Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports from legislation committees in respect of the 2012-13 budget estimates, together with the Hansard record of the committees' proceedings and documents received by committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I am particularly interested in the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which has just been presented, but of course have a great deal of interest in the other reports, which I will read with interest at a later stage. In noting the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the change in leadership of the Department of Parliamentary Services, in particular to some comments made to the committee by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr Russell Grove.

After the retirement of Mr Alan Thompson as Secretary of DPS, Mr Grove served as acting secretary of the department from 10 March until 26 May this year. Mr Grove has a very interesting background with over 40 years experience with the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, including over 21 years as clerk. That experience really was of benefit to our committee. This afternoon I would particularly like to draw attention to the evidence Mr Grove gave to our committee's inquiry into the performance of DPS and that evidence was provided on Wednesday, 2 May 2012.

When Mr Grove came before our committee, I asked him about whether he had examined the issue of misleading evidence provided to the committee on the sale of billiard tables. Mr Grove said in response—which you might find on page 22 of the relevant committee Hansard, that he had spoken:

... with officers about the appalling situation that the department found itself in—never to be repeated—and the lessons learnt from that, to provide accurate and fulsome information to any committee which asks for it. But it is unfortunate that, had the committee not been misled and lied to, we probably would not have needed to have spend $92,000—

And so he went on. You would find on page 27 of the Hansard record comments about the same matter. In fact, I said this:

You see, I happen to think—this is perhaps very old-fashioned, Mr Grove—that parliamentary departments, whether they be chamber departments or DPS, ought to be exemplars of best practice. They should lead the way in terms of their responses on these sorts of issues. And, to my knowledge, it is almost unprecedented to have a situation where evidence is created and fabricated ex post facto and then provided deliberately in answers to questions on notice to a parliamentary committee. It is almost unprecedented. I find it extraordinary that this would have occurred from a parliamentary department.

Mr Grove responded:

I can only agree. It beggars belief that that would happen.

Because of the time pressures in the chamber, I propose to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard further extracts of the Hansard transcript of the same hearing. These particular extracts focus on the findings of the 2011 DPS staff survey conducted by ORIMA Research. I indicate to the Senate that the usual courtesies have been extended around the chamber in relation to these Hansard extracts, so I now seek leave to incorporate those extracts in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The extracts read as follows—

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee:

Public Hearing 2 May 2012-06-26

Inquiry into the Performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services

FROM PAGE 33 OF THE HANSARD TRANSCRIPT.

Senator FAULKNER: I hope it is not like a small family. If it is, it is a pretty dysfunctional one, that is all I can say. I do hope that is not the case. What we have is the Department of Parliamentary Services 2011 Staff Survey conducted by ORIMA Research. Can you and I agree that that is a serious survey undertaken by a reputable, independent, outside organisation, that it is comparatively recent and that perhaps it is worth focusing on some of their findings?

Mr Grove: Certainly.

Senator FAULKNER: If you go to page 60, it talks about the DPS senior executive performance. Before we get to bullying, we will just talk about the DPS senior executive performance. On page 60 you will see a footnote, footnote 17, defining what the DPS senior executive is as far as the ORIMA Research organisation is concerned. Let me quote it and you can confirm that I am quoting it correctly. It says: DPS Senior Executive was defined in the survey to include the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Parliamentary Librarian. Do you confirm that?

Mr Grove: Yes.

Senator FAULKNER: This particular survey, I think, had some very worrying findings. I could spend all afternoon on this, but I am not going to. Go to the next page—page 61. Question 16a asked in the ORIMA survey is: Members of the Executive act in accordance with the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct. Fifty-five per cent of staff in DPS agreed with that in 2011—less than the number that agreed with it in 2009, which was 57 per cent. But compare that to the APS-wide figure, which is 84 per cent. Problem?

Mr Grove: Perhaps a problem of communication.

Senator FAULKNER: But it is a problem, first of all?

Mr Grove: Yes, certainly.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a real problem, isn't it?

Mr Grove: The comparison is odious. It shows a problem.

Senator FAULKNER: According to this survey, the percentage of DPS staff who believe that 'senior executive exemplify personal drive and integrity' is 36 per cent—compared with 42 per cent, which is abysmal anyway, in 2009. Problem?

Mr Grove: I would imagine, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you. I think it is a problem too, Mr Grove. These are not created by me. You say 'let's depend on something more substantive'. Under 'demonstrate high quality leadership', 35 per cent of the staff of the department think the senior executive staff do that. 'Provide clear and consistent guidance': 31 per cent of staff. All these figures are down from the 2009 levels, which were abysmal in their own right. When I read this, I must admit that it did not fill me full of a great deal of confidence, but it is, as we have discussed, a document produced by an independent group. I might return to that at a later stage in these hearings. Let's go to page 70: 'DPS Senior Executive Performance'. Has anyone drawn these figures to your attention, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: Yes, I have read the review.

Senator FAULKNER: What was your view? You are here, you have come in—I think many of us would appreciate this—in a temporary capacity, an acting capacity. You have had long experience in the service of the Parliament of New South Wales. I am really asking you, taking a step back: what are your thoughts when you read these sorts of statistics? This is the view of the staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services about the senior executives. How do you respond to this?

Mr Grove: My initial response is, firstly, it is not good, as you observe; secondly, you should address it and do something about it. I think one of the big problems is the way people communicate with one another.

Senator FAULKNER: Is it the way the senior executive service communicate with the rest of the department, or is the problem with the staff of the department who fail to communicate effectively with the DPS senior executive—or both?

Mr Grove: Potentially there is a two-way track, but the former is the more important issue: leadership communicating down through the next rung of leadership and down the line so that people understand where people's responsibilities lie, where accountabilities lie and where support needs to be, with that communication coming up through the ranks as well.

Senator FAULKNER: I am only making the point here that there does seem to be a problem. I am not laying blame at anyone's feet. These are very unusual figures and very surprising figures to me. Are they surprising to you?

Mr Grove: They are surprising.

Senator FAULKNER: You had a long and distinguished career in the New South Wales parliament. You would be pretty displeased, I suspect, if your own leadership at that time had been judged in that way, wouldn't you?

Mr Grove: Not quite as bad, but probably there was room for improvement. There is always room for improvement.

Senator FAULKNER: I think you would have been pretty disappointed. Let's move on to page 76 of this report, which talks about experiences of bullying or harassment. Take figure 28: 'During the past 12 months have you been subjected to bullying or harassment at DPS?' Basically, one-third-32 per cent—of staff indicated they had witnessed bullying and/or harassment at DPS in the last 12 months and this was above the 27 per cent recorded in 2009. That is a statistic from the people DPS got to conduct the 2011 staff survey. What am I to make of that statistic? It seems to me to be a high level and increasing.

Mr Grove: It is evidenced by the facts.

Senator FAULKNER: This is the point. I think the facts are telling us a story here. You said to me 10 or 15 minutes ago: 'Let's focus on the facts! These are facts. They are not happy facts, though, are they?

Mr Grove: It is a statistic, isn't it?

Senator FAULKNER: It is a statistic, yes.

Mr Grove: Which potentially can be different to the fact. It is a raw figure.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a raw figure, but you were concerned about ensuring that we look at these issues with the best evidence that we have available to us. I cannot comment about all the statistical basis for this—I have read the report—but the statistics are concerning and consistent, aren't they?

Mr Grove: They seem to be, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: And from 2009 to 2011 there is an increase. What is the committee to make of that? If it is not a problem, why did the new Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services make the statement that she did about bullying?

Mr Grove: I cannot answer that question.

Senator FAULKNER: Perhaps I will have to ask her when she first appears before the committee. I appreciate you cannot answer it, but you mentioned to all of us here on this side of the table in your opening statement that this was positive. I agree with you: it is positive.

Mr Grove: I think no-one is denying that something does need to be done about this issue and positive steps taken. We are preparing an action plan to do something about that so people have the opportunity to speak up without being afraid.

Senator FAULKNER: Let's go to page 80 of this ORIMA report. Halfway down the page it refers to figure 32: Compared with 2009, staff who reported bullying and/or harassment in 2011 continue to indicate low levels of satisfaction with how their report of the incident was handled. In 2011, around one in five relevant DPS staff were satisfied (17%)— Which is a bit under one in five, The report continues: This was down from 27% in 2009 and below 38% for medium APS agencies. That is very poor, isn't it, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: It is.

