Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Carr today relating to Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd.

There were two issues I think which were very clear today in question time: the first is that the Assistant Treasurer sought to dismiss the questions from opposition senators on the basis that this all occurred a very long time ago, prior to his entry to the Senate; the second is that we saw the Assistant Treasurer refuse to answer key questions and refuse to take the opportunity provided to him, as a minister in question time, to ensure that the public was clear about his response in the face of facts which simply do not add up.

I want to make a couple of points. We are asking questions which have been raised in the public arena about a contract which was awarded to the company Australian Water Holdings by Sydney Water Corporation. Serious questions have been raised in relation to the process by which this contract was awarded and a range of other matters concerning Australian Water Holdings. It is a matter of public record that the Assistant Treasurer had significant interests in this company before he entered this place, including during the time when this contract was being discussed. When Senator Sinodinos entered the Senate in October 2011, he declared AWH shares on the Register of Senators' Interests, but in February 2013 he told the Senate the shares had never been issued and he had renounced any entitlement to this shareholding. I would note that the interest was only renounced on 26 February 2013, well after the senator entered the parliament, and in fact the senator engaged in activities relating to AWH, including the opening of an office, in July 2012. I make these points simply to reflect the fact that the defence of this all being in the distant past does not bear up to close examination.

The questions that were asked by opposition senators today related specifically to a statement made by Senator Sinodinos, whilst he was a senator, to this chamber—a very important statement, a statement such as other senators have been required to make from time to time. This was the opportunity for the Assistant Treasurer to make clear to the chamber and to the Australian public some of the issues which are raised by his statement to the chamber and facts as they have subsequently been reported. First, the very bold assertion—which the Assistant Treasurer says he stands by still—was made to this Senate:

I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.

That was a very categorical statement. However, in the face of the fact—and, as I understand it, this was conceded today in question time by the Assistant Treasurer—that the Assistant Treasurer actually wrote to Sydney Water, copied to the New South Wales Premier and minister for finance, seeking a meeting to discuss the contractual relationship with Australian Water Holdings and Sydney Water, one would think the Assistant Treasurer, the man with responsibility for business law and practice and corporate law, would take the opportunity to explain how that fact could be true at the same time as the fact in his statement that he had no role was true. He could have explained how those two things could both be true—because they do not add up—but he chose not to.

The other question which I asked today which was ducked, which was avoided, was whether or not—and this is been reported publicly—the Assistant Treasurer in fact attended a meeting to discuss this relationship between Australian Water Holdings and Sydney Water. That has been publicly reported. That is inconsistent, one would have thought, on the face of it, with the statement that was made previously by Senator Sinodinos, and again he had the opportunity today to clarify. He had the opportunity today to explain how it is that both statements can be true. He was asked if he attended a meeting. That has been reported on the public record. I invite him to tell us if he in fact did and how, if he did attend such a meeting, that can be consistent with the fact that he said to the Senate that he ruled out any involvement whatsoever in the awarding of the contract, because those facts do not add up.

The final thing—and my colleague Senator Carr may well go to this—is that he was asked whether or not he stood to benefit in any way from the awarding of such a contract, and he declined to answer. He declined to answer. That is a question a minister should answer. (Time expired)