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

'In this country politicians are not judge and jury, and there are proper processes that have to be followed. We live in a society where there are proper processes. There are proper authorities who look at evidence and make decisions about how that evidence should be treated. They make decisions about enforcement. Those authorities are not the parliament.' So spoke, guess who? None other than Senator Wong, chief prosecutor in this case. Oh, what tangled webs we weave!

Senator Wong has really been caught out today, has she not? She has tried to be the Penny Mason of the Senate and she has failed—and failed dismally. She has not been able to make out any case against Senator Arthur Sinodinos—not a single case. Indeed, I am reminded that, in matters such as this, mere repetition is no substitute for evidence. If this presentation of Senator Wong had been heard anywhere else, there would have been no need for myself or anybody on the government side to get up to run the defence case, because there is simply no case to answer on any of the matters that Senator Wong tried to put before this place.

I have to give Senator Wong full marks—she gets 10 out of 10 for sanctimony, 10 out of 10 for smear—but she gets nil out of 10 for substance. There was absolutely no substance to any of the matters that she raised. I must say that Pecksniffian attitude of those opposite—of the Green-Labor alliance, yet again in full collusion with each other in support of this motion—is absolutely gobsmacking. At the very worst it appears that, somewhere along the way, somebody may have made, if you add them all up, donations to the Liberal Party of some $70,000-plus in this case.

An opposition senator: It was a bit more than that.

Even if it was a bit more than that—$75,000 or whatever it may be—do we recall a leader of another national party personally negotiating a deal with somebody for the biggest donation ever in Australian history? He personally negotiated it, and the person who gave the money said afterwards, 'I think it was a good investment.' The person who negotiated it and received it said, 'I will be forever grateful.' That would not have been the Australian Greens by any chance, would it? Here they are running into the parliament and claiming somehow Senator Sinodinos should give an explanation with particular reference to political donations. When Senator Brown—when he was Senator Brown—was in this place, the Australian Greens and Labor were invited to provide such an explanation from Senator Brown, but where were they? Absolutely nowhere to be seen! Somehow a donation of on thirteenthof that—less than 10 per cent—is worthy of a full and detailed explanation!

It is interesting that in this motion there is absolutely no allegation made against Senator Sinodinos nor is there any suggestion of inconsistency in statements by Senator Sinodinos. All he has been asked to do is provide a full explanation of his dealings and his role in contract negotiations. I would have thought if you were to bring somebody before the Senate to explain something, you would ask them to explain one statement as opposed to another statement to show some inconsistency—and then there would be some substance to the motion. Talk about a trawl! I thought Labor and the Greens, like us, were against supertrawlers, but this beats them all. This motion was a great supertrawl—an attempt to catch anything that might be in the water. Senator Wong, after 20 tedious minutes, pulled the net in and—do you know what?—there was nothing in the net. There was absolutely nothing in the net! There was no substance to those matters that she sought to assert.

What Senator Wong was saying was very interesting. She was saying, 'We're not actually making any allegations; we're just half hinting at them.' Yet, the smear was in, because Senator Collins was interjecting non-stop in the previous motion and saying, 'The facts speak for themselves.' I think Senator Collins has already prejudged the issue, as have all those on the other side. Let's not have this pretence that you have not prejudged the issue. Of course, you have. That is why Senator Faulkner came in and made statements such as that there was 'incontrovertible evidence'. The case is shut—it is closed—if there is incontrovertible evidence, is it not? It means that Senator Faulkner once again got out of the naphthalene—out of the mothballs. You always know when Senator Faulkner is about to make a speech in this place, because there is this waft of naphthalene across the chamber; you immediately know that Senator Faulkner has been brought out of the cupboard again because he is the past master at smear. The only reason he comes into this place is to either eulogise some Labor luminary that has passed on or to smear people on this side. Does he make a contribution to public debate? No, absolutely not. All he wants to do is play the very ugly partisan: 'All Labor good, all Liberal bad; all coalition bad, all Labor good.' We know what his tactic is. As Senator Fifield said, the Labor Party look around their ranks, depleted as they are in intellectual talent, and then they have to reach into the naphthalene and get out Senator Faulkner to make his character-destroying contributions. Senator Collins and Senator Faulkner have both already prejudged the issue, yet Senator Wong is pretending and claiming that they have not prejudged the issue. Well, I think the facts speak for themselves.

What has brought Senator Wong to this motion seeking a full explanation? It was the circumstances in which the very questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, yesterday, had to be ruled out of order. So incompetent and so incapable of understanding the processes under the standing orders of this place, the Leader of the Opposition was humiliated by having her own questions ruled out of order. Just in case anybody listening is thinking that, as there has been a change of government, the chances are that there was a Liberal in the chair, no, there was not. In fact it was the Labor President of the Senate who ruled out of order the Labor leader's questions in the Senate. That is how incompetent those questions were; that is how out of order they were. You would have thought—and this is no reflection on Senator Hogg; I think he does an exceptionally good job—that, if there would be any bias, it might be just slightly towards the Labor Party. But he, as a Labor Party senator, as President of this place, could not bring himself to find some excuse to rule in favour of Senator Wong's questions. Having fallen flat on her face in one of the most embarrassing displays by a Leader of the Opposition in this place, she tries to regroup and regain her credibility by coming in here at 9.30 this morning to move this tawdry motion to try to smear Senator Sinodinos by implication.

We as a government will not have anything to do with those sorts of tactics, and that is why we have stood up to oppose this outrageous smear and this outrageous tactic. Let us make no mistake; the other part of the Labor-Greens tactic is that they do not want to be seen as being on the record as having voted against carbon tax repeal, mining tax repeal, or the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They are all matters that they want to hide under the carpet whilst the Western Australian Senate election is in the offing.

