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

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That the Senate censures the Assistant Minister for Health for misleading the Senate, failing to comply with an order for the production of documents, and failing to account for her actions to the Senate.

Of this motion, Mr President, there is no more serious act—

Honourable senators interjecting —

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, resume your seat. Order! Senator Wong has moved a motion for the suspension of standing orders. Senator Wong, continue.

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

There is no more substantive accusation in this chamber than that a minister has misled this chamber. There is no more important issue when you are a minister than accountability to this chamber. And what we are seeking to do is to ensure this chamber properly debates a censure motion on the Assistant Minister for Health, arising out of her misleading of this chamber—her persistent misleading of this chamber—and her failure to comply with an order for production of documents and failure to account for her actions to the Senate.

The fact that the government is not prepared to debate this censure really reflects on the standards that this government has when it comes to ministerial accountability and transparency. In the period of time since this matter first came to light we have been treated to this senator—this minister—coming in to this chamber and repeatedly and persistently misleading it, failing to provide answers to reasonable questions and, today, failing to provide a document which grounds what she says is her compliance with ministerial standards. That is what we are seeing from this minister. It is entirely reasonable for this chamber to debate this censure motion, and it does not reflect well on the Leader of the Government in this place that he did not take this censure motion. He has sought to take the chamber down the path requiring a suspension of standing orders in order to debate this censure motion. I would also say that there is no greater obligation on a minister in this place than to ensure that they do not mislead the chamber. We have given this minister many, many opportunities. I have invited her time and time again to come in here and correct the record.

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind honourable senators that if you wish to participate in the debate you will get an opportunity. Senators on both sides are reminded that interjections are disorderly.

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

We on this side have given this minister many, many opportunities to correct the record, far more than I anticipate those on that side would have given a minister in our government when we were on the benches opposite. For example, yesterday after question time I wrote to the minister, attaching the extracts from the register of lobbyists which demonstrated that her answer was incorrect and inviting her to do what she should do as a minister of the Crown, what she should do according to the principles of ministerial accountability and what she should do under the ministerial standards, which is come into this place and correct the record. That was yesterday after question time—well, she did not do those things. That is simply indicative of this minister's behaviour and attitude towards this chamber. She has repeatedly indicated facts to this chamber which simply are not true.

This is not a question of whether or not Senator Nash is a decent person. This is a question of whether or not she is a decent minister. Over these last weeks, whether in Senate estimates or in question time here, the chamber has been presented with repeated examples of why this minister is not prepared to comply with basic principles of accountability. The Senate chamber has been presented over and over again with examples of this minister not complying with ministerial standards and the principle of accountability to the Senate chamber. It is entirely reasonable that this censure motion be moved, and it is entirely reasonable that it be debated. As I said, it really does reflect on Senator Abetz that he chooses not to take this censure motion for debate, given the enormity of the evidence confronting the government about the failure of this minister and the Prime Minister to uphold the standards that the Australian people expect of ministers in this place. It is entirely reasonable for standing orders to be suspended so that we can debate a censure motion. There have been repeated examples of misleading of the chamber, and the Senate ought to deal with them appropriately.

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

I rise to take part in this debate and will acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by Senator Wong, particularly her comments relating to her having asked questions 'time and time again'. I would say to the Senate that the reason I have stood 'time and time again' was to ensure that the facts were placed on the table and to ensure that the facts surrounding this issue were brought forward.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

A government senator: Come on girls, give her a crack.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! I asked for Senator Wong to be heard in silence, as I do for any speaker who stands on their feet. Senator Nash is entitled to be heard in silence as well, and that applies to all members of the Senate.

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

The opposition has been inferring that there was a conflict of interest regarding my former chief of staff and his role in my office. As I have explained to the Senate and to the Senate estimates committee time and time again that there was no conflict of interest, perhaps it might assist senators if I again run through the processes that were put in place to ensure there was no conflict of interest. Every step of the way in this process, with every question that has been asked of me relating to this issue, I have acted in good faith and I have provided to the Senate and the Senate estimates committee the facts. I will again, to assist senators opposite, go through the steps I undertook to ensure there was no conflict of interest regarding the former chief of staff in my office.

