Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments he made on 2 October last year that he had asked Labor’s national secretary to conduct an internal investigation into the Transport Workers Union slush fund, allegedly used to illegally support Labor candidates. I also refer the Prime Minister to his comments on 8 October that the investigation was still underway and that the national secretary would make a statement about the findings. Prime Minister, has the Labor Party national secretary made any such statement? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no Transport Workers Union slush fund money was used to support Labor candidates at the last federal election, including the candidates featured, signing a pledge to that union, in the TWU election brochure I have here—namely, the members for Charlton, Robertson, Dobell and Lindsay?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the past, speakers have ruled out of order questions of this nature, which go to the organisational responsibility of the party rather than to the parliamentary wing of a political party.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The middle part of the question, which directly went to whether the national secretary had done this or that, was out of order. The introduction and the latter part of the question, I will allow.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, there is a rich history in this place of such questions being asked, including, I recall, questions to the previous Prime Minister about the activities of the Liberal Party and to the previous Deputy Prime Minister about the activities of the National Party. I ask that you reconsider the decision if you are heading down the path of ruling that part of the question out of order.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made a ruling where I have allowed the introduction and the last part but not the bit in the middle that asks the Prime Minister what the actions of the national secretary were.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the point of order, the middle part of the question is, and I quote:

I also refer the Prime Minister to … comments on 8 October that the investigation was still underway and that the national secretary would make a statement about the findings.

That is the middle part of the question, which relates specifically to comments made by the Prime Minister. So I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that that part of the question is in fact in order because it relates directly to comments made by the Prime Minister himself.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney for their submissions, but I am standing by my earlier ruling. I make the observation that it is very difficult when these questions arise about statements that have been made by the Prime Minister before becoming the Prime Minister. I allowed the earlier questions today because I understood the intent with which the questions were being put about the Prime Minister’s ability to carry out his duties. This goes to matters that are in the political party arena. To that extent the Prime Minister may comment, which is why I am allowing those aspects of the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am particularly grateful for the intervention by the member for North Sydney, because he was the minister at the time. When these matters came to the public debate, he was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Insofar as I can work out, the minister in that capacity referred these allegations to a range of different investigative bodies. He referred these matters to (1) the Australian Electoral Commission, (2) the Australian Taxation Office and (3) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Workplace Authority and the Australian Industrial Registry also undertook inquiries—that is five. Referring matters to specialised areas of government at both a state and a federal level ensures that the body with the appropriate legislative responsibilities and investigative powers can undertake a thorough examination of the issues. The appropriate course here is to allow these investigations, which are on foot, including that of the AEC, to proceed.

On the statement by the national secretary of the Labor Party: I will check where that is up to and whether his investigations have concluded. I say again that I encourage anyone who has any information relevant to these matters to submit it to the relevant authorities, of which there are a large number conducting investigations based on the actions by the minister when he exercised a ministerial office on this side of the House.