Senator FAULKNER: It is very poor. Are we to be concerned about that?

Mr Grove: I would imagine so, yes.

FROM PAGE 36 OF THE HANSARD TRANSCRIPT.

Mr Grove: Which specific instances of alleged bullying?

Senator FAULKNER: I am going to go through a few of these. Instances of alleged bullying are taken seriously: 21.3 per cent said they neither agree nor disagree but 17.3 per cent said they disagree and 13.7 per cent said they strongly disagree, The way I add it up, that means 31 per cent disagree that alleged bullying is taken seriously by management. What about this next one? Workers feel confident to speak up about inappropriate behaviour: 24.9 per cent neither agree nor disagree but 28.9 per cent disagree and 15.3 per cent strongly disagree. I am asked by Mr Grove to get a statistical basis for this. That is pretty ordinary isn't it, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: It would appear to be, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a shocker. Managers lead by example to prevent workplace bullying: 22.9 per cent neither agree nor disagree but 16.9 per cent disagree and 20.1 per cent strongly disagree. That is pretty bad too, isn't it?

Mr Grove: Yes, it is not a good figure.

Senator FAULKNER: For the record, the 16.9 per cent are 42 people and the 20.1 per cent are 50 employees at DPS. Can't you see why committee members are so concerned about the issue of bullying?

Mr Grove: I recognise that, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: And not only is the situation abysmal, on all the evidence available from independent sources the ORIMA survey and the Comcare survey, it is getting worse, isn't it?

Mr Grove: That is what the statistics indicate.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes. Now I think it is pretty reasonable for the committee to start drawing conclusions from some of these reports that have been provided to us. I am certainly starting to draw conclusions and they are unhappy conclusions. They could not be otherwise could they?

Mr Grove: No, they could not. I agree with what you say but what I have attempted to put before the committee, which I hope the committee will accept, is that DPS is attempting to do something about this issue.

Senator FAULKNER: Well I would hope so. It would be appalling to think they are not trying to do something about it. It is so shocking. I do not derive any comfort from that. It would be more extraordinary if you were not trying to do something about it. But it does not appear that whatever has been done over recent years has not been successful.

Mr Grove: That would appear to be the case, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, and it also appears that when you compare, as the ORIMA Research document does, the record in DPS to medium-sized APS agencies the comparisons are terrible, aren't they?

Mr Grove: The statistics appear to indicate that, yes. Take on board the fact that, when the Comcare audit which shows these figures was brought to the attention of DPS, an action plan was prepared, which was submitted to them and accepted by them. A recent audit, as late as yesterday, says that, yes, the implementation of the plan seems to be on track and they are reasonably comfortable with the approach that has been taken. Is that a positive?

Senator FAULKNER: Sorry?

Mr Grove: That is a positive, surely.

Senator FAULKNER: Let us hope so. I think we are long overdue for a few positives.

Mr Grove: I would agree.

On page 27 about the same matter, Hansard records I said:

Senator FAULKNER: "You see, I happen to think—this is perhaps very old-fashioned, Mr Grove—that parliamentary departments, whether they be chamber departments or DPS, ought to be exemplars of best practice. They should lead the way in terms of their responses on these sorts of issues. And, to my knowledge, it is almost unprecedented to have a situation where evidence is created and fabricated ex post facto and then provided deliberately in answers to questions on notice to a parliamentary committee. It is almost unprecedented. I find it extraordinary that this would have occurred from a parliamentary department".

Mr Grove responded:

Mr Grove: "I can only agree It beggars belief that that would happen".

Mr President, I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard further extracts of the Hansard transcript of the same hearing. These extracts focus on the findings of the 2011 DPS Staff Survey conducted by ORIMA research.

Incorporation

Mr President, I commend Mr Groves clear statements of concern about the issues canvassed in the ORIMA research and the DPS and the billiard table's debacle.

I sincerely hope his wise counsel is heeded in the future.

In noting the report of the Senate Finance and Administration Legislation Committee, I would like draw to the attention of the Senate the change of leadership in the Department of Parliamentary Services and some comments made to our Committee by the Acting Secretary of DPS, Mr Russell Grove.

After the retirement of Mr Alan Thompson, as Secretary of DPS, Mr Grove served as Acting Secretary from the 10th of March until the 26th of May this year.