I proposed Mr Furnival to my office in a temporary capacity to help with the transition arrangements of my staff. He was initially proposed by me for two months to help set up my office. His role as a former government relations practitioner is on the public record and I was aware of this. I also say to the Senate that there is no rule against somebody who has previously worked in government relations becoming a member of staff. Under the code of conduct for staff, he advised me of his private interests. I put him forward to the government staff committee shortly following the swearing-in. The committee came back to me and indicated I needed to obtain a series of undertakings, which I did. I have outlined those for the Senate previously. I have outlined them for the Senate estimates committee previously.

I refer senators to the Hansard record. Those undertakings have been outlined on several occasions to senators. I say to senators opposite, to be very clear: at the outset of his time of employ with me, my former chief of staff's wife undertook to maintain a series of undertakings in relation to the company. I have put this on the record time and time again, but I will do so again for senators.

Ms Cain undertook that APA would make no representations to me, no representations to Minister Dutton, and no representations to my health department nor indeed to any other minister of the Commonwealth in relation to the health portfolio. That was upheld. We have had several weeks now of questioning from the opposition relating to this matter—the matter being the conflict of interest perceived by them, in the role of my former chief of staff, which does not exist. At no time has any opposition senator provided any evidence to the Senate or to the Senate estimates committee about the existence of a conflict of interest. They have not because there is none. There was no conflict of interest. The appropriate undertakings were put in place. They were adhered to. I invite those opposite to consider the facts. There was no conflict of interest. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the suspension of standing orders so that—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The same silence that Senator Nash was able to receive should be received by Senator Milne, as well.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the suspension of standing orders because a censure motion is a really serious motion. It is no support for, or defence of, Senator Nash for the government to refuse to take it on. It reinforces to the community that the government have plenty to hide—because they will not engage in the debate on the substantive issue of whether or not there is a case to be answered. Frankly, I find it extraordinary that in this debate it is Senator Nash who has been on her feet—rather than the Leader of the Government, to tell us why he has blocked a debate on such a substantive matter.

We will go to this debate on the substantive matter because the government is allowing the minister to dig a bigger and bigger hole for herself by allowing that to happen. I can tell you this: what we have now—

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were going well. I ask senators: if you wish to participate in the debate there will be an opportunity. Senator Milne is entitled to be heard in silence.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is this: there was originally a denial that there was any association between the chief of staff and the lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs. That was corrected. There clearly is a relationship. In fact, it is a part-ownership of that company. That is the fact of the matter. Secondly, you simply cannot deny a conflict of interest—right up until the day that the chief of staff has resigned—and rely on what the chief of staff's wife has said. It is not the chief of staff's wife who is responsible here; it is the chief of staff and the minister who are responsible here. It is the chief of staff who had to divest under the ministerial staffers' code of conduct.

It is not about getting an undertaking from his wife or partner that they will do this or that. It is about a divestment requirement of the ministerial code of conduct, and that was not adhered to. It is no use trying to protect the minister by running around trying to block a motion to discuss this censure. There will be a debate on the censure. We need to go to this and we need to drop this defence of the minister's chief of staff on the basis of undertakings given by Ms Cain. That is not the point here. The point is that the minister has denied, right up until the end, the conflict of interest, and has given the Senate no explanation as to why the divestment was not required before the person concerned took on the chief-of-staff role.

I am supporting the motion to suspend standing orders because, ultimately, ministerial responsibility has to mean something. And it is clear from the way Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government is operating that they do not believe in ministerial responsibility—whether it is for Minister Morrison, who tries behind the military; or whether, now, it is for Senator Nash, who is trying to hide behind a refusal to debate this. We will debate this. But we will debate this because ministerial responsibility has to mean something in a Westminster system, and the Greens want to make sure that it does.

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

I am more than delighted to take on the challenge of Senator Milne to partake in this debate. The simple fact is: there is nothing of substance to the allegations that have been made, day after day, hour after hour, against Senator Nash. The Labor Party have spun their wheels on this issue—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We have been going fairly well in that the people speaking in this debate have been shown reasonable respect in terms of having silence whilst they are speaking. I ask that that continues.

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

The Labor Party have spun their wheels on this issue in question time, day after day, without traction. They did so hour after hour in Senate estimates as well and got absolutely nowhere. The reason: there is no substance to the case. Sure, they called in Senator Faulkner. Sure, they called in Senator Wong. But I know that when I used to be a counsel—and I am sure Senator Brandis would be able to recollect this as well: no matter how good a counsel you are, if you ain't got a case, you ain't going to win. That is the problem with the prosecution by Senators Wong and Faulkner of this case. There simply is no substance. All the rhetoric in the world simply will not build the case for you—and there is no substance whatsoever.

