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

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.

Today we saw the Assistant Minister for Health fail to comply with an order to produce a document that would support her claim to this chamber that her decision-making has not been corrupted by a conflict of interest. Her defiance of the chamber is the latest in a series of acts which warrant censure by this chamber. I say to my colleagues: the Senate needs to pass this censure motion to uphold the ministerial standards the Prime Minister has failed to enforce. I should not need to move this censure motion; the Prime Minister should have acted. But over recent weeks the Senate, the press gallery and the Australian public have been treated with contempt by an Assistant Minister for Health who has an unhealthy tendency to mislead. The minister has failed to account for her actions by answering questions and, when she has answered questions, she has demonstrated, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth.

At the heart of this matter is the failure of the Assistant Minister for Health to explain how an individual with interests in a lobbying firm with food clients came to be appointed as her chief of staff; and her failure to explain how that chief of staff came to order a government health information website to be shut down. I first asked a question about the taking down of the health star rating system website during question time on 11 February, the first sitting day of the year. Rather than providing a full and frank account of the actions taken by herself and by her office, the minister presented a completely fanciful account. She claimed that the website had been inadvertently placed, and that state and territory ministers had decided to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in a more expansive way than had previously been decided, before the voluntary star rating system would proceed. Neither of the minister's claims was true. And, having got off to this bad start, her answers to legitimate questions about this matter have only become more and more evasive, more and more misleading, and more and more untruthful. And this pattern of behaviour culminated earlier today when she failed to comply with the Senate's order to produce the letter—not just any letter, but the letter which she says sets out undertakings from her former chief of staff to address the conflict of interest in her office.

This matter goes to the heart of ministerial responsibilities in our system of government. Ministers are required to exercise their ministerial duties in a disinterested manner—that is, unaffected by bias or irrelevant considerations, including private advantage for others. Ministers are also required to demonstrate that their decisions are made with the sole objective of advancing the public interest, and to explain their actions to the parliament.

The Assistant Minister for Health's principal adviser had interests in a lobbying firm with food industry clients at the same time as he was advising her and acting for her in relation to policy matters affecting the food industry. This minister has failed to demonstrate how she was able to conduct her affairs in a disinterested manner, acting solely in the public interest, when she had a conflict of interest at the heart of her office. Despite admitting that her staff member's direct and family interests in a lobbying firm were known to her, the minister failed to take effective action to require him to divest his shareholding in the relevant businesses. The Assistant Minister for Health has failed to uphold ministerial standards, and the Prime Minister has failed to enforce compliance.

Let me take senators through the facts of the conflict of interest in Senator Nash's office. We know that Mr Furnival was engaged as her chief of staff from 19 September 2013. He was a director and a 50 per cent shareholder of Strategic Issues Management, which wholly owns a lobbying business, Australian Public Affairs. Australian Public Affairs has a number of clients in the food industry, including Mondelez, which owns Kraft; Cadbury; and the Australian Beverages Council, which represents soft drink and fruit juice manufacturers.

This is a textbook example of a conflict of interest. Yet Senator Nash denies and continues to deny that there was anything untoward here. So let me spell it out. The assistant health minister makes decisions which directly affect the commercial interests and the profits of companies in the food industry. While she was making these decisions, her most senior adviser owned a lobbying firm which profited from helping food industry clients get what they wanted out of the government. As I said, this is a textbook example of a conflict of interest. But it is not just a hypothetical example; it is a conflict of interest which has been played out in the real world. And, as we all know, on 5 February, the assistant minister decided to take down the health star rating system website, a website designed to help Australians make healthy food choices. It is an important initiative in the effort to prevent serious health conditions, such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Public health experts strongly supported the star rating website. It is a system that was more than two years in the making, and a project agreed to by federal, state and territory governments in December 2011. Yet all it took was one phone call to Senator Nash's office from the Australian Food and Grocery Council. The next thing that happened was the assistant minister's chief of staff instructed her department to take down the website immediately. That is a highly unusual chain of events.

Senate estimates heard evidence of the flurry of four phone calls, late in the afternoon of 5 February, from the minister's office to the department, demanding that the website be taken down. The departmental officer responsible quite properly referred the matter to a deputy secretary in the department. At the same time as the minister was ordering the website be taken down at the behest of the Food and Grocery Council, her most senior adviser had a financial interest in a lobbying firm representing confectionery and food manufacturers. This has undermined confidence in the minister, stakeholders and the wider public. In fact, Australians are entitled to ask whether her title should be changed from Assistant Minister for Health to 'Senator for Snack Foods'.

This erosion of public confidence is exactly why there is an onus on ministers to ensure that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest in their decision-making. It is a responsibility recognised in the Prime Minister's Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff, which requires staff members to divest themselves of any interest in companies or businesses involved in the area of their ministers' portfolio responsibilities. Under these standards, this minister should have required her chief of staff to divest himself of his interests in Strategic Issues Management. This did not happen until 13 February this year, after questions were asked in the Senate—five months after his employment with the assistant minister commenced; after she took down the website, and only after the conflict of interest was publicly exposed.

I did agree with one thing that Senator Brandis said in his speech. He said, 'Accusing someone of misleading is a serious matter.' And it is. I will take the Senate through why it is that the opposition maintains this accusation.

First mislead: during question time on 11 February, Senator Nash said:

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

That is not true. It took Senator Nash six hours, on 11 February, to come into the Senate and reveal that Mr Furnival did in fact have an interest in Australian Public Affairs.

Second mislead: during question time on 13 February 2014, Senator Nash said that one of the reasons that the health star rating website was removed is that the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation:

… took a unanimous decision to have an extensive cost-benefit analysis done.

That is not true. The communique of the forum's meeting on 13 December shows that it took no such decision, unanimous or otherwise. In an attempt to justify her own unjustifiable decision the minister has pretended it was a decision of the forum.

Third mislead: in estimates last week, Senator Nash said that after she engaged Mr Furnival, he:

… resigned as a director from all the related companies.

That is not true. ASIC records show Mr Furnival continued to be a director of Strategic Issues Management until 13 February 2014.

Fourth mislead: yesterday in the Senate, Senator Nash said—and I, again, quote:

Mondelez has not been a client of APA—

that is, Australian Public Affairs—

since my former chief of staff worked for me.

Again, that is not true. Mr Furnival was engaged as the assistant minister's chief of staff on 19 September 2013. The Australian Public Affairs entry on the federal register of lobbyists listed Mondelez as a client as of 11 February this year. Australian Public Affairs also updated its entry on the Victorian register of lobbyists on Monday of this week, and that entry continues to list Mondelez as a client. So it is demonstrably untrue. And I even gave the minister the courtesy of sending her the extracts yesterday afternoon and inviting her to correct the record, which she has not done.

It is a fundamental feature of our system of government that ministers are accountable to the parliament and, through the parliament, to the Australian people. But the Assistant Minister for Health has persistently refused to account for her conduct. She has refused to outline the appointment process that resulted in the engagement of her former chief of staff. She has refused to explain her failure to uphold the government's Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff, which require ministerial staff to divest themselves of interests in business involved in their minister's portfolio area, something which was not done. She has refused to tell the Senate when the Australian Food and Grocery Council called her office on 5 February which staffer took the call in her office. And she has today refused an order of the Senate to produce the letter setting out the actions that would be taken to address conflicts of interest between the business affairs of her former chief of staff and his ministerial staff role.

We have also seen senior members of this government give entirely inconsistent accounts of how the conflict of interest in Senator Nash's office was being dealt with. The Prime Minister has said the conflict was dealt with by requiring Senator Nash's former chief of staff to divest his shareholding in the lobbying business—that is what the Prime Minister told the House of Representatives. But the Special Minister of State, Senator Ronaldson, has conceded that the Government Staffing Committee, which is run out of the Prime Minister's office, did not require Mr Furnival to divest. Senator Nash has said she ensured there was no conflict of interest through a series of undertakings from her chief of staff. Last week she told Senate estimates that these undertakings were set out in a letter her former chief of staff submitted on his engagement. She has rested her whole defence of her conduct on her claim that she imposed undertakings to avoid the conflict of interest, and today she has refused to table the document she claims sets out those undertakings.

Senator Nash has breached the Prime Minister's statement of ministerial standards. The Prime Minister's own standards provide that ministers must ensure that official decisions 'are unaffected by bias or irrelevant consideration such as considerations of private advantage or disadvantage'. Senator Nash has breached this requirement. The Prime Minister's standards also provide that ministers must provide an 'honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office' in response to questions from members of parliament. Senator Nash has breached this requirement. The Prime Minister's standards provide that ministers are 'expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the parliament', and Senator Nash has breached this requirement.

As I said in the debate on the suspension of standing orders, this is not about whether or not the Assistant Minister for Health is a decent person. It is not about that; it is about whether she is a decent minister. Regrettably, her behaviour as a minister falls so far short of acceptable standards that she must be censured by this Senate. This is not a step, a procedure, that this opposition takes lightly. And, as I said at the outset, I should not need to move a censure motion. The Prime Minister should have acted. He should have acted to uphold his own statement of ministerial standards. He should have acted to uphold the content of his promise to the Australian people to ensure accountability and transparency. The very first statement of his own statement of ministerial standards says:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.

Yet all this Prime Minister has done is turn a blind eye to his assistant minister's conduct.

This is the very first big test of the integrity of the Abbott government and of the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister and this government have failed this test comprehensively. The Prime Minister has shown that he is not serious about leading a government that upholds basic standards of transparency, accountability and honesty. His failure to take action against Senator Nash is part of a wider pattern in this government—a culture of secrecy, a culture of misleading the public and a culture of refusing to be accountable to the parliament and, through the parliament, to the Australian people.

In conclusion, there was a conflict of interest at the heart of the assistant health minister's office. Her chief of staff owned a lobbying firm representing food industry clients while she was making decisions affecting the commercial interests of those clients. This raises serious questions over her decision to take down the website designed to help Australians make healthy food choices. Senator Nash has breached the government's own ministerial standards. She has repeatedly made misleading statements to the parliament. She has repeatedly refused to answer legitimate questions about her conduct. She has refused to comply with an order of the Senate—an order simply requiring her to table the very document that she claims proves she ensured that there was no conflict of interest. For these reasons, the Assistant Minister for Health should be censured by this chamber and, if the Senate passes this censure motion, she should resign.

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

Devoid of policies, devoid of direction and racked by disunity over the repeal of the carbon tax and of the mining tax; over Qantas, over the Registered Organisations Commission and over the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ALP have embarked on the tired old transparent tactic of trying to unite the troops by attacking somebody on the other side. But the attack should at least have a skerrick of substance, some semblance of logic to it. Let's be very clear: we on this side know Senator Nash to be a minister of integrity, a minister of capacity. She will continue to be a minister of integrity, she will continue to be a minister of capacity—committed to the service of the people of Australia.

Let me deal with one issue that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate raised—that Senator Nash had failed to respond to an order of the Senate. Well, if that were a crime, Senator Wong and the Labor Party would have been in jail and been censured many, many a time. It is quite proper and reasonable, from time to time, in this chamber, for the chamber to vote for certain matters to be tabled and for the government of the day to decide against it for a variety of reasons. Indeed, Senator Nash has given the Senate a very good reason. Just to make it absolutely clear, let me read into the record a letter from Senator Nash, dated 5 March 2014, directed to our President:

Dear President

I refer to the Return to Order agreed to by the Senate on 4 March 2013, requesting a copy of the letter submitted by my former Chief of Staff, Mr Alastair Furnival, at the commencement of his employment in my office in September 2013.

The correspondence referred to contains information relating to the personal affairs of an individual staff member. It was provided to me on a confidential basis and it is not practice, of either past or present governments, to divulge personal information about individual staff.