Mr Grove's background of over 40 years experience with the NSW Legislative Assembly, including over 21 years as Clerk of the NSW Legislative Assembly, was of benefit to our Committee, and this afternoon I would like draw the Senate's attention to evidence he gave to us during the Committee's inquiry into the performance of DPS on Wednesday the rd of May, 2012.

When I asked Mr Grove about whether he had examined the issue of misleading evidence provided to the Committee on the sale of billiard tables, Mr Grove said, in response — see on page 22 of the Hansard transcript that he had spoken:

"with officers about the appalling situation that the department found itself in—never to be repeated—and the lessons learnt from that, to provide accurate and fulsome information to any committee which asks for it. But it is unfortunate that, had the committee not been misled and lied to, we probably would not have needed to have spend $92,000" and so on.

I thank the Senate. I will just conclude my very brief remarks on this matter by commending Mr Grove's clear statements of concern about the issues canvassed in the ORIMA research in relation to the Department of Parliamentary Services billiard table sale debacle. And I say to the Senate that I sincerely hope his wise counsel on these matter is heeded in the future.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on an important area of concern to older Australians which was canvassed at the community affairs budget estimates, and further developments since then which have put at issue the government's lack of forthright disclosure at these hearings. While the aged-care announcements of 20 April 2012 with the headline figure of $3.7 billion over five years sounded impressive, the actual amount of new money to be spent is $577 million. The rest is as a result of means-testing and of simply cutting funding from one part of the sector and redirecting it to another. Furthermore, many of the changes will not start till 1 July 2014, so the pain will not be felt until well after the next federal election. Like all Labor's announcements, the devil is in the detail. But what is very clear is that more people will pay more for their aged care. The problem is we do not know how many of our 3.5 million older Australians will pay more or how much more they will have to pay.

One of the failures in the aged-care reform package is the missed opportunity to reduce red tape. This is something the sector has been urgently demanding. In a sector already wallowing in red tape, this package will heap on them more red tape and more bureaucracies to deal with. I have repeatedly been told that aged-care nurses spend, on average, a third of their time on paperwork; things are only going to get worse.

There are two key issues that have arisen that have caused major concern to stakeholders, especially providers—namely, the decision to rip $1.6 billion out of the ACFI, the aged-care funding instrument, over the next four years, supposedly on the spurious suggestion of rorting by the sector, for which no substantive evidence has been produced; and the decision to establish the Aged Care Funding Authority, which will dictate prices, bonds and a whole range of other measures.

So $1.6 billion will be going out, but $1.2 billion is going to be redirected to an aged-care workforce compact. Providers currently receive a conditional adjustment payment of 8.75 per cent of their subsidy to meet certain workforce obligations. Now, unless they have an enterprise bargaining agreement, they cannot access the funding under the compact. Why? They will still be doing the same things, but they will be obliged to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement for which the default agent is the union. There are three key unions in aged care: United Voice, the ANF and—wait for it—the HSU. Call me cynical but, with HSU membership having suffered a dramatic reduction, this is in my view a backdoor deal that the government has no doubt done to get more aged-care workers to join the union, a backdoor deal that is going to help the defunct HSU.

It is clear what is happening here. There are cuts to funding in areas like personal hygiene by reclassifying residences that are high care as medium care, and it is only natural that we will see staff cuts—and staff cuts in aged-care homes mean more regimentation. As I said at estimates: is this the beginning of the toilet queues for our high-care dementia patients? With over 40 per cent of aged-care providers operating in the red and the impending carbon tax being foisted on them, providers are justifiably feeling that they have been kicked further.

This year's budget alone will see $500 million ripped out of a sector that is already suffering. It is little wonder that we are seeing headlines such as 'Minister defends cash cut for aged', 'Nursing homes face subsidy growth limit' and 'Cash curb for age care'. And this is a problem of the government's own making. None of the providers have endorsed the options that have been put on the table by the government. It is no wonder that Grant Thornton, in its latest report on the aged-care reform package, said that the industry was alarmed to learn that the government had planned this cut. Alarmed? Of course they were alarmed, because they suddenly saw it in the budget. And it goes against the targeted cuts of $50 million to go to the Living Longer, Living Better package—so $50 million out of the package and half a billion dollars out of the budget.

It is not surprising that, with all this uncertainty, a leading aged-care service survey has found that, in the last two months since the government reform announcements, over $3.5 billion in planned aged-care development projects have been shelved. With ACFI changes due to start on 1 July, the minister has been engaged, understandably, in some urgent meetings with providers and other organisations—peak bodies, financiers and consumers—with some rushed announcements being made last Thursday, the 21st. As I said, it is little wonder that they got themselves into this trouble, because this is a problem of their own creation. It is so typical of this government to make a decision without consultation. Then we have the angst, then we have the changes—only, in this case, Minister Butler has continued to impose the changes. Time will tell how many providers will be pushed to the brink, when we start seeing aged-care facilities close. It is clear that Minister Butler is making these changes administratively and thus they will not receive parliamentary scrutiny, which means that effectively the government can do what it likes.

In conclusion, I urge those peak groups that so willingly and so quickly applauded the so-called reforms to think again, to consider the detail and to not let this government get away with perpetrating yet another smoke and mirrors saga—another spin over substance exercise like we are used to seeing from this minister. He did it in mental health and he is now trying to do a repeat performance in aged care.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some comments on the Department of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade estimates. The estimates hearing was opened by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley. He said, first of all, that there had been some controversy in the media about the bodies of Australian soldiers who were being brought back from the war in Afghanistan being placed in their coffins the wrong way up. That, of course, had caused a great deal of distress to the families concerned. I thought I should repeat General Hurley's comments. He said:

... I felt so strongly about the allegations being made and the potential to cause undue distress to the soldiers' families and members of the ADF that I ensured that the department's responses to the journalist's questions last week were drawn from the inquiry outcomes to date, and they were quite detailed.

He went on to say that the Defence Force was very concerned to ensure always that the bodies of soldiers who came back from Afghanistan would be orientated correctly in coffins. He wanted to assure the families that the remains of their loved ones would be very much respected and treated with great care by the Defence Force.

The other important matter raised in Defence estimates, this time by the secretary of the department, Mr Duncan Lewis, concerned the massive cuts to defence spending imposed by the government in the recent budget. Defence was cut by $5.45 billion as a contribution to the government so the government could come up with its minor, small and measly surplus. It is a very small surplus indeed.

The removal of $5.45 billion from the defence budget is going to have very serious and long-term implications for the defence forces of Australia. It is said that it takes our defence forces back to the state of readiness we saw in 1938, when they were grossly understaffed and underequipped. It is certainly going to make an enormous difference to the planned program to build 12 new submarines—obviously that will need to be shelved, as will many other new weapons platforms and programs. Mr Lewis said:

... these savings will not impact on current operations in Afghanistan, East Timor or the Solomon Islands. They will not impact upon the equipment that our men and women need to do their jobs on these operations. It has been a challenging exercise to find these savings.

One can imagine how challenging finding $5.45 billion worth of savings in the defence budget will be and what a big impact that will have on our future defence procurement and the effectiveness of our defence forces.

The third and final point I make about the Defence estimates is that there has recently been a Defence Force posture review report into the need for increased defence protection on the north-west coast. General Hurley, the Chief of the Defence Force, did concede at estimates that the Defence Force had somewhat neglected the defence of the north-west over the last decade. This is a very important area of Australia because there is now hundreds of billions of dollars worth of investment in oil and gas developments off the north-west coast, and there is a feeling that they are very important assets for Australia as a whole and ought to be given more defence protection than they are.

I believe that Major General Jeffery, who subsequently became the Governor-General, referred to the need for increased Defence Force presence on the north-west coast some 10 years ago. Regrettably, nothing very much has developed over those 10 years. The Chief of the Defence Force did undertake that he and his colleagues from the defence forces command group would go to the north-west to inspect these facilities and to take into account the Australian Defence Force Posture Review overseen by Dr Hawke and Ric Smith, which reported on the defence capability plan for the north-west. I look forward to that report being brought down.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion to take note of Senate estimates committee reports. I particularly wish to speak about the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and, specifically, the coalition senators' dissenting report. That report relates to evidence given to the committee by the Infrastructure and Surface Transport Policy Division of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport on 23 May about the allocation of funding out of a $20 million package to Tasmania. The committee, in the view of coalition senators, was clearly given the impression that the allocation process for this money had not been finalised, that it was still being negotiated with the Tasmanian government and that it would be some time before those announcements might be made—and that there were some things which needed to occur before those announcements could be made, in particular the provision of a report from Infrastructure Australia to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese, in relation to the funding and some other matters concerning strait freight services.

It was a real surprise to members of the committee, particularly other coalition members and me, to find in media reports on the morning of 24 May that the allocation of some of that funding had been announced. Clearly the handing of the report to Minister Albanese by Infrastructure Australia, which, we had been given the impression, was a necessary precursor to the announcement, had not occurred by that time. We subsequently found out that there had been a postdated, embargoed media release—obviously issued on the afternoon of 23 May, before the committee had even heard evidence—making the announcement. I admit that the media release appears to have been put out in a rush, since Minister Albanese has mixed up the electorate of his colleague the member for Lyons, Dick Adams, whom he has named as the member for Bass.

Members of the coalition on the committee were seriously disturbed by this. We sincerely believe that the committee was misled—by the actions of Minister Albanese more so than by the evidence of the officials. I do not have any concerns about what the officials told us. I think they believed they were giving us correct evidence. But the actions of Minister Albanese have put us in the situation where the coalition believes that the committee was misled. In fact the chair, on the morning of 24 May when we raised this matter again, said—and this is from Hansard:

Thank you. Now, with all due respect, I know I sat here as you did ask those questions of the officers last night and I certainly share that you have some form of reason to be upset.

I note that the committee wrote to Minister Albanese and the officers concerned. They have written back. The concern we have with the report is that it says that the committee is satisfied with those responses. Coalition senators are not satisfied with those responses. We certainly believe that the committee was misled.

It is a very rare thing for a dissenting report to an estimates committee to be tabled in this place and I wanted to bring the Senate's attention to that. I say to Minister Albanese that he should have more respect for the Senate and for Senate processes. He has spent a lot of time lecturing others in this building about the operation of processes within both the House and the Senate. Perhaps he could give that lecture to himself the next time he is in front of the mirror.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note paragraph 2.48 of the report on the estimates proceedings of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. That paragraph relates to Senator Bob Carr's Sydney electorate office. The issue canvassed at estimates was how and why Senator Carr's electorate office could also serve as the principal place of business for RJ Carr Pty Ltd, his former lobbying company. This was indeed the case up until 24 May, the day that my colleague Senator Scott Ryan raised this issue at Senate estimates—when, coincidentally, the principal place of business of RJ Carr Pty Ltd was transferred to an address in Burwood. At the estimates proceedings of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Carr made light of this. The coalition was also concerned that Senator Carr had decided to retain his sole share in RJ Carr Pty Ltd, a private company, contrary to the provisions dealing with shareholdings in the Prime Minister's Standards of ministerial ethics. Those provisions include the statement:

… these Standards require that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business …

I will also quote briefly from a press release put out by another colleague, Senator Lee Rhiannon. She has been concerned about Senator Carr's potential conflict of interest. On 5 March, Senator Rhiannon said:

There's a public expectation that Mr Bob Carr should not be free to move seamlessly between big business and politics without disclosing whose interests he has been representing. The Gillard government must manage Mr Carr's entry to federal parliament and the contacts and information he has gained while as Premier and then lobbying for big business. The revolving door between business and politics allows access and influence which is not extended to the ordinary Australian.

I put to the Senate that Senator Carr's use of his former business premises as the principal place of business for RJ Carr Pty Ltd, as well as his electorate office and, in particular, his retention of his shareholding in the company, tell us a number of things which are very significant. It tells us that Senator Carr sees his job as Minister for Foreign Affairs as just a temporary gig before he moves seamlessly back into lobbying. Why else would he not move offices? Why else would he retain his ownership of RJ Carr Pty Ltd in contravention of the PM's Standards of ministerial ethics? Why else would he not simply wind this company up? The answer, to use Senator Rhiannon's words, is that Senator Carr not only wishes to move seamlessly from big business to politics; he then wants to move seamlessly back into big business again. Talk about a revolving door between business and politics!

I believe that Senator Carr has not properly addressed these issues. Indeed, his remarks to date show either a profound ignorance of, or a profound contempt for, ministerial standards. The answers to the questions on this issue which were taken on notice at estimates will be very interesting for the Senate to observe. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.