Senate debates

Monday, 3 March 2014

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Water

3:19 pm

Photo of Simon BirminghamSimon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

It is astounding that we sat through 55 minutes of question time today before we saw anything remotely akin to a policy question from those opposite, anything coming at all close. In the meantime, from the government side we heard questions in relation to the impact of the carbon tax on jobs, and particularly jobs in the finance and airline sectors; we had questions on the very fragile and concerning situation in the Ukraine; we had questions on the matter of drought relief and how we will assist those struggling in our rural communities; we had questions around the standards and level of respect that should be applied to our defence personnel; we had questions on border protection and the wonderful inroads being made in securing our borders and stopping the dangerous flow of asylum seekers to Australia; and we had questions around the immense accomplishment already being achieved by Senator Scullion and the Indigenous affairs portfolio in relation to getting more young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schoolchildren at school.

These were the significant policy issues asked about by government senators in question time today, and yet on the other side all we had was attempts—pathetic attempts at that—at sleaze and innuendo from a line-up of senators whose past associations, frequently, with some of their Labor colleagues stand up to no scrutiny whatsoever. Frankly, it is astounding that this modern Labor Party would want to come in here today and ask questions of the nature they are asking when at this very point in time their former colleague the former member for Dobell Mr Craig Thomson is awaiting sentencing for crimes that he has been convicted of; their former federal party president Mr Michael Williamson went into custody today awaiting sentencing for crimes that he has been convicted of; and their former pick of Speaker awaits judgement for charges that have been levelled against him. Frankly, the idea that those opposite would come in here with no evidence, with nothing but hopeless innuendo and allegations that stretch credibility far beyond belief, when their track record is so damning—and so damning in judgements held up by the courts—really does beggar belief. It is astounding that those opposite would go down such a pathway.

We know it is not just the activities of those specific convictions that I referred to; there are those issues around the whole operation of the trade union movement, which every single member opposite is a member of. There is the whole operation of many of the trade unions and the operation of the slush funds in the trade unions that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard conceded were common practice. How many of those opposite would like to come in here at some stage and confess whether they have been the beneficiaries of a slush fund, whether they were ever elected to union roles on the basis of the slush funds in the unions and whether their supporters, those who put them in their positions and gave them their preselections, have ever been beneficiaries of the union slush funds that Ms Gillard said were common practice throughout the trade union movement?

We just heard Senator Wong come in here and attempt to stretch credibility even further with her suggestions around the Assistant Treasurer. She said she wanted an explanation that had not yet been given in relation to Senator Sinodinos's statement that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water. I have heard Senator Sinodinos in this place on multiple occasions and outside give very clear explanations. It is not that hard to understand: prior to coming into the Senate he had another job, he fulfilled that job, he resigned from that job on coming into the Senate and as a senator he played no role. It is a fairly clear-cut matter. The attempts by those opposite to besmirch his reputation—in the face of what all their associates have been guilty of—stand no test. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments