Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

There is a clear prohibition, a blanket ban, on ministers acting in any way to assist a private company for business. Section 2.20 of the code of conduct is absolutely clear on this. We had a situation at the beginning of this where the Prime Minister said he needed to investigate. The investigation was made clear the moment this minister came to the dispatch box for the first time, because what he provided was the confession. He said to the parliament, 'Yes, I was there in a personal capacity.' That is it. That is the breach. You do not need anything more than that. The only thing they could possibly be investigating is whether or not he lied to the parliament when he said that—in which case he should go for misleading the parliament. No matter which way you look at it, from the moment the Minister for Human Services came to the dispatch box and said he was there in a personal capacity the issue was over.

When he did so in opposition, he was not under the ministerial code of conduct. There will be backbenchers over there who will help different businesses in their electorate—and they are allowed to do it. But, when you are a minister, you are always representing Australia. As a minister in the Australian government, you do not have the right to say, 'This bit's just for the donor; I'll take the hat off,' and then go out to a foreign government and think, 'Maybe they won't notice I'm here as a private citizen.' Does he really think he is such a genius that the company wanted him there because of the glory of the private citizen named Stuart Robert? Or did they want to have a representative of the Australian government in the room because it would be to their advantage?

There will be many occasions when ministers quite properly assist companies. We paid tribute today to the Minister for Trade, who is regularly on trade delegations helping companies. He does so in an official capacity. He does so representing Australia. You cannot do it on the basis that you do not tell the Department of Foreign Affairs that you are helping a company. You cannot do it on the basis of, 'This business has been good to me, so maybe I'll get away with it.' When you take on a position as part of the executive, whether as a minister or a parliamentary secretary, you take on a responsibility and you do not just get to look after the donors to your campaigns. You have a responsibility that, whatever you do, you do on behalf of this nation. That is why 2.20 exists. That is why successive Prime Ministers have made sure that that clause goes into the code of conduct—because we cannot have a situation, particularly in Defence of all portfolios, where someone goes off to a foreign government and the foreign government knows that there is an Australian minister present but the Australian government does not, where the government of China comes out of the meeting with detailed notes and the department of foreign affairs in Australia has no idea that the meeting ever occurred. This is why we have a statement of ministerial responsibility. The entire reason for a code goes to these sorts of issues.

The Prime Minister has a really simple choice. One of two things has to go: either the code goes or that minister goes. There is no way of keeping both. The minister has responded by treating this parliament with absolute contempt. When he is given a question and is told, 'By the way, the answer to this was not in your statement,' he thinks it oh so clever to say, 'I refer you to my statement.' We know it is not there. He is simply treating the parliament with absolute contempt.

Prime Minister, if you remain indecisive, if you think this minister is going to keep hanging around, do not think the issue will go away. We have already seen Senator Sinodinos start to muse on the possibility that your predecessor, the previous Prime Minister, might have given the authority for this. Have no doubt, if you want to run the argument that you are going to keep the minister by throwing your predecessor under a bus, it will not just be people on this side who will be outraged, it will not be just people in the Australian public who will feel a level of contempt; people on your side, Prime Minister, know exactly that you are setting a different set of rules— (Time expired)

See this speech in context