I have outlined the relevant undertakings to the Senate previously and I refer honourable Senators to the relevant Senate and Estimates Hansards.

Yours sincerely,

FIONA NASH

Clearly dealing with the issue of the motion and setting out rationally, reasonably and comprehensively why she will not be complying with the order of the Senate—but, nevertheless, treating this Senate with respect by responding, the very next day, with a letter to the President outlining the reasons and the rationale.

I think that was item No. 1 in the great attack by Senator Wong. I am sure that those listening in could not help but notice that Senator Wong started running out of puff after about the first minute and just laboriously read through the typewritten speech that she had, word for word, with about as much excitement as reading it out word for word. There was not much commitment in it.

But let me just refer to my good friends the Australian Greens. It will be recalled that, during the discussion in relation to the suspension of standing orders, when I mentioned the matter of the former Labor minister with whom the Greens were in cahoots to allow them to be in government, to allow Senator Bob Carr to serve as the foreign minister, he maintained a shareholding in his lobbying company. Can I just ask a question? Even if everything that is asserted by the Labor Party is correct, what do you reckon is worse—the minister or a staff member holding shares in a lobbying company? I wonder which one might be worse! I think everybody listening would say it would be the minister.

Here we have exhibit A, indicating that Minister Bob Carr maintained his shareholding in a lobbying company. When I raised that Senator Milne got up and said, 'This is the first time I've heard about it! We know nothing!' It was like Colonel Klink, wasn't it?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you shouldn't bring that up!

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

Ah, now we get the racial—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Very good, Senator Carr, you come in each time—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

If you had any degree of integrity about you, you would be apologising—but, look, let's keep on. Our friends in the Australian Greens claimed that they knew nothing about Senator Bob Carr. Can I refer senators to a little extract from our Journals and from Hansard of 14 August 2012, where my good friend Senator Ryan moved a motion headed 'Standards of Ministerial Ethics'. It asked that 'The Senate notes', among other things, 'R.J. Carr Pty Ltd, his former lobbying company', and talked about the standards of ministerial ethics, which requires 'that ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business'. It further called on 'Senator Bob Carr to table any advice he has received'.

Does that sound familiar: tabling advice in relation to matters of conflict of interest and standards of ethics? Do you know what happened when that got put to the vote? Not one Green, not two Greens, not three Greens, not four—but all nine of them, including Senator Milne, voted against the motion! And Senator Milne says, 'The first time I've heard about this company and Senator Bob Carr's standards of ministerial ethics being breached is today'! Doesn't that once again tell you everything you need to know about the Greens? They will vote against matters to protect the Labor Party when they have no understanding of the issues. They know nothing, they claim, but they will vote against it no matter what.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my left.

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

What that shows is that the Greens and that Labor Party will always support each other when they are in strife, even in circumstances where they do not understand the issues that are involved.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lord Brandis will have to step in here!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Williams, you have a point of order?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I am trying to listen to Senator Abetz speaking, presenting his strong arguments, while Senator Carr is on the other side squealing like a stuck pig. I cannot hear the speaker. Will you please ask Senator Carr—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Williams. I remind all senators to listen to the speaker in silence. Senator Abetz, you have the call.

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

So here we have the squeaky-clean Australian Greens saying that we have to vote for this motion because Senator Nash has allegedly misled the parliament. Excuse me! Senator Milne has misled the parliament during the debate by asserting she knew nothing about the motion for which she is recorded as voting against. It was not only Senator Milne. Every single one of the Greens senators came rushing in to defend Senator Bob Carr over an open and shut case in relation to a breach of ministerial ethics. Way back at law school I remember the line we were taught: he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. So one would hope those who claim that there has been some breach of some parliamentary standards are the upholders of the very highest standard.

