George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer the minister to the statement by the member for Dobell last Thursday that he would make a comprehen­sive statement in relation to the serious allegations against him and to his further statement yesterday that he would no longer make such a statement. When will the Prime Minister insist that the member for Dobell make the comprehensive statement which he undertook to make to the parliament?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no advice about whether or not Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell, is going to make statements about matters or not make statements about matters. That is clearly a matter for him. But I would observe that Senator Brandis has been very keen to encourage the police to investigate matters relating to the HSU, and it seems to me that one of the barriers to someone making a statement about their involvement in issues is an ongoing police investigation. So it does not surprise me that someone would consider their position before saying too much, given there is an ongoing police investigation. But those are clearly matters for the member for Dobell.

I would remind the Senate that there are a number of investigations occurring in rela­tion to concerns that have arisen in relation to the administration of the HSU. I and the government make no comment on those. We have consistently said that this is a matter for those authorities to pursue. It is important that they are allowed to do that work free from any political interference, free from people ringing their mates, encouraging them to give directions perhaps to officials about how they should or should not respond. That is not the sort of behaviour that I think assists at all.

The other thing I would remind the Senate of, which I think should be dear to the hearts of all senators, is the presumption of natural justice and the capacity for people to have a fair hearing and deal with the appropriate authorities unencumbered by political comment or political pointscoring. It is certainly a policy I have pursued in relation to coalition members who from time to time have had difficulties relating to matters. The former Democrat Senator Murray also had those difficulties. We chose not to comment on them. We continue that policy, and I suggest Senator Brandis would serve himself and the parliament well by following that policy as well.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister's acknowledgment that the New South Wales police investigation into the Health Services Union extends to the member for Dobell, does the Prime Minister continue to have full confidence in him, does she still consider that he is doing a fine job and does she still hope that he serves in the parliament for many, many, many long years to come?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the presumption of that que­stion is that I have somehow acknowledged that the police inquiry was into the member for Dobell. I did not say anything of the sort. I indicated that there was an inquiry into matters related to the Health Services Union. I know that from what I have read in the newspapers. I have no official advice on that other than what I know from the newspapers. I am surprised that a shadow Attorney-Gen­eral, someone who hopes to be the Attorney-General of this country, would engage in this way, given that there is an active police investigation going on. I have heard Senator Brandis lecture people before about allowing the courts to do their job, about the presump­tion of innocence, about proper legal princi­ples; but he seems to want to flout all of those in some desperate political attempt to muddy up the member for Dobell. I think we should let the proper authorities pursue their inquiries, we should maintain a proper role as members of parliament and we should not interfere with the role of those investigative authorities. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a furt­her supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement on 31 August attacking the Chief Justice for inconsistency. What does it say about the standards of this government that the Prime Minister appears to have more confidence in Mr Craig Thomson than she does in the Chief Justice of Australia?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, Senator Brandis, the shadow Attorney-General, who has taken to ringing police ministers encouraging them to take an interest in matters relating to ongoing police investigations, now seeks to lecture me and the government about propriety in these matters. I do not take that sort of advice from Senator Brandis. He has done himself great damage in recent weeks by the way he has abandoned all the things he used to hold dear in order to seek some temporary political advantage. I think—as an observation—that that will come back to haunt him, because his credibility when it comes to these matters will now be measured against his performance on this matter.

In terms of the Prime Minister's commen­tary on the High Court case, can I just say it is perfectly appropriate in a democracy that members of parliament and others debate High Court decisions and pass commentary on them. That is part of a robust democracy and I think it is perfectly appropriate that people do express their views when import­ant decisions are made. (Time expired)