Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment to settle litigation which alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse of AIH—a devastating collapse which saw thousands of Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs will resume his seat.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

The member for Deakin is warned. I am going to need to hear the question again to judge whether it is in order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too gutless to go outside the parliament, aren't you!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will leave under 94(a).

The member for Bradfield then left the chamber.

The member for Isaacs will ask his question again. Just before you do, I will make it very clear: I am not going to keep repeating myself. All interjections are disorderly, but, when I have made it clear to the House that I am seeking to hear the question again because I have been prevented due to interjections, anyone who interjects is in very grave danger.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements on secret payments and should government policy be extended to him? Can the Prime Minister confirm that he was party to a secret payment to settle litigation which alleged he personally breached corporations law in the collapse of AIH—a devastating collapse which saw thousands of Australians left with worthless insurance policies? Is this another example, just like penalty rates, where the Prime Minister believes it is one rule for him and his big business friends and another for workers?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having had the opportunity to now listen to the question, I say to the member for Isaacs that a large part of that question relates to a time prior to the Prime Minister assuming office and, indeed, prior to him becoming a member of parliament.

Opposition members interjecting—

If members want to interject on me, I will just move on and we will not have the question at all. The rules for questions and answers are very different, and members know that—particularly former ministers who are now shadow ministers. Only the first part of that question is in order.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's policy is that trade unions who take secret payments—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members will cease holding up props. The member for Hindmarsh is warned. The members who have been warned will now leave under 94(a), and they include the member for Lindsay. If there are any others, you are lucky. But, at the rate you are behaving, I will get you soon.

The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trade unions claim to be representing their workers. They are fiduciaries; they are in a positon of trust. We say, and the law will say, that they cannot take payments from the people with whom they are negotiating on behalf of their members. And that is the point. It is about accountability; it is about honesty; it is about integrity. The fact that the member for Isaacs stoops so low shows what a raw nerve we have hit. The one thing the Leader of the Opposition will not do is say what the half-a-million dollars was really for—what the $300,000 was really for or what the $32,000 was really for. He can set everybody's mind at rest: if he is so proud of this record let him tell the truth.