The first allegation is 'misleading the Senate'. I wonder who might have misled the Senate about the emissions trading scheme and its consequences? I wonder who that might have been? Not Senator Wong, surely! Or how about the carbon tax: there will be no carbon tax. That wouldn't have been Senator Wong, would it? No! And what about the deficit that was left behind and the budget blow-outs as finance minister? No—no misleading of the Senate there! And what about the vote protecting Senator Bob Carr?

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

Nash is her name. You might want to defend her at some time.

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

Here we go, you see. What I am pointing out, Senator Wong,—and I am sure you understand it—is the gross hypocrisy and indecency of this motion. Because if that were the standard applied to the Australian Labor Party over the past six years then the whole front bench would have been removed. Senator Wong knows, as everybody in this place knows, that the ministerial standards on this side are so much higher than they ever were in the Labor Party.

Let us be very clear. When there was a motion in this place to expose the documents the Fair Work Commission had gathered together, in great detail, relating to Craig Thomson, the former Labor member for Dobell, whose one vote was helping to prop up the Gillard/Greens government, the Labor Party and the Greens voted together to ensure that those documents would not be made available for public viewing. I wonder why? Because it would have exposed once and for all the gross dishonesty of Mr Thomson, who we now know has been found guilty by a court of law. So, please, I say to the Labor Party: don't insult the intelligence of our fellow Australians by pretending, on a broadcast day, that you somehow adhere to standards of ministerial and parliamentary behaviour that you came nowhere near standing by or abiding by during your six years.

In relation to Senator Nash, I understand that there were three allegations. First, there was 'misleading the Senate'. There was no misleading of the Senate. Senator Nash, on re-reading her Hansard, thought further information should be added to an answer, and that was done on the very same day. You could not be quicker and clearer and more conscious of your ministerial responsibilities than Senator Nash was when, upon realising there was a potential ambiguity in an answer, she came back into the chamber on the same day to clarify the situation.

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

It was not an ambiguity. It was completely untrue.

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

Senator Wong continues thinking that noise and repetition somehow obviates the need for fact. In a debate such as a censure motion noise and mindless repetition never obviates the actual need for facts to base the censure on, and there simply has been no basis in fact for this censure. There has been no misleading in any way, shape or form by Senator Nash.

The second point was that she had allegedly failed to comply with an order of the Senate. If that were a sin Senator Wong would have had to have resigned as a minister. I indicate that Senator Nash did respond to the order of the Senate the very next day—in rough terms, one assumes, within a 24-hour turnaround she provided a comprehensive answer to our President of this place, to indicate that she was treating this place with the respect it deserves, unlike those who have been hollering throughout this debate. She has complied with the order in the normal tradition. So, the second point fails.

Point three was that she had failed to account for her actions. We have had question time after question time and we have had Senate estimates going on and on, and Senator Nash has given a fantastic account of herself, and of her ministerial role and responsibility, in a manner that I think every minister should be able to aspire to. She has set a high standard and has answered all of the questions in great detail.

This is the Labor Party whose former national president is currently in remand on charges of criminality—the man who organised the numbers to get Craig Thomson into the parliament, who helped organise the numbers for Ms Gillard and who was right up there and right in it. This is the same Labor Party, having those people at the top, that voted to ensure the document that absolutely exposed Mr Thomson for what he had done—ripping off the low-paid workers who are members of the Health Services Union—was kept secret, despite the Fair Work Commission saying that they had no concern as to whether or not those documents would be made available. In those circumstances the Labor Party voted to do what? To keep the documents secret. Why? To keep their tainted, dysfunctional and disunited government in power. That is the only reason they did it. And who helped keep them there? The other party that will undoubtedly vote for this censure as well—namely, the Australian Greens.

