Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Wong continues thinking that noise and repetition somehow obviates the need for fact. In a debate such as a censure motion noise and mindless repetition never obviates the actual need for facts to base the censure on, and there simply has been no basis in fact for this censure. There has been no misleading in any way, shape or form by Senator Nash.

The second point was that she had allegedly failed to comply with an order of the Senate. If that were a sin Senator Wong would have had to have resigned as a minister. I indicate that Senator Nash did respond to the order of the Senate the very next day—in rough terms, one assumes, within a 24-hour turnaround she provided a comprehensive answer to our President of this place, to indicate that she was treating this place with the respect it deserves, unlike those who have been hollering throughout this debate. She has complied with the order in the normal tradition. So, the second point fails.

Point three was that she had failed to account for her actions. We have had question time after question time and we have had Senate estimates going on and on, and Senator Nash has given a fantastic account of herself, and of her ministerial role and responsibility, in a manner that I think every minister should be able to aspire to. She has set a high standard and has answered all of the questions in great detail.

This is the Labor Party whose former national president is currently in remand on charges of criminality—the man who organised the numbers to get Craig Thomson into the parliament, who helped organise the numbers for Ms Gillard and who was right up there and right in it. This is the same Labor Party, having those people at the top, that voted to ensure the document that absolutely exposed Mr Thomson for what he had done—ripping off the low-paid workers who are members of the Health Services Union—was kept secret, despite the Fair Work Commission saying that they had no concern as to whether or not those documents would be made available. In those circumstances the Labor Party voted to do what? To keep the documents secret. Why? To keep their tainted, dysfunctional and disunited government in power. That is the only reason they did it. And who helped keep them there? The other party that will undoubtedly vote for this censure as well—namely, the Australian Greens.

The Australian Greens, who claim they knew nothing about Bob Carr's conflict of interest, voted against him reporting to the Senate about it—not one of them but all of them, including the leader. They made sure that everybody came into the chamber. They made sure that not one of them was missing. They were showing to the Labor Party their complete and utter loyalty in the Labor Party's hour of need, when Bob Carr was under the microscope in clear breach of the ministerial standard. Just in case there is any doubt, the ministerial standard requires that ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any private company. He kept his shareholding for the full 18 months. Nothing could be more open and shut: throughout his 18 months as a minister, he kept that shareholding in his lobbying company.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson, who is interjecting, voted to ensure that the matter did not proceed before the Senate. He was part of the protection racket for Senator Bob Carr. The Australian Greens will always join the Labor Party in the protection racket. That is why they are against the registered organisations commission; that is why they are against the Australian Building and Construction Commission—because they do not want to see proper standards apply to registered organisations and trade unions, they do not want to see the rule of law apply on our building sites around this country, and nor do they want to see any standard applied on Labor ministers. But, when it comes to the coalition, we have a completely different standard.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson says he has to take a stand against lobbyists. Isn't that very interesting? Pity he did not take the stand against Mr Graeme Woods' $1 million donation that was personally negotiated by his leader—something that not even the Labor Party would allow under its code of conduct of fundraising, and we most definitely would not allow it. You come into this place claiming you are squeaky-clean on ethics, your leader deals personally with the biggest donation in Australian political history, and you have the audacity, the hypocrisy, the duplicity, to assert that somehow you are the harbinger of all moral standards in this place. Your actions speak so much louder than your words, Senator Whish-Wilson. The Australian Greens actions speak so much louder than their words.

If we really thought that Senator Wong was genuine in this—we knew she was running out of puff; we knew she was running out of arguments—she then tried the very lame line that this minister might be named as the 'Minister for Snack Foods'. Here we are in the middle of, allegedly, the most serious matter ever to confront this parliament and we have Senator Wong making the horrendous allegation that Senator Nash might be known as the 'Minister for Snack Foods'. Really? Is this as serious as the Labor Party gets? Is this as good as Senator Wong gets in relation to these matters? The listening public would be saying to themselves, 'We thought the Labor Party might actually be interested in the issues of the day, like Qantas, the repeal of the carbon tax and the repeal of the mining tax. What can we do to get jobs generated in this country?'

I think Senator Wong might have form in this regard. I know what happened to Ms Gillard and I know what Senator Wong is trying to do to Senator Nash, but the good news is this: we on the coalition side will look after our ministers, and our female ministers as well. We will not see them knifed off by the likes of Senator Wong, especially when we know that they uphold the— (Time expired)