John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is true: any motion to censure a minister is serious. I agree with Senator Brandis who said earlier this afternoon that in this chamber a motion of censure of a Senate minister is important as an accountability tool. A censure motion should never be moved lightly and should never be agreed to unless a strong case is made.

In relation to this matter, Senator Nash's serious failure in the exercise of her ministerial responsibilities, her failure to account for her actions and conduct as a minister, her failure to comply with an order of the Senate, and her failure to correct misleading statements made both before the Senate and Senate committees do warrant severe censure. In this case, serious questions arise regarding Senator Nash's competence and her suitability for ministerial office. Senator Nash has been given ample time and ample opportunity to correct misleading statements she has made and to answer questions directed to her, not to mention provide a full explanation to the Senate regarding all the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Health Star Rating website. She has failed to do so.

First, some background. This website provided details of the Health Star Rating system, designed to give clear and accurate information about the nutritional content of packaged food. And given this government's repeated declarations that this is the age of personal responsibility, you might think that this website is exactly the sort of thing the government would be in favour of: providing tools to Australians to take personal responsibility for their choice of food. But Senator Nash's office went into overdrive to have the website removed. Mr Furnival—then Senator Nash's chief of staff—phoned an assistant secretary from the Department of Health, on 5 February, demanding the website be taken down. This occurred, of course, on the same day that the CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Mr Gary Dawson, phoned Senator Nash's office to express his concern that the website was premature.

The secretary of the Department of Health provided evidence at Senate estimates that the official who received Mr Furnival's call reported the call to a senior officer because 'it was above my pay grade'. An assistant adviser in the minister's office then spoke to an acting deputy secretary of the department, advising 'We would like the website to be taken down.' The deputy secretary advised that he was in a meeting and would look into it 'as soon as possible'. The assistant adviser again called the deputy secretary, 'roughly 15 minutes later', asking for progress—just 15 minutes later—and the pressure was really on. But the deputy secretary advised that he was still looking into the matter and consulting the acting secretary of the department. The acting deputy secretary then took a phone call from Senator Nash—approximately half an hour after her assistant adviser's last call requesting that the website be taken down. The department at this time, I suspect, probably realised they were fighting a losing battle and complied with the request.

Mr Furnival was not only Senator Nash's chief of staff at that point but also a co-owner and director of Strategic Issues Management, which wholly owns the company Australian Public Affairs—which lobbied on behalf of Mondelez, the parent company of Kraft Cadbury, a company which expressed concerns about the Health Star Rating system. And prior to becoming a ministerial staffer, Mr Furnival said that he was an economist for Cadbury. Another client of Mr Furnival's co-owned company APA was the Australian Beverages Council, whose members include Coca-Cola and PepsiCo and which also has a close interest in the development of the Health Star Rating system.

In question time in the Senate, on 11 February, Senator Nash told the Senate:

… There is no connection, whatsoever, between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs. My chief of staff has no connection with the food industry and is simply doing his job …

This was simply not true. In fact, it was very far from the truth. Senator Nash claimed, in question time, on 12 February:

… my chief of staff complies with proper internal standards under the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff …

This was not true either. Senator Nash did make a statement to the Senate indicating Mr Furnival's spouse gave undertakings that APA:

… would not (a) make representations to either myself or Minister Dutton; (b) make representations to the Department of Health; or (c) make representations on behalf of any clients to other ministers of the Commonwealth in relation to the health portfolio.

That is not the test to be met in relation to ministerial staff standards—in fact, it is an arrangement that should not be necessary at all.

Unfortunately for the government and Senator Nash, we know that Mr Furnival breached at least three of the standards that all ministerial staff are obligated to adhere to. For the record, they are clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff. Mr Furnival failed to disclose and take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest in connection of his employment, which is essential to conform with clause 3 of the statement.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen. Mr Furnival also breached paragraph 4 of the standards. It says staff must:

Divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private company or business and/or direct interest in any public company involved in the area of their Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen either. He also breached paragraph 6 of the standards. It requires staff:

Have no involvement in outside employment or in the daily work of any business, or retain a directorship of a company, without the written agreement of their Minister and the Special Minister of State.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen either. I note for the record that the Government Staffing Committee considers all ministerial appointments. This committee is centrally controlled by the Prime Minister's office—as so much is in the Abbott government. I also note that reasonable questions asked by senators at Senate estimates committees of ministers about the role of the Government Staffing Committee in the appointment of Mr Furnival were not answered, and I suspect reasonable questions that should have been asked about Mr Furnival's employment were not asked by any member of Mr Abbott's Government Staffing Committee either. But one thing that we can say for sure, as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has confirmed, is that the Prime Minister personally approves all ministerial staff appointments.

Senator Nash claimed in Senate estimates on Wednesday, 26 February, in relation to her former chief of staff, Mr Furnival, that 'he had resigned as a director from the companies.' That was not true either, as the records of Australian Securities and Investments Commission showed. In fact, Mr Furnival ceased being a director of Strategic Issues Management Pty Ltd on 13 February 2013, about five months after he joined the minister's office and only after this became a matter of notoriety after questions were asked in this very chamber by the opposition. Then Senator Nash claimed in question time yesterday:

Mondelez has not been a client of APA since my former chief of staff worked for me. APA did no work for Mondelez. I cannot be any clearer than that.