Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add to an answer provided by me to the Senate earlier today during question time. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, asked me about my chief of staff, his spouse and the Australian Public Affairs, APA, company. For the sake of completeness I provide the following additional information to the Senate.

Australian Public Affairs, APA, is a media and public affairs company. It is run by Ms Tracey Cain, who, as some senators will recall, is a former press gallery journalist. Ms Cain is the spouse of my chief of staff, Mr Alastair Furnival. Prior to working for me, Mr Furnival was APA's chairman, and, because of that previous position, he has a shareholding in the company. Prior to his appointment to my staff, arrangements were put in place so that his previous business activities could not conflict with his obligations under the statement of standards for ministerial staff—or, indeed, with my obligations as a minister.

In addition to complying with proper internal standards, his spouse gave undertakings that both she and the company 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 any other minister of the Commonwealth in relation to the health portfolio. On the advice available to me, these undertakings have been honoured in full. Indeed, neither my chief of staff nor my office has met with Mondalez—formerly Kraft—the owners of Cadbury, with whom he worked as a chief economist.

In short: both Mr Furnival and Ms Cain have taken proper and appropriate steps to prevent conflicts or potential conflicts between the private business and his duties as my chief of staff by withdrawing from any work for clients in the health portfolio, as I have outlined above.

At the time of answering Senator Wong's question I did not have every detail of this information at hand, but, having made further checks after question time, I provide this information to the Senate.

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

That is a very interesting contribution by the assistant minister, who is leaving the chamber. Coming in and correcting the record from question time in the adjournment debate, under cover of darkness and after the press gallery has left, does not speak of an open, accountable and transparent government. There are some very serious questions arising out of that little correction which do need to be explored. I will briefly address some of them now.

I may have misheard some of what was said very quickly then, but the minister in question time suggested:

There is no connection, whatsoever, between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.

I may have misheard, but I think she just indicated to the Senate that her chief of staff still had a shareholding in the relevant company. They are very different things.

The minister chose not to respond to two very important aspects of my questions from earlier today. First, I asked her what role her chief of staff had played in the removal of the website just hours after it was launched. That was not answered at question time nor was it responded to in the contribution just made to the Senate. Second, I asked when the chief of staff had declared the relationship to the minister, her department and the Prime Minister's office. I do not believe—but I will certainly be checking the Hansardthat that was answered in full and in detail in the contribution just given.

There are some very serious questions about the matters Senator Nash has responded to today. I say this, to be honest, with some regret because, on a personal level, I have a deal of regard for Senator Nash. But, as a minister, she does have certain obligations to this chamber and under the ministerial standards. To put it very simply, the partner of her chief of staff is or was the owner of a firm whose clients had a direct commercial interest in policy decisions the minister was making. As I understand the contribution just given, she has conceded that her chief of staff had a direct pecuniary interest in a firm which was representing those clients or which had a commercial interest in the policy decisions in her portfolio. There are some very serious questions to be answered by the minister—and, frankly, by the government—about how that arrangement can possibly comply with the ministerial standards and the standards applicable to ministerial staff.