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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to be accountable to the Australian people.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important matter, because, of course, wherever you look with respect to this government, it fails to give account to the Australian people. Whether it be providing $80 billion to the big end of town or whether it's, indeed, failing to account for a number of areas of public policy, we see ministers in this government failing to be transparent and failing to account for their actions.

Of course, that's been underlined most dramatically today when we've seen again Minister Cash failing to come clean about her level of involvement—the extent and nature of her involvement—in relation to the unlawful leak to the media about the police raids on AWU offices seven months ago. For the last seven months, we've seen obfuscation and cover-up by this government. In fact, in October last year the minister, Senator Cash, in answers to questions in the Senate on five separate occasions, misled the parliament when she said that her office was not involved in unlawfully providing information to media about police raids. The fact is that since that time we have not seen any effort by the minister to account for herself, and today in a press conference she's made very clear that she will ensure she'll spend taxpayer's dollars avoiding the courts as well. This is a minister who refuses to account to the parliament and doesn't want to account to the courts. She wants to avoid accountability and does not want to tell the truth when it comes to this very serious matter, and the fact is we can't allow this to continue.

This is actually consistent with the conduct of this minister for many, many months. Firstly, we saw the minister appoint a commissioner to the ABCC who had, indeed, deliberately provided unlawful advice and placed that on the website. We saw the same minister appoint 11 consecutive employer based commissioners to the Fair Work Commission, which added to the three appointments by Senator Abetz when he was minister. That's 14 consecutive commissioners now that come from one side of the bargaining table. We've seen, of course, the efforts by the minister to avoid accountability in relation to these matters. But this matter here is of most importance, because for seven months we have had a failure to account for her conduct and the conduct of her office.

We do know, of course, that the staffer who made admissions to the minister about leaking that information has left the office of the minister. We also know that there are now four staff members of that office that have left, yet we have not actually been provided with any information as to why they have departed the minister's office. Today, of course, we've seen the court subpoena not only the minister but, indeed, the head of the Registered Organisations Commission, the former employee of the minister's office and a former employee of the Registered Organisations Commission. These matters should be answered. If the minister thinks it's okay to spend taxpayers' money to seek to set aside the subpoena so she won't account to the court, the question has to be asked: what does she have to hide? What does she have to hide to avoid these court proceedings, and why is it that, when she's been asked questions in Senate estimates and in the Senate, she has sought to claim a defence of public interest immunity to avoid answering any questions of the Senate?

The highest obligation of a minister of the Crown is to account for and be responsible for their conduct. The fact is that, under the Westminster system, ministers are responsible for the conduct of their office. So already it's clear, given the conduct of the office of Minister Cash, that she should have already resigned. She should have resigned seven months ago. Since then she has failed to answer any questions in relation to further conduct by that office, and the conduct of herself, and for that reason she should be censured by the parliament and she should resign or, indeed, if she fails to resign, the Prime Minister should sack her.

The Prime Minister in the last seven months has defended the minister when she has refused to answer any questions in relation to this matter. This is a sordid saga. This is a seven-month scandal that will not go away. There will be court proceedings that will, of course, be heard in several months. Meanwhile, we have a minister who refuses to do her job. We have a minister who refuses to attend Senate estimates late yesterday and, indeed, all of today. She's in the building, she's in the parliament and she's there to do her day job, but she doesn't turn up to do that. The fact is you cannot continue to have a minister who represents the junior minister at the table in the Senate not turn up to act on his behalf. She's scheduled to turn up. She's actually in attendance in the parliament but refuses point blank to turn up to the Senate budget estimates and answer questions. Well, frankly, this is an untenable position for Minister Cash and this is an untenable position for the Prime Minister too. He cannot keep defending the indefensible in relation to this matter. There is no defence to suggest that the minister is not answerable to the parliament. The fact is she continues, of course, to argue otherwise.

It's not just in relation to Minister Cash that we see this lack of accountability; it also applies to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has failed the Australian people. The Prime Minister seeks to introduce his central tax plan to provide $80 billion of taxpayers' money to the big end of town. Frankly, this is very unfair on working people. This is very, very unfair on the millions of working people who require some support. It's unfair that we would seek to provide $80 billion of taxpayers' money to the big end of town and, at the same time, deprive workers of a decent wage increase. We've seen wages stagnating in this country. On 1 July this year there's a second round of penalty rate cuts for retail and hospitality workers. There's a bill that could be introduced into this parliament today by the minister at the table that would have the effect of stopping the penalty rates decision in its tracks and stopping further cuts, and yet, of course, we see the minister at the table, the Prime Minister and Minister Cash refuse to accept the argument that those workers should not have their wages cut in real terms.