The Labor Party had a choice. They might have moved to suspend standing orders to fight for Qantas jobs. No. What about manufacturing jobs? No. What about the plight of the drought afflicted farmers in this country? No; they are into the smear as soon as they can get there. Considering the seriousness of this, you would nearly think that somebody had misused their credit card—which reminds me that the Labor Party are bringing this issue of integrity before the Senate when their former national president is languishing in remand awaiting sentencing for gross dishonesty. Mr Thomson, their former member, has been found guilty by a court of law of ripping off low-paid workers. And what is the allegation against Senator Nash in all those circumstances?

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on both sides! It is not helping the debate when people are interjecting, and interjections are disorderly.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald! Senator Abetz is entitled to be heard in silence from both sides.

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

The rank transparency of the Leader of the Greens is shown by this. Even if we were to believe everything that Labor, with their exaggerated hyperbole, would have us believe—even if we were to believe all that, why was it that Senator Milne refused to utter a single word when the seat that Senator Johnston now occupies was occupied by one Senator Bob Carr, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, throughout the whole 18 months that he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, maintained his shareholding in a lobbying company, RJ Carr Pty Ltd? Where was the moral outrage from the Greens? They were in lock step with the Labor government. They did nothing about ministerial standards when there was a very clear breach. Might I add, the Standard of Ministerial Ethics requires:

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

Throughout Senator Bob Carr's 18-month reign in this place as foreign minister, Senator Milne stood guiltily silent—a very guilty silence. Why? Because she was in cahoots, maintaining that dysfunctional and disgraceful government on life support. The Australian people have spoken—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my right!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I do not want to disrupt Senator Abetz's train of thought, but I do want to put on the record that that statement about Senator Carr is the first I have heard of it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is not a point of order; that is a point of debate.

Government senators interjecting—

Order! I remind those on my right, there needs to be silence. Senator Abetz is entitled to be heard in silence. When there is silence on my right, we will proceed. Senator Abetz has one minute and eight seconds remaining.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Senator Milne has just now confirmed everything that I ever thought about the Greens: ignorance is bliss. That is why they are so happy in that corner. They do not bother reading the Hansards; they do not bother reading the newspapers; they do not bother informing themselves with that which is general knowledge. That way they do not have to make a moral judgement on their alliance partners in the Australian Labor Party. That is why the Australian Greens, of course, voted with Labor to suppress the documents that Senator Fierravanti-Wells wanted to expose in relation to the Craig Thomson matter. I daresay Senator Milne has not heard of Craig Thomson either. You have not heard of Michael Williamson—

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind those on my right—order! Senator Birmingham!

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

We have just now been told everything we needed to know about the Greens. Ignorance is bliss. They wallow in ignorance day after day. One thing they will make sure of is that, no matter what, they will come to the protection of the Labor Party, as the Labor Party will always come to their protection. If the people of Tasmania need a reminder, why not— (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate we are having now is to do with the suspension of standing orders, and we have gone nowhere near that issue, which is how this is normally played out in this place. The issue before the chair—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, resume your seat. I remind those on both sides of the chamber that Senator Moore is entitled to be heard in silence.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the chair is for a suspension to debate a censure motion. You would not be able to pick that if you were listening to this debate, because that has not come up. We have proposed a censure motion because of a series of issues, one of which is a specific request today for a document relating to undertakings. That document was not brought forward, as is the usual process. We have been told consistently from those on the government side that, because a range of questions have been asked, that should be the end of the debate. We have been told that there is nothing to worry about, that there is no problem, and that we should end the debate. The last several minutes of this debate have not been about the substance of the issues. No, let us not go anywhere near the substance of the issues!

This debate is about whether or not there should be a suspension. We have not had that concluded. What we have had from those on the other side is a series of arguments about other cases. They say that we should not be asking for a suspension to debate this issue, because in other cases—which they have outlined in depth—nothing happened. I am completely confounded about why we go through this process. In trying to get information from the minister, we made a request, as a result of a series of actions by the opposition, for a censure motion to look at the substance of the issue. We have now heard comments from those on the other side about previous cases, along with dismissive comments from Senator Scullion about why people—'girls'—on this side of the chamber should not be involved in the debate.