The Australian Greens, who claim they knew nothing about Bob Carr's conflict of interest, voted against him reporting to the Senate about it—not one of them but all of them, including the leader. They made sure that everybody came into the chamber. They made sure that not one of them was missing. They were showing to the Labor Party their complete and utter loyalty in the Labor Party's hour of need, when Bob Carr was under the microscope in clear breach of the ministerial standard. Just in case there is any doubt, the ministerial standard requires that ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any private company. He kept his shareholding for the full 18 months. Nothing could be more open and shut: throughout his 18 months as a minister, he kept that shareholding in his lobbying company.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson, who is interjecting, voted to ensure that the matter did not proceed before the Senate. He was part of the protection racket for Senator Bob Carr. The Australian Greens will always join the Labor Party in the protection racket. That is why they are against the registered organisations commission; that is why they are against the Australian Building and Construction Commission—because they do not want to see proper standards apply to registered organisations and trade unions, they do not want to see the rule of law apply on our building sites around this country, and nor do they want to see any standard applied on Labor ministers. But, when it comes to the coalition, we have a completely different standard.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson says he has to take a stand against lobbyists. Isn't that very interesting? Pity he did not take the stand against Mr Graeme Woods' $1 million donation that was personally negotiated by his leader—something that not even the Labor Party would allow under its code of conduct of fundraising, and we most definitely would not allow it. You come into this place claiming you are squeaky-clean on ethics, your leader deals personally with the biggest donation in Australian political history, and you have the audacity, the hypocrisy, the duplicity, to assert that somehow you are the harbinger of all moral standards in this place. Your actions speak so much louder than your words, Senator Whish-Wilson. The Australian Greens actions speak so much louder than their words.

If we really thought that Senator Wong was genuine in this—we knew she was running out of puff; we knew she was running out of arguments—she then tried the very lame line that this minister might be named as the 'Minister for Snack Foods'. Here we are in the middle of, allegedly, the most serious matter ever to confront this parliament and we have Senator Wong making the horrendous allegation that Senator Nash might be known as the 'Minister for Snack Foods'. Really? Is this as serious as the Labor Party gets? Is this as good as Senator Wong gets in relation to these matters? The listening public would be saying to themselves, 'We thought the Labor Party might actually be interested in the issues of the day, like Qantas, the repeal of the carbon tax and the repeal of the mining tax. What can we do to get jobs generated in this country?'

I think Senator Wong might have form in this regard. I know what happened to Ms Gillard and I know what Senator Wong is trying to do to Senator Nash, but the good news is this: we on the coalition side will look after our ministers, and our female ministers as well. We will not see them knifed off by the likes of Senator Wong, especially when we know that they uphold the— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, just for the completeness of the record, can you table the letter that was produced by Senator Nash to the President of the Senate?

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

Absolutely.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

It is true: any motion to censure a minister is serious. I agree with Senator Brandis who said earlier this afternoon that in this chamber a motion of censure of a Senate minister is important as an accountability tool. A censure motion should never be moved lightly and should never be agreed to unless a strong case is made.

In relation to this matter, Senator Nash's serious failure in the exercise of her ministerial responsibilities, her failure to account for her actions and conduct as a minister, her failure to comply with an order of the Senate, and her failure to correct misleading statements made both before the Senate and Senate committees do warrant severe censure. In this case, serious questions arise regarding Senator Nash's competence and her suitability for ministerial office. Senator Nash has been given ample time and ample opportunity to correct misleading statements she has made and to answer questions directed to her, not to mention provide a full explanation to the Senate regarding all the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Health Star Rating website. She has failed to do so.

First, some background. This website provided details of the Health Star Rating system, designed to give clear and accurate information about the nutritional content of packaged food. And given this government's repeated declarations that this is the age of personal responsibility, you might think that this website is exactly the sort of thing the government would be in favour of: providing tools to Australians to take personal responsibility for their choice of food. But Senator Nash's office went into overdrive to have the website removed. Mr Furnival—then Senator Nash's chief of staff—phoned an assistant secretary from the Department of Health, on 5 February, demanding the website be taken down. This occurred, of course, on the same day that the CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Mr Gary Dawson, phoned Senator Nash's office to express his concern that the website was premature.

The secretary of the Department of Health provided evidence at Senate estimates that the official who received Mr Furnival's call reported the call to a senior officer because 'it was above my pay grade'. An assistant adviser in the minister's office then