This disregard for working people is quite remarkable from a Prime Minister who likes to argue that he cares about the Australian workforce. Frankly, if you look at the record of the Australian Prime Minister, he has no regard for the Australian workforce. He has no regard for hardworking people—middle-class and working-class Australians—who are struggling to make ends meet. All they wish to have is a decent pay raise. Of course we are not surprised that the Prime Minister doesn't have any empathy for these workers because, frankly, he doesn't understand. He does not understand the concerns, the needs and the aspirations of these workers. The Prime Minister likes to pretend he has regard for them, but he feels comfortable in the boardroom and he feels uncomfortable in workplaces. This is a Prime Minister who has invented a log cabin story. This is a Prime Minister who pretends he has a log cabin story, except, of course, the logs were made of bars of gold. The fact is this Prime Minister has never financially struggled in his life, and he has never had any regard for working people in his country. He never regards them when he introduces his policies.

The most remarkable thing is that we know that trickle-down economics don't work, but it works for the very few, including the Prime Minister. The richest man in the parliament, the biggest shareholder in the parliament, will be the biggest beneficiary of the trickle-down economics that are being introduced by this parliament. The budget is, of course, the values and the priorities of the Prime Minister writ large. He is a person who has no interest in working people. He is a former merchant banker who spends more time talking to bankers than he does talking to workers. It's this lack of accountability and this lack of regard for working people that we see every day in this place from this Prime Minister. That's the reality, whether it's Minister Cash, who refuses to appear in the parliament and is spending taxpayers' money refusing to go to court, or a Prime Minister who has no interest and lives in his social citadel at Point Piper instead of looking after decent working people in this country and giving those workers a pay rise.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. It's just more of the same. Where is one policy that those opposite have that will create one job? Where it is? It's non-existent. It was a wholehearted 10 minutes defending the indefensible, as per usual—their union puppet masters—and bagging and creating class envy, which is the only trick of this one-trick pony opposition.

I would like to make a couple of points with respect to the shadow minister's comments regarding, firstly, appointments on the Fair Work Commission. I noted with interest last week that apparently, according to him, we've stacked the joint. I would draw to his attention that currently, among those sitting on the Fair Work Commission, it is 51 per cent put there by Labor versus 49 per cent from us. We are, of course, the 49 per cent.

I will also say that, as the Prime Minister said in question time, there's a very simple way for the ROC, the Registered Organisations Commission: the action would never have been taken if the union had provided the documentation on the authorisation for the $100,000 of—and here's the key—union members' money. It's not the union delegates' money, it's not union bosses' money, it's not the Labor Party's money and it's definitely not the Leader of the Opposition's money; it is union members' money. Why is it that those opposite fight so hard against transparency—and here's the other misnomer—of not just unions but any registered organisation, yet, at the same time, at the back end of the banking royal commission—you watch them—they'll be calling for company directors to be hanged, drawn and quartered? That behaviour, if found to be true, should absolutely be penalised, and I note that the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services has already made indications that there'll be a considerable stiffening of penalties on the corporate side of the fence, as there should be. But there should be responsibility on anyone that looks after anyone else's money. There should be transparency for anyone that looks after anyone—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By banks?

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Banks, shareholders or members, no matter who they are—for the member for Wakefield's attention—they should be accountable to their members. But there is not one iota—it would be easy to throw this out by saying, 'Here's the paperwork; here's where the Leader of the Opposition, when in charge of the AWU, had authorisation to give GetUp! 100 grand.' They can't produce it, so they want to play games—smokescreens by their union bosses. They are in here prosecuting slander and class warfare, which is exactly all they are: one-trick ponies.

In terms of accountability, those opposite have not one policy for one job. We are responsible on this side for the policy settings that have enabled over one million jobs the economy has created and have enabled businesses to take on bank debt, back themselves and employ people over the past 4½ years. I spoke today in question time of the need for the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. Why? Because we have green shoots galore in construction.

Ms Butler interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is warned.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the last year of the Labor government, in 2012-13, 15,500 small and family businesses in construction closed, with a net decrease of 14,000 jobs. In the past 4½ years in construction, with the rule of law restored, there has been a net increase of 35,600 businesses, amounting to an increase in employment in the sector of 200,000 people, driven predominantly by small and family businesses taking on bank debt, backing themselves and employing people. Across the board, there have been 150,000 additional small businesses opened over the past 4½ years. Compare that to the last 12 months of the Rudd-Gillard government, when there was a net decrease in businesses in this country of 61,000, irrespective of the business's size. But in the past 12 months, just in small and family businesses—businesses with turnover of $10 million or less—65,000 have opened. In other words, in the last 12 months under the Turnbull coalition government, more small and family businesses have opened than the net decrease in businesses, irrespective of size, under the previous Rudd-Gillard government. As they say, if you want more of the same, re-elect them. You'll see it again. They will roll over and pay back their secret deals with their secret union mates.

I spoke about reducing red tape yesterday in question time. It has been reduced by $6 billion for businesses in the last 4½ years, and there has been an $800 million reduction in red tape in the last financial year. There is the instant asset write-off of $20,000. Free trade agreements have been used in my electorate, especially by young Australian entrepreneurs of Chinese descent, leveraging their family networks to distribute back in mainland China. There is the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. There are new forms of financing including crowdfunding. In the start-up sector, there are tax concessions to angel investors and early-stage venture capital investors. What has happened? We've seen an increase of over100 per cent in venture capital funds—not our work. It was AVCO, independent of government, availing us of that in the last few months. What we would see under those opposite would threaten all of that.

