Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The central allegation of the Labor opposition today in the Senate is what we just heard in the concluding remarks of Senator McLucas—that is, the Prime Minister covered up Senator Santoro’s failure to disclose his share trading activities. This allegation is absolutely unproven. There is not one whit of evidence to support this scurrilous allegation by the Labor opposition against the Prime Minister. On the contrary, the Prime Minister made clear to my colleague Senator Santoro his obligations both as a minister and as a senator. With regard to CBio, the Prime Minister required the disposal of those shares immediately he became aware of the situation. The Prime Minister also ensured the correction of the declaration when he became aware that the declaration was not accurate. When the Prime Minister became aware of further matters regarding Senator Santoro, he required Senator Santoro’s resignation. So this allegation against the Prime Minister is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact is that Prime Minister John Howard is the first Australian Prime Minister to establish a public ministerial code. It did not exist prior to the election of the Howard coalition government. It was this Prime Minister who introduced that code and, in the context of this particular situation, has ensured compliance with that code. In a letter to Senator Santoro on 27 January 2006, the Prime Minister set out in a very explicit and detailed manner Senator Santoro’s obligations as a minister. The same letter also outlined Senator Santoro’s obligations as a senator. There was also correspondence from the Prime Minister and discussions between the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff and the minister and his chief of staff in which the minister’s obligations to both the Senate and the Prime Minister were made very clear. It has obviously been found that Senator Santoro did not comply with those obligations, and he has paid the ultimate price as a direct consequence. He has been forced to resign as a minister. Senator Santoro will be making his own comments to the Senate later today in the adjournment debate. We should perhaps wait to hear what Senator Santoro has to say in that regard.

Earlier, in question time today, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, detailed a number of state Labor government ministers around this country who have been sacked as a result of their nefarious activities. I say ‘state Labor governments’—not just one state Labor government but several: in Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania. Do we see the Labor premiers of those states accepting responsibility for the behaviour of those ministers? No. The ministers have been sacked, and that has essentially been the end of the matter. This allegation against the Prime Minister simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Senator Santoro has acknowledged that he was in breach of the rules of the Senate, and he has resigned. The Prime Minister responded in the strongest possible terms, expressing his anger and disappointment regarding this issue, and the mistakes have been dealt with. As Minister Abetz said a few moments ago, Senator Santoro resigned; Senator Ian Campbell resigned in the circumstances with which he was faced; even Labor’s shadow Attorney-General, Mr Kelvin Thomson, resigned over the letter of reference which he wrote for an acknowledged criminal. But of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, has not resigned, despite his association with a nefarious convicted criminal, Mr Burke, the former Premier of Western Australia. Mr Rudd had three quite explicit meetings with Mr Burke during which no doubt Mr Rudd was seeking Mr Burke’s acquiescence and support in moving into the leadership of the Labor Party. Mr Rudd has refused to resign as a result of that very clear association.

The allegations made against the Prime Minister with regard to this issue are hollow and quite unsubstantiated. They do not stand up to any test. They contrast markedly with the Labor Party’s attitude to their own. They do not come to this debate with clean hands in any sense, as Minister Abetz said. The issue simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and the charges are unproven. (Time expired)