Senator Sinodinos has made a statement to this place. Has an allegation been made against Senator Sinodinos? No, there has not been any allegation. Has he been called as a witness to assist ICAC? Yes, he has. Is he assisting? Absolutely, and he has said that, when and as he is called, he will appear and give a full and frank account of himself. I think it is important to understand that nobody is suggesting that Senator Sinodinos should stand aside. Indeed, in this morning's The Canberra Times there was an article by Norman Abjorensen which said:

Nowhere is it alleged that Senator Sinodinos acted improperly, dishonestly or corruptly. He will give evidence at a later hearing to explain his role, and that will be eagerly awaited.

I say amen to that. That is how it should be and, indeed, that is how it should be according to Senator Wong, whom I quoted at the very beginning of my speech. They are the standards that Senator Wong applied when she was a minister, yet now, in opposition, those standards seem to be out of the window.

When Andrew Leigh, the member for Canberra, was asked about the proposition that Arthur Sinodinos should step down he answered: 'I don't think so on the evidence that I have seen.' Mr Albanese, the attacking Rottweiler of the Labor Party, said, 'These are serious matters, but they are matters that are before proceedings and therefore should not be pursued.' You have to love this, don't you? The only person that has asked for Senator Sinodinos to stand down is the ALP member who rejoices in the name of Thomson, not Craig on this occasion but Kelvin Thomson. He said, 'Mr Sinodinos should step aside.' Mr Thomson enters this public debate about credibility and about ensuring the highest of standards in public life clothed with the fact that he was the MP who provided Melbourne gangland figure Tony Mokbel with a personal reference. The credibility that he brings to this debate is the great standard he set as an MP by providing a reference to a gangland figure, and he says, 'According to my standards, Senator Sinodinos should step aside.' Nobody else has said that in any way, shape or form. Indeed, you have heard time and time again that there has been no allegation against Senator Sinodinos and no suggestion that he has acted improperly, dishonestly or corruptly.

The suggestion is made by Senator Wong that, at all stages, Senator Sinodinos was a part of the board or was an office bearer. Well, yes, but was Senator Wong an office bearer within the Labor Party when Michael Williamson, who is now in jail, was the National President of the Labor Party? Should we clothe her with all his misdeeds? According to the Labor Party standards at the moment, yes, we should, but my own view is that, no, we should not. We need to be mature and consistent in relation to these matters.

Senator Wong suggests that, without an explanation from Senator Sinodinos, this parliament would somehow be treated with contempt. This is the same senator who, in cahoots with Greens senators, voted over 200 times in three years to guillotine legislation through this place. Oh, that is not contempt! Anything Labor does by definition must be good.

Can I simply say that, in relation to an explanation, Senator Sinodinos has provided one. He will provide whatever evidence is asked of him by ICAC. Therefore, the question is: why should we be passing a motion which invites the Senate to further consider this matter in the event that Senator Sinodinos does not provide a statement before 12 noon today—a statement which supposedly tells us that he has to give a full explanation of his dealings as a director of Australian Water Holdings? This motion calls for a full explanation of his dealings in all areas—nothing is excluded—and with particular reference to political donations and his shareholdings. We all know that any entitlement that he may have had to shareholdings were renounced over 12 months ago—all on the public record. We know all about that, so why does that need to be spoken of—and 'his role in contract negotiations negotiations'? This is an example of how hurriedly and sloppily this motion was put together: 'and his role in contract negotiations negotiations'. They cannot even get the motion right. They were that excited that whoever did it typed the word twice. Senator Wong could not have even proofread it, and into the chamber it goes—defective on its face, defective in substance and defective in the effected sanctimony and self-righteousness that is behind this.

The Labor Party and the Greens know that there is no need for Senator Sinodinos to present himself to this chamber. What is more, they know by their own standards, according to Senator Wong on 30 April 2012 and indeed on 25 May 2012 in those statements that I read out at the very beginning of this debate, that when there is a proper process in place it should be followed, that the proper standards should be applied. Yet Senator Wong could not help herself. She told us—if I got the quote down right—'It's a little difficult for a fair-minded person to consider certain statements by Mr Sinodinos.' What she was suggesting, which was quite breathtaking, was that she, Senator Wong, was the epitome of the fair-mind person—I think not. And I think, as she reflects in her office, as we are in this chamber, she might think that chances are it is a bit over the top to try to claim that status for herself.

Very simply, there are no allegations against Senator Sinodinos, no substance and no reason why he needs to make a full explanation and talk about the 'negotiations negotiations'—whatever that might mean. Senator Faulkner, in his contribution, might actually deal with the substance of the motion rather than the smear. At the end of the day, there are proper procedures in place for these matters to be ventilated, and they will be. In the meantime—and I want to stress this—we as a government are absolutely committed to getting on with the business of running this country, of getting rid of the carbon tax, of getting rid of the mining tax, of re-instituting the Australian Building and Construction Commission and of cutting green and red tape. Chances are it is no coincidence that, on the very day that we announce hundreds of millions of dollars of extra red tape costs being removed from the Australian economy—something that we promised at the last election—the Labor-Greens alliance in this place come up with this stunt to try to divert attention from the fact that we as a government are getting on with the job of creating an environment where the Labor legacy of unemployment can be dealt with and people can be given hope again that they do have a future, that we will bring down the cost of living and that there will be a job for their children and their grandchildren. That is the real task of this place, and that is what we as a government will continue to pursue to the very best of our ability, and we will not be distracted by these pathetic stunts by Senator Wong, Senator Faulkner and the like.