I do, again, want to make reference to something that my opponent said in his 10-minute diatribe. He mentioned penalty rates. Again, do you want to see hypocrisy? In 2010, the Fair Work Commission made a decision to reduce penalty rates in some awards. In 2010, the Labor Party were in control. There was not one word from any member opposite. Why? Because the Fair Work Commission was completely of their design. It was staffed with their people. It came up with the decision. There was not one word. That changed, however, in 2014, when they went into opposition. Again, in 2014, the Fair Work Commission reduced penalty rates for some awards. I quote directly the member for Gorton when he was asked about these penalty rate cuts:

We've always said that employment conditions should be considered properly and should be considered by the Fair Work Commission.

As he should do; they set it up. I agree with it. I'm arguing for the integrity of the Fair Work Commission.

The irony of where I find myself as the minister for industrial relations is that I am actually arguing for the integrity of the system—the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Commission—that the Labor Party set up. What else did we get under the last Labor government? We got jobless queues growing by 206,000 in their six-year tenure. What have we had? We have had one million new jobs created in the economy over the past 4½ years. In the last 12 months, 417,000—80 per cent cent—of those jobs were full-time. It's a record. We are into our 18th month of positive employment growth—yet another record. We're into our 27th year of continued economic growth, while those opposite want to continually try to obfuscate their union mates, whom, at the end of the day, they are here to represent. I don't mind that, because my family come from a union background.

There are good union members in this country. There are good union delegates in this country. There are good unions in this country. The ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission are there to hold to account those who fail that test. They are there to make sure that the rule of law on construction sites is adhered to. They are there to make sure that members' money is used appropriately. Is that fair? Yes, it is fair. It's absolutely fair. It's what every union member in this country should expect and, more importantly, be entitled to. If those opposite aren't going to insist on that happening, we are going to keep hearing cases of where it doesn't happen. Instead of coming in here and bagging the officials that hold rogue union delegates to account, they should come in here and condemn their abhorrent criminal behaviour. Do you hear 'boo'? No, you don't. You see secret deals being done by the Leader of the Opposition with a guy like John Setka, who has a rap sheet as long as your arm. As I said today in question time, no Australian would be proud of one iota of the 59 offences and nor would he be someone that they would want to associate with. However, that's not the case for the Leader of the Opposition. He is not only associating with him; he's relying on his votes so that he can maintain his slippery hold on leadership. If this country elects him, we are all up the creek without a paddle.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance is about accountability. We know that the greatest honour, other than being a member of this House or the other place, is to be a minister. It is a great honour. It's a great responsibility, because you hold great power—the power of the state and its agencies. We also know that parliament is the sentry to this extraordinary power. This is the heart of the Westminster system. The parliament reigns supreme. It is not just a tradition. It is not just a debating point. It exists in the Statement of Ministerial Standards. If you go to page 9 of this statement—and I recommend those opposite have a look at it—it says in clause 4.4:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

Now, we know that what's actually happening in this building today is that we've got a minister who will do anything but turn up to the parliament and account for her actions and the actions of her office and her agencies.

You think about the consequences of this. I know some members opposite think about the consequences of this. This is more than just the life of one government. It's about the standards that ministers are held to in this parliament. It is an important standard. Instead, we have a minister presiding over this mess, setting out to get the Leader of the Opposition, setting out to get the unions and setting out to embroil the government in this witch-hunt. In the process, the minister is creating this omnishambles, which is now consuming the actions of this government. We know what an omnishambles is. For those opposite, I will give you the definition: it is a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterised by a string of blunders or miscalculations. What better way to describe a minister who misleads the Senate and misleads the estimates five times, and then has to come back into the Senate and say, 'Oh, actually, a member of my own staff tipped off the media as to a police raid on a union office.' Now, she's in hiding behind whiteboards. She is in witness protection!

We know that this is a deliberate strategy of the government because in The Sydney Morning Herald article on 19 December 2017, entitled 'The winners and losers of Malcolm Turnbull's reshuffle', it says:

Michaelia Cash: despite a recent stumble when a member of her staff tipped off media about a police raid, she goes from Employment Minister to the new portfolio of Minister for Jobs and Innovation.

The Prime Minister set out, as a deliberate design, to reshuffle his government to avoid ministerial accountability and to avoid this parliament looking at this minister's conduct. This is an outrage. It is an absolute disgrace. I can't believe that we have ministers coming into this place and talking about jobs, talking about this and that, and not accounting for this minister, who is like Marcel Marceau behind the whiteboard. It is a joke. You are making this government, these ministerial standards and this Prime Minister a complete joke. I bet you were all hiding under your desks and you did not watch the press conference, but it was a cracker. The Sky News ticker said:

Senator Cash: I had nothing to do with the whiteboard. You think you were surprised …

The poor minister! It is everyone else's fault! It is the big mean unions, it is the nasty old Labor Party, it is the Department of Parliamentary Services! How cowardly do you have to be to blame the attendants in this building? It's the journalists! It's everyone else!

It is time for her to rock up to estimates and account for her actions. It is the bare minimum that a minister needs to do. If she can't do it, then the way open for her is just to resign. That's the Westminster tradition. That's what you should do. That's how you protect the government. Those opposite absolutely know that. They know that it's only a matter of time before this minister had to resign. Get it over with, because otherwise we'll deal with it parliamentary week after parliamentary week. It will cost this government more and more until election day, and then they'll be accountable to the Australian people.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always enjoy following the member for Wakefield. He is a passionate contributor, and he did get one thing right: this is about cash. We should talk about this mob over here, where they source their cash and what they do with it. Let's be very, very frank, there is no-one on that side of the room anymore who actually represents the working people in the country. Working people get up every single day, put on their hard hats, put on their high-vis, put on their safety boots and go to work.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about me, mate? I worked for a living. I worked on a farm. I picked fruit.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, we have one, the member for Wakefield has put himself forward. We have one. It's a great contribution. Those workers are out there every single day, doing the 20-on, eight-off shift and doing the 14-day swing shift. They are the ones who are working in the resources industry and working in power generation. They are working hard in very difficult conditions. And what happens every single fortnight? They get their payslip, and at the bottom of that is a contribution to the union for their membership.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have to join the union for that contribution to come out!

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield is warned!

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the work of the unions over many, many years. They have done things that are valuable. They are, in fact, a necessarily evil.

But let's look at where that money goes, because it goes into the union and we know that it now goes from the AWU to GetUp!—$100,000. And what does GetUp! do with that money? What do they do with it? They go out and run an anti-coal campaign. They go and run a campaign against the resources industry, to take the jobs away from the people making the contribution to the AWU, to the CFMEU, to what was the ETU, to Labor and to GetUp! to get rid of their jobs! What sort of circle is that? To make these contributions all the way round the circle, from hardworking people to unions, to Labor, to GetUp! to get rid of their industry? I mean, that is just outrageous!

How can they sit over there and say that they represent working people but want to close their industry? The resources industry is incredibly important to Australia: it is a very strong contributor to our GDP, it provides tens of thousands of jobs and we know that there are lobby groups out there like GetUp! that want them to be gone.

This $100,000, what was it? Was it Christmas? Was it Santa Claus? Did Santa decide that he should push $100,000 from the AWU across to GetUp!—really? Was it their birthday? Well, no, someone made a decision. And that decision was made by the Leader of the Opposition, the former head of the AWU, one Bill Shorten. Now, he should be accountable for those decisions, because that money is trying to get to rid of the jobs of the people who are making the contribution.

What do you say to the comrades? Well, comrades, we really want you to continue to contribute. We want you to continue to give us money so we can fight our good fight. But we also want you to be out of a job. We want your industry to be closed down. We do not want you to have a job at all. So we'll continue to go to GetUp! and continue to let them campaign. We'll let them campaign to shut your industry so that you no longer have a position and you can't pay your union fees and dues. I'm not sure what you think happens next, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would imagine there'd be no more contributions. I would imagine that there would be no more money to be paid.

But this debate is also about trust. Who do we trust? Do we trust the Leader of the Opposition? This is a man who goes to Melbourne and tells the people of Melbourne that he doesn't support the resources industry. In fact, he doesn't want to see the Galilee Basin opened. He thinks that's terrible because he's trying to win the Batman by-election. But when he goes to Biloela or Moranbah he has a completely different perception, and that is that he supports resources. So we can't trust the Leader of the Opposition on resources; we simply cannot.

Or what about energy? The contribution from the Labor Party is that they want a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target. This will drive up prices, there is no doubt about that at all. In fact, as an electrical engineer, I struggle to understand the concept where you would make your generation system—half of your capacity—a variable supply, one which doesn't work in the dark and won't work if it's calm. What do we do? Do we turn off half the nation when it doesn't operate?

These are the challenges that we need to look at. You cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition—you cannot trust him when it comes to resources, you cannot trust him when it comes to energy and you can't trust him on borders. We've heard this debate and we saw the contribution from Mr Dutton, the shareholding minister. What happens when there's a debate on? Well, they shut it down. We've certainly heard from Mr Dutton how that happens. You get your mates from the CFMEU to come down. And where do they get their funding from? From those poor, hardworking people who are out there doing their gig and looking for support from their unions and organisers, who take that money and want to get rid of their jobs. They want them gone. They want to open borders and they want to increase the cost of electricity. This is just an absolutely outrageous list of things that the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, and he cannot be trusted.

The last word should go to Mr Setka. Mr Setka was very, very clear in his quote when he was asked, 'Do you trust Bill Shorten?' Well, the short answer, in one second, was, 'No, I do not.'

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today's MPI really is about accountability, and today's question time was about bringing to account the behaviour and the actions of the minister. So far today, not one government member has defended the minister. No-one has got up and said, 'She's done a good job.' No-one has said, 'Well, she's achieved all these great things.' No-one is backing in the minister. That's because those on the other side simply do not believe in what the minister has done. If they had, they would be referencing it. The previous minister at the table, Minister Laundy, gave a spirited defence of everything other than Minister Cash. You have to put this into context: this is the same minister who, last Friday, didn't lodge his own nomination form to sit in this parliament. The New South Wales Liberal Party has had to extend and reopen nominations. It's bad enough for the member for Gilmore sitting here, who is now confirmed to be under challenge from a Mr Schultz in her own electorate; we're now seeing ministers fail to complete the most basic of paperwork to sit in this parliament.

Nothing is clearer when it comes to accountability than with respect to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation and her desperate attempt to escape any scrutiny over her involvement, and that of her office, in the leak to the media of the Registered Organisations Commission raid on the AWU offices. I will spend some time going through the history of this, which demonstrates very clearly the lack of accountability from the minister in the parliament. For seven months the minister has dodged, weaved and hidden behind whiteboards. I did laugh today when she was asked about the whiteboard incident in one of her rare media performances, and she said with a straight face:

Do you think you were surprised? You should have seen the look on my face.

We couldn't, because she was wheeling the whiteboard to hide from people.

We know the facts. In late October last year the minister misled the Senate five times by falsely denying that her office was the source of the leak, but lo and behold, after some time and reflection, a few hours later she walked in and said that her office was the source of the leak to the media and that her staff had informed unlawfully. The AFP quite rightly then launched a criminal investigation into the leak, and despite fessing up and owning that her office was the source of the leak, the minister won't disclose if she has been questioned or interviewed by the AFP—a pretty simple yes or no.

I don't say this lightly, but I believe this reeks of a cover-up. The minister is running away from any accountability. Now we're reaching a tipping point where the Prime Minister needs to reflect if Minister Cash is still the best person for the job. At this stage it appears she clearly does not want to be in that job. Budget estimates happen once a year, an important function in holding a government to account. It is Minister Cash's job as a minister of the Crown to turn up and answer questions. It is incumbent upon ministers to be there and answer questions truthfully, yet she is not there today and abandoned it yesterday. Instead, despite a unanimous request by the Senate committee for her to return to estimates later this afternoon to face the music, the minister has failed to offer any excuse as to why she believes she is above the standard set for representatives of the people.

It is not good enough. Members opposite should get up and criticise her for not doing her job and not being held accountable. We are accountable in this place. Forget all the rhetoric and nonsense that the government is saying. The minister is on trial today. She is the one responsible. She is the one avoiding scrutiny. Perhaps the minister was not in the building this morning. She may in good conscience have had more important parliamentary work to attend to. But I'm advised that the minister was in the building during Senate estimates today, sitting down instead with the member for Gilmore making Facebook videos. The topic of discussion? Providing flexibility for older Australians when it comes to working. I know the member for Gilmore is under pressure because she is being challenged, despite the Prime Minister offering her support— (Time expired)

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed a pleasure to stand and speak in response to the speakers that have gone beforehand on this matter of public interest—that is:

The failure of the Government to be accountable to the Australian people.

This MPI is not a witch-hunt for Senator Cash; it is about accountability. The government speakers have articulately spoken about issues of accountability. I want to take the point from the member of Oxley, who said no-one here had stood to offer any type of spirited defence of Senator Cash, the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. I will absolutely do that. I owe a great deal of thanks to Senator Cash. Within my electorate, I have no less than 11,000 road transport operators. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, you would remember not too long ago how the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, if it had come into effect, would have forced no less than 50,000 sole transport operators off the road. I have no idea what the reasons were or what the motivation was of those on the other side to take away the livelihood of those people. I have 11,000 road transport operators in my electorate alone. I live just outside a metropolitan area, which is Brisbane. The precincts they reside in are normally one-, two-, five- or 10-acre blocks, and so they have access to larger sheds and larger yards for their trucks. They tend to congregate there because the operators will be: sand and gravel as that's where the quarries are located, and they'll take product into the CBDs; road transport operators shifting livestock from reginal precincts to selling yards within my electorate, shifting cattle, horses and others; single operators picking up horticulture from the paddocks and taking them into markets. If they've got a couple of trucks, they'll be running to Sydney and Melbourne.

So 11,000 road transport operators in my electorate were going to be out of a job, they were going to be homeless. Their only single source of revenue is their truck. Those on the other side, through the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, put legislation before this House, under the guise of road safety—that the roads were going to be safer if we took 50,000 operators off the road. It was Senator Michaelia Cash, from the other place, who stood and fought the unions, who fought the legislation that came through—as we did in this House. We opposed it here. As a result, I stand here and say that she is doing an outstanding job in representing those 11,000 road transport operators in my electorate. She deserves to continue in that position; she has been outstanding in that position.

When it comes to accountability, at the next election the Australian public will have a very clear decision to make: accountable government or, in contrast, the Australian Labor Party. We have put on more than one million jobs since coming to office. One million jobs where we have taken people from the unemployment queues, from welfare and put them into work. Seventy-five per cent of those sit with the small business sector, a sector which we have supercharged by the instant asset write-off, our tax policy and our fiscal settings. We're getting it right. On the other side, think about when Labor were last in government. In the past year, we've put more than 420,000 jobs on. In contrast, when Labor were in government, have a guess how many jobs were created in their final 12-month period of office? Three hundred thousand? No. Two hundred thousand? No. Did they get to 100,000 jobs? Pathetically, no, they did not. They created 89,000 jobs, and, as the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation said earlier, no less than 15½ thousand small businesses went broke. There's your contrast; there's accountability to the Australian public. When a sensible coalition government is in place, the economy grows and fiscal prudency is seen to. When you're talking about accountability, when Labor are in office fewer jobs are created, government grows and taxes get higher. The Australian people have a very easy choice. (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again and, again, we are talking about the disgraceful behaviour of Minister Cash and how she continues to avoid scrutiny. She is the person who stands in her ivory tower and shouts down at the rest of us, 'You must be held accountable.' She is the person who doesn't waste a moment or a second to defame, to ridicule, to call out, to yell, or to use the most obscene language about a union organiser or a member of the opposition. Today again she has proven that she is not up to the job. She has failed again to front up to budget estimates.

Let's step through the time line in relation to this particular issue. There were a number of times when the senator failed to do her job in a transparent way, but let's focus on this one. This is in relation to the Registered Organisations Commission's raid on the AWU offices. She misled the parliament five times. She falsely denied that her office was the source of the leak. Then she informed the Senate that it was her staffer's fault—it wasn't her; she didn't know about it. It was her staffer's fault. The Prime Minister said: 'I didn't know about it. I wasn't quite sure'—not that we all really quite believed the Prime Minister when he said that.

The AFP have now launched their own criminal investigation into the leak. There is still a cloud over Senator Cash. As we've learnt today, the minister under investigation was subpoenaed not once or twice but three times to explain what she did or did not know. This is a government that touts over and over again, 'Let's follow the rule of law'—until it comes to one of their own and then there is nothing but a cover-up. The minister has refused to explain the conduct of her office and the abuse of ministerial power.

Let's remember what this raid was about. Remember back to when that happened. The AWU were very clear. They were sent a letter by ROC that said, 'Do you have documentation to talk about this?' The union sent back a letter saying, 'Can you please provide us with more information.' At no stage did they refuse to hand over the information. The Prime Minister today was wrong. He stood at the dispatch box and said that that union put every roadblock in the way. That is not true. The union asked for a little bit of extra information. Instead of that, they said that they were willing to cooperate with the ROC. Instead of that, the very next day the AFP raided and demanded the documentation. The Prime Minister likes to rewrite history to protect this minister. That's what this Prime Minister does. Just what does she have on this Prime Minister that he is continuing the protection racket against her?

Then we all remember the TV images. The media turned up before the police. The minister tried to deny that she had anything to do with it. She misled the Senate on five occasions, only to be outed by the press gallery. Then she came in to admit that she had got it wrong. She has hidden behind her staff. She has hidden behind parliamentary privilege over and over again. Today again she has refused and failed to turn up to budget estimates, saying that it is no longer her responsibility. It is hard to believe that, for the first time since Federation, we do not have a minister responsible for the Fair Work Act or industrial relations in cabinet. We are saying that it is the junior minister who sits the furthest away. The assistant minister gets sent in to be the sacrificial lamb. Industrial relations is one of the core responsibilities of this government and of this place. It doesn't matter whether you're a worker or an employer, you need a robust system and a minister who is independent, transparent and accountable. But again the minister has failed this test. This isn't the first time; she has form.

Former ABCC boss Nigel Hadgkiss resigned over the fact that he breached the Fair Work Act. The minister knew about it and she still appointed him. The person responsible for ensuring that everybody in the construction sector abided by the law admitted to breaking the law and then the minister admitted to knowing that he broke the law. Just what level of scrutiny is this government really applying? Why won't they come clean and tell the Australian people that is just about pursuing their opponents?

Then you go to the way in which this government has misused police resources to pursue their political opponents. The minister must resign or the Prime Minister must sack her for this deliberate misuse of power and failure to the Australian people. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI today—the failure of the government to be accountable to the Australian people—has been a clear attack on the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Michaelia Cash, from start to finish. I'm a country bloke and I come from a world where a handshake still means something, where a man's or a woman's word is good enough. And I have a good respectful relationship with the union leaders who live and work in my electorate, especially, I might say, in the town of Whyalla, where they, along with the rest of the community, have helped rescue the Whyalla steelworks. And I stand ready to keep fighting with them for the right outcome. They are unions who are doing what they are supposed to do—looking after their members.

It seems a world away from the central and national leadership of some of the union movement, where it seems to be perfectly fair game to take members' money and use it for purposes a long way removed from the members' interests. It is a world where the secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, is urging lawlessness from the union. Even with dozens of their members facing court proceedings, they advocate for more lawlessness. A place where secret deals which benefit union officials and their mates, and penalise their members, is sadly all too common a place, as was detailed by the Heydon royal commission. And it's a long way from home—it's a long way from where I come from—but it impacts on the whole nation, because it raises the question of who would be running the nation if Labor were to win the next election.

Instead of getting to the bottom of the deal the Leader of the Opposition did with GetUp!, the Labor Party wants to pursue the side show, as to whether someone in the minister's office leaked to the press and who authorised or triggered the raid on the AWU offices. The issues of substance though are the union's or official's behaviour that triggered the investigation in the first place and what part the Leader of the Opposition, in his former role as leader of the AWU, had in that deal. The Registered Organisations Commission is trying to discover whether the Leader of the Opposition donated a hundred thousand dollars of union members' money to GetUp! without the authority of his executive. Instead, Labor wants to know who pointed the finger—who put the Federal Police on the path, trying to find out what happened to members' funds and whether they had been misappropriated—not whether the crime had been committed. It's a very old but good piece of advice, and I suggest that Labor takes it: don't shoot the messenger. Don't get bogged down on who blew the whistle. Do the right thing and find out if union members have been ripped off.

We should just reflect on this. The union, we are told, took the money from the coal workers to support GetUp!, which is implacably opposed to their industry. Why would they do that? Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps it was the Leader of the Opposition's sole decision. Perhaps he didn't have the authority of his executive. So why not produce the evidence, if the evidence is there? Why not produce the minute, the note, whatever it was? Surely the union wouldn't give a hundred thousand dollars to an organisation opposed to coalmining when the dues have come from their coalmining members without at least discussing the decision.

In fact, Australians are increasingly concerned about where the Leader of the Opposition's loyalties lie. While he continues to receive millions of dollars from the CFMEU, the most lawless union in the land, Bob Hawke, Peter Beattie and Kevin Rudd have all urged him to sever ties. Hawke says he should do as Hawke himself did, with the outlawing of the Builders Labourers Federation, deregistering them from the ALP, but the Leader of the Opposition remains tied to the purse strings of the CFMEU. The Leader of the Opposition's past is littered with secret deals. The Chiquita Mushrooms, Cleanevent, Cirque du Soleil and Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust deals have all benefitted the union. And the union bankrolls the ALP, but it has penalised the workers. It's a desperate act trying to defend the Leader of the Opposition in this time. Maybe it's a little bit like Weekend at Bernie's. The Labor Party is desperately trying to keep this figure alive until the next election, hoping beyond hope that they can keep him in protection until that time. Meanwhile, the opposition leader, through his proposals for the tax system, is going on his repeated escapade of confiscating cash from people who have earned it in a fair and proper way—mechanics, policemen, nurses and teachers—and taking franking credits away from retirees. It is disgraceful. That is where accountability lies.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today's matter of public importance is indeed incredibly important, but before I talk on that I just want to pick up on the member for Grey's assertion that the Labor Party is somehow whipping up the sideshow on this. I might point out to the member for Grey that the AFP commissioner, Andrew Colvin himself, said that a media tip-off would 'potentially put officers in danger and compromise operations'. This is far from a sideshow. In fact, this is the core business of the AFP, and it should be the core business of your minister. This government has ultimately failed to be accountable to the Australian people, and this minister, the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, has ultimately failed in her ministerial responsibility.

Even a cursory glance at the definition of ministerial responsibility will tell you that a minister is ultimately responsible for the actions of their department, even without the knowledge of an infraction by subordinates. The minister approved the hiring and ongoing employment of those civil servants. The cabinet minister ultimately bears responsibility for the actions of their staff. I say to you: if Minister Cash didn't know what was going on in her office then she's incompetent, and if she did know then she's handling the truth very recklessly. I would say to you, as a newly minted opposition backbencher, that, if my staff tipped off the media about anything, I would know, and, if I didn't know, there would be problems. So how can she possibly stand in this place and say, 'I didn't know; I don't know; my staff didn't do anything,' seven times, and then come back to that same committee and recant and say, 'Oh, a staff member did it without my knowledge'? I say 'bunkum' to that, absolutely. She misled the Senate five times, falsely denying that her office was the source of the leak. It is truly disgraceful.

Someone mentioned whiteboard walking. Game Of Thrones might have White Walkers, but I say that this government has the ultimate destructive force: Senator Michaelia Cash, who is the whiteboard walker—absolutely. She believes that she is above her ministerial responsibility. She believes she's above the parliament. She believes she's above the law, rebuffing a subpoena by the Federal Court and, incidentally, having the Commonwealth lawyers being paid to rebuff that. And now she thinks she's fit to serve. Well, she might well fit behind a whiteboard, but she is not fit to be in this place, and this Prime Minister should not be supporting her.

She asked the Registered Organisations Commission to consider investigations of donations from the AWU to GetUp!. Then she is quoted as saying: 'I have issued instructions for the subpoena to be set aside. I do not intend to play the court process out publicly.' So, on one hand, at some level it's okay to call in the cameras on an AFP raid, but there's nothing to see here publicly, folks, when the minister who is responsible is being called to account.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And she's a lawyer.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she is a lawyer. I take the interjection from my learned colleague the member for Brand. The minister is a lawyer. You would think she would know the law better. We often talk about the court of public opinion in this place. I would say to you that in no court in this country, whether it be the court of public opinion or the court of law, would this stand up, and it won't stand up. It really won't stand up.

If her staff somehow decided to tip off the media without her knowledge, I want to know: what did the Prime Minister know as well when he had that meeting with her and her staff? The other question that I think really needs to be asked is: who did make the phone call to the Registered Organisations Commission? I think that's a really interesting question to ask, because that person apparently, when they made that call, said that they were fearful that documents may be destroyed or tampered with. So I think that's the other big question: who made the call to the Registered Organisations Commission? Who made the call—or was there more than one who made the call? (Time expired)

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier today, Labor implied that we, on this side, are not here to support Senator Cash. Let me outline some of the ways that inspire me to see the work and effectiveness of Senator Cash: firstly, with the road transport remuneration tribunal, saving so many truck businesses in my electorate and so many families from losing their income; secondly, while visiting Gilmore to help the PaTH program awareness level, talking with and inspiring some of my mentors and jobseekers to make a difference in their life; thirdly, talking in detail about the difficulties faced by the job service providers, and how we can make it better; then facing off to the unions, who have, in my region, bumped my local contractors off local construction jobs. I find Senator Cash to be one of the most effective ministers I have worked with.

We see the Labor Party, in a blazing rage, calling the government to account over issues of supposed public interest and parliamentary process—in this place it's rare for me to point out the obvious, but really?—turning the debate into a commentary of vitriolic criticism. During the 43rd Parliament—which, as everyone knows, was one of tight numbers, an almost-hung parliament—there was a member of the Labor Party who occupied his seat for almost 18 months, guilty of wrongdoing, as later determined by the courts, but doggedly remaining as an elected MP. Shame, Labor, shame! Those on the opposition benches are very forgetful. That MP, while serving as member for Dobell, was investigated by the Fair Work Commission for nearly four years over allegations that he used his Health Services Union credit card for improper purposes. Where was the accountability back then? He shouldn't have remained in the parliament at all, looking at his biography. It appears that he was born in New Zealand, and we all know what happens to members in this House under such circumstances. But did the Labor Party make itself accountable to parliament? No, it did not.

That brings me to another situation where Labor has failed to be accountable to the Australian people. Last year, there was a definitive court ruling for members of parliament—incidentally, all coalition members—and their citizenship. Yet Labor allowed three of their party to remain in parliament, assuring Australians that Labor had a rolled-gold vetting process and everyone on their side was clear. Following the further court investigation of a Labor senator, we're now faced with three by-elections that could and should have taken place last year.

Labor rants that the Turnbull government has failed our country. Is it a failure to have a strong economy that creates over a million jobs? Is it a failure to have regional investment that would develop over a thousand jobs in Gilmore alone—millions of jobs nationally; thousands of jobs locally?

Australia is one of the best countries in the world in which to live, work and raise a family. We all know that. However, we face global uncertainty and cannot take our prosperity and security for granted.

At this point, I'd like to remind Labor that they say they look after the low-income workers, but, in reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. Who negotiated the enterprise agreements for low-paid workers at Woolies, Subway, Kmart, Target and a range of other major international companies—as to which, by the way, Labor didn't want to support changing the taxation laws? Why, the unions, of course! And many of these people have hourly rates that are less than the changes proposed by the Fair Work Commission in the next rounds of changes. Labor are not looking after the low-paid workers. But do we ever have that information put forward for the workers? No. Labor say they are protecting the workers. Well, they're not. It's an absolute lack of accountability to the Australian people, especially these union workers.

We on the government benches are determined to make life opportunities and prospects better for every Australian. We know that we are accountable at all times and look after all of our people at all times.

As to the whole issue of putting this investigation on the table and saying it's a problem: what are they hiding? That money was taken from union members. It was hard-earned union members' money. And let me tell you: it's not a couple of bucks a week; it is a significant amount of money. It should be in their pockets. And if not, it should be used for their purposes if they get into strife. I have hundreds of union members coming to my office and saying, 'I've rung the union; they won't help me.' So what the hell are they paying their dues for? Seriously, it is, yes, numbers—conflated statistics presented by Labor. Australia won't be conned anymore by the inflated lies that are being presented right now by the Labor Party. And they should absolutely know better.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.