We are asking for a suspension to allow us to move a motion to debate a censure motion. That is the question before the chair. We seek to continue to ask for information concerning actions in the minister's office. That is the process that we have sought to follow through Senate estimates and through a series of questions in this place to those on the other side—which has often resulted in more information being provided by the minister in dribs and drabs. We put forward a request for documentation yesterday but we did not get the document about which we were concerned. We got an attached letter which I believe said that information could not be shared because of privacy. We need to have those issues fully explained and debated.

As Senator Milne said in her contribution, it is all fine for us to have interchanges in this place, but people in the wider community need to know that issues of trust and ministerial responsibility are taken seriously in this chamber. What we are proposing is that there will be a debate—

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, resume your seat. Senators on my right, if you wish to participate in the debate, you may be given an opportunity at a later stage.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are now having a discussion about whether we will be able to debate the substance of the issues. I do not understand why the government would not just allow the debate to happen so that we would not have to go through this process a number of times. Look at the core issue; look at what we are talking about in terms of ministerial responsibility and conflict of interest. The issue before the chamber today relates to statements and answers which Senator Nash gave in Senate estimates about the fact that there were undertakings provided. We seek to see the undertakings. Instead of debating that issue, we have to waste the time of everybody in this chamber, we have to waste the time of anyone who is interested in the debate and, most importantly, we have to waste the time of Senator Nash, who—instead of being able to present her arguments—has had to go through a process not on the original issue; rather, it is about whether or not the debate will continue.

We continue to put forward our request for a suspension. I think there is interest in this issue. Certainly, we have seen interest in this issue in the chamber. No-one could say that there is not some interest in getting this information. Let us proceed with the appropriate suspension so that we can have the core debate. (Time expired)

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

A censure motion against a minister is one of the most serious parliamentary procedures there is. Those who listen to this broadcast are entitled to make a judgement based on what Senator Wong had to say and, most particularly, based on the dignified and specific reply that Senator Fiona Nash was able to give. One of the most disgraceful things a member of parliament can do, indeed one of the most disgraceful things a human being can do, is to make allegations of dishonesty or a lack of integrity against another human being and not be able to specify the occasion that gives rise to that allegation. Those who heard Senator Wong's shrill, belligerent speech a few moments ago would have been left wondering what, specifically, is being alleged against Senator Fiona Nash. The answer is that the Labor Party, in their allegations, have been able to point to nothing—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left!

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

The Labor Party have been able to point to nothing that Senator Nash has not answered comprehensively and in detail. This is about an allegation of conflict of interest and, more particularly, an allegation of conflict of interest affecting the former chief of staff of the minister. As Senator Wong should know, but obviously does not know, there are two ways in which a conflict of interest can be dealt with. The first of those is to remove the occasion of the conflict of interest by divesting oneself of the commercial interest concerned—and that is what Senator Nash required of her former chief of staff, and that is what he did.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

You should show the letter that shows that. You do not know the facts!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! No, we are not going to carry on this debate on across the chamber like that. We will have an orderly debate; we will not have people shouting at each other across the chamber. That is completely disorderly. If you disagree with the views that are being expressed, there are opportunities in the proper processes of this chamber to put your views. Comments should be addressed to the chair.

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

The allegation is of a conflict of interest. The two ways in which that conflict of interest could have been satisfactorily addressed are by divestment and by undertaking. Both of those courses of action were insisted upon by the minister and both of them were followed by Mr Alastair Furnival.

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Through you, Mr President, Senator Wong: rest content to spray allegations around with no substance to back them up. And then she refuses to hear Senator Fiona Nash's detailed and specific response to her allegations. So the first course of action—divestment—was followed. The second course of action was to give undertakings that no situation would ever be allowed to arise in which there was a conflict of interest between APA and the role of the minister's chief of staff. Those detailed and specific undertakings were sought by the minister, and they were received from Mr Furnival, and from his wife and from the company; and those undertakings were honoured. The undertakings were honoured, and the divestment took place. Nothing more could have been done or could have been demanded of those concerned to avoid a conflict of interest. And yet Senator Wong chooses to disregard the fact that every one of her allegations has been answered. They were answered today by Senator Nash in her contribution and they have been answered in previous question times. They were answered with specificity in Senate estimates last week.

This chutzpah on stilts, from a person who was a minister in a government maintained in power for the last three years by a criminal, Mr Craig Thomson; and who has enjoyed most of her ministerial career as a member of the political party whose federal president was a criminal, Mr Michael Williamson. So please, Senator Wong, do not come into this chamber and smear an honest, decent, dignified and competent woman when the political party you represent is racked with criminality from the top to the very bottom.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.