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

It has been asserted by those opposite that this is an abuse of process. I would make this point: the government say they want to have the carbon price voted on quickly, but they did not give leave for this motion to be moved, which required a suspension of standing orders today, and they sought to call a division even on a procedural motion around precedence, which also took up time, which seems somewhat odd if you really, as a government, do want to get on to voting on the carbon bills.

I return now to the issues before us, and I again say there are many matters in the public arena which, given Senator Sinodinos's past statements and his position as a minister of the Crown, really do demand that he come to the chamber and make an explanation. It may be that he has answers to the questions which are raised. It may be that he has a clear explanation for many of the apparent inconsistencies between what he has told the chamber and what counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption has asserted in his opening statement. It may be there are answers to all of these matters. If that is the case, there is a very simple course of action which the minister can take. He can come to this chamber and he can give a full statement. He has chosen not to do that. We gave him plenty of opportunity yesterday in question time, and he chose not to take the opportunity, other than to say he would be vindicated.

There are a few things I want to go through which explain some of the issues between the statement that was made on 28 February by the senator and statements on the public record. I go first to this assertion in the statement:

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

I remind the Senate again that this was a statement made on 28 February 2013, acknowledged to be prior to Senator Sinodinos becoming a minister, but he has subsequently affirmed the statement as a minister, by way of his answer in question time on Thursday, 6 March. In relation to the assertion 'I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract', there are two pieces of evidence which have come to light in the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. The first is that Senator Sinodinos, as chairman of the company, wrote to the chair of Sydney Water, ccd to both the Premier of New South Wales and the Minister for Finance, in relation to contractual negotiations. He requests in that letter:

I believe the best way forward is an urgent roundtable meeting that we attend with the Shareholding Ministers to resolve this matter once and for all. I would suggest that you and the Managing Director of Sydney attend this meeting.

In addition, yesterday in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, a Mr Rippon, who I understand is an officer of Australian Water Holdings, confirmed that, subsequent to that letter, a meeting was in fact held, on 6 September 2011, to discuss the contract negotiations which resulted in the awarding of the contract in 2012. I should say: the subsequent event to this meeting—and, presumably, some other discussions—was the awarding of the contract in 2012. He confirms that Mr de Girolamo and Mr Sinodinos were both at that meeting. It may be that Senator Sinodinos has a very clear explanation as to why he can say on the one hand that he played no role in the awarding of the contract but on the other hand he both cc'd to the Premier and attended a meeting to discuss the very issue which included the awarding of the contract and contractual relationships. Maybe there is an explanation, but I think a fair-minded person would say it is a little difficult to understand how you can assert you have no role in the awarding of the contract if, on the face of the public record, there is a letter which requests a meeting to deal with these issues and then a meeting to deal with these issues. It may be that nothing was discussed at the meeting. It may be that there is another explanation. But we do not know, because that question has not been answered by Senator Sinodinos.

The second point I would make is in relation to donations. Let us recall that this is at a time when, on the basis of the evidence, extraordinarily corrupt conduct appears to have been occurring within AWH. Amongst the allegations about the misuse of money, which has been made on the public record, is an allegation of the use of money from Sydney Water being used in effect to make donations to the Liberal Party. As far as I can see from the time frames, at all material times in relation to this issue, Senator Sinodinos was an office-bearer in both the Liberal Party and Australian Water Holdings. He was a director and then chairman, and I believe he held two different offices, one of which was treasurer, inside the Liberal Party. He asserts—he has very carefully worded it, and I will read it—in his statement on February 2013:

In relation to the political donations by Australian Water, these were handled by the management of the organisation at their discretion. I do not recollect donations to political parties being discussed at board level.

Then he goes on to talk about disclosure laws. So he does not go in his statement at all as to whether he knew that money that was being paid by Sydney Water was, amongst other things—it was not the only improper use of that money—being used to provide donations to the Liberal Party.

The assertion by counsel assisting the commission is as follows:

Australian Water Holdings were making big donations to the Liberal Party—$20,000 here, $30,000 there—and on what I have seen, those donations were bundled up into the expenses and charged back to Sydney Water. From the records I have seen, it seems that Sydney Water has unwillingly, unknowingly been a principal donor to the Liberal Party.

It might be that Senator Sinodinos can explain how it is possible to be a director and chair of an organisation that is engaging in this activity and not be aware of it. It might be that he can explain how it is possible for him to be an office-bearer of the Liberal Party at this time and not be aware of substantial donations. I think it is even more difficult for him to explain how he can be an office-bearer of both organisations—the payer and the payee—and not know about it. He may have an explanation for these matters. If he does, I think it is incumbent upon him—and in my submission to the chamber it is incumbent upon him—to attend and make that explanation. I think the public is entitled to know how it is possible Sydney Water—and, remember, ultimately this is the users of Sydney Water who are paying for this—money was funnelled to the Liberal Party at a time that Senator Sinodinos was both an office-bearer of AWH and an office-bearer of the Liberal Party and for him not to know about it. I suggest that it would be in Senator Sinodinos's interests for him to explain that fact. A failure to do so leaves the public, and the Senate, with this observation: Senator Sinodinos omits discussing this in his statement to the Senate, but on the public record there are very serious allegations of the misuse of this money. That is the second apparent inconsistency between his statement and his—

Senator Brandis interjecting—