the case of corruption against the Prime Minister cannot be sustained. So why they are now asserting that there needs to be a judicial inquiry into the Prime Minister’s behaviour after they have conceded that there is no case to answer is a bit hard for me to understand.

I note that the opposition did indicate, at least in a very general way, that they might be prepared to provide information to the Australian Federal Police about their own computers and what, if any, role they have had in the dissemination, promotion and propagation of this email. But they are yet to actually clarify precisely where they stand on this question. After all of their behaviour in making completely baseless, unfounded accusations of corruption against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, for them to now seek to establish a judicial inquiry into this matter is simply astonishing. It is a bit like the Moran family calling for an inquiry into organised crime.

Let us be clear here: the person with the questions to answer is the Leader of the Opposition. He is the person who has serious questions to answer here, not the Prime Minister—no evidence has been presented to show that he has done anything wrong whatsoever, and the opposition has conceded that the case is not sustained—and not the Treasurer: all the opposition has done is highly selectively and misleadingly grab a few facts out of a wide range of facts, present them in a most tendentious way and make the most grossly inflated and ludicrous claims against the Treasurer, which are completely without foundation. So they do not have any case to answer. The only person who has a case to answer, the only person who has to answer some serious questions here, is the Leader of the Opposition. He has to be in the dock himself on his involvement in these matters and also in the political dock on his judgment in the way that he has dealt with the issue.

I suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a few of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition could consider answering are: when did he or other members of the opposition first see the fake email? Do any of the opposition members have copies of the email on their computer systems? How many times has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to Mr Grech in recent times and what about? Are there any email exchanges with Mr Grech? Which journalists did the opposition promote this email to? How long have they been boasting about having a smoking gun around the corridors of parliament to journalists and others? And, particularly, will they enable the AFP to examine their computers? Will they give unfettered access to their computer records and computer data? So it is the Leader of the Opposition who has got the serious questions to answer.

He has also got to answer for the bad judgment in making an impetuous, irresponsible call off the back of no evidence to assert to the Australian people that our Prime Minister is corrupt and is telling lies to the Australian people. That is an extremely serious accusation. He is now saying that he made that accusation on the basis of a statement by a public servant at a Senate committee hearing that the public servant thought he might have received an email from the Prime Minister’s office but then again he might be wrong and, by the way, there is no copy of that email. In the opposition leader’s own words, that is the basis for an assertion that the Prime Minister of this country is corrupt. That tells you everything you need to know about the character and the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition—completely intemperate, completely unbalanced, completely obsessed with obtaining power at all costs, going totally over the top and prepared to do and say anything in order to further his objectives.

Like some in the government I have had a bit of experience of opposition. In fact, I was in opposition for quite a long time and I was a shadow minister for virtually all of that time. Over those years I have been involved in a number of very prominent controversies in circumstances where information that could be damaging to the government comes to you in a variety of different ways and sometimes in unusual ways. I had involvement in the waterfront dispute and the outrageous training of industrial mercenaries in Dubai to replace the sacked waterfront workforce. I had involvement in exposing the role a former transport minister played in trying to sack people from the CASA board. We had the ensuing travel rorts issues, Peter Reith’s telecard—and the list goes on. So I have had a fair involvement from that side in tackling controversial issues and attacks on the government. One thing I learned in those processes is that you approach those controversies with great caution because inevitably around this place false documents, furphies, gossip, lies and all kinds of things surface. They come from all parts of the country and all sorts of weird stuff swirls around. It is the nature of politics. But political leaders have to have the judgment to know that they cannot just simply grab hold of something that is tantalising and tempting and throw it into the public domain without accepting responsibility for the implicit assertion that they are making against the character of the people who are being attacked.

That is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition has done. He has been prepared to publicly accuse the Prime Minister of corruption and lying off the back of no substantive evidence. A more temperate leader, a leader with character and judgment would have looked at the email and said: ‘This is not enough. I cannot put this out into the public domain. I cannot make an assertion on the basis of Mr Grech’s contradictory and confusing statements to the Senate. I will have to hold my fire and restrain myself to asking questions.’ There is a lot of rubbish that circulates in the political process and it takes genuine leadership to be able to sort out the rubbish and the fakes from the stuff that is serious.

We need to understand here that, by his impetuosity, his egocentricity and his blind arrogance, the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated to the Australian people that he is unfit to lead this nation. For the person who is auditioning for the role that could be central to decisions like taking Australia to war or dealing with an economic crisis, the question that the Australian people need to ask off the back of this whole affair is, ‘Do we want this man’s finger on the button?’ He has demonstrated that he has major character flaws that cannot be allowed in a prime minister of this nation, irrespective of which party they represent. He has shown he is prepared to do whatever it takes to win power and whatever it takes to slur the character of the Prime Minister, but what he has not shown is character, judgment and balance in pursuing the interests of this nation.

We have also seen that his own colleagues are now deserting him with great rapidity. They are divided on the big issues—climate change, changes to asylum seeker laws and the nation-building bills, where they managed to vote three separate ways. It was the first time in Australian political history that a major political party has somehow voted three different ways on the same piece of legislation. We had Liberal-National Party members defying their leader on the alcopops legislation a day or two ago. They are about to defy him on the asylum seeker legislation. We have had his own party leaking to the ABC the suggestion that he has had extensive reliance on and contacts with Mr Grech in the recent past. And we have had the infamous behaviour of the member for North Sydney on Lateline. When he was asked about what discussions had occurred between Mr Grech and Mr Turnbull, he responded by saying, ‘Well, that’s a matter for Malcolm Turnbull and Godwin Grech.’ That is really going into the trenches to defend your leader. He was then asked by Tony Jones:

So the buck does not stop with Malcolm Turnbull for what is being identified by many people as a tactical blunder and a disaster?

The member for North Sydney response was:

Well, you know what, Tony, I’m part of a team. I mean, you don’t always agree with individual decisions that are made by individual players in the team.

In other words, he is saying, ‘I am cutting him loose; I am not going to support my leader.’ The rats are deserting the sinking ship. I have a solution to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition. As somebody who has experienced opposition for a long time and known some dark days, you know what you have got to do—hold a retreat. All go away for a weekend together to the Blue Mountains or Thredbo or somewhere like that and hold a retreat. I can tell you that it is a lot of fun. You can all sit around and hold hands together and sing Kum Bi Yah, have a nice drink and have a singalong and that will solve the Liberal Party’s problem.

What is going on here is a giant smokescreen by the Leader of the Opposition because he refuses to front up and explain his full role in this affair and because he refuses to answer questions about his contacts with Mr Grech. He is seeking to move something and obfuscate his role by saying, ‘Let’s have a judicial inquiry into everything, including people who I have already conceded have got no case to answer.’ The whole purpose of the Leader of the Opposition proposing this is to obfuscate the fact that he is refusing to come clean on his role in this exercise. That is the whole reason this is being proposed to the House today.

This issue is not just about leaked documents either. I am afraid that his excuse—saying, ‘Sorry, I can’t reveal my sources’—when you have the possibility of serious crimes being committed, is very flimsy indeed. It is not just a public servant leaking cabinet documents here; you have the possibility of serious criminal offences being committed and the Leader of the Opposition is refusing to cooperate. He is refusing to tell the full story of his involvement in the affair. He is taking refuge in the political equivalent of the Fifth Amendment in this whole issue. Moving for a judicial inquiry is simply a smokescreen to try to distract attention from his culpability in this issue. All he needs to do is the right thing: explain to the Australian people his role in this whole tawdry affair! (Time expired)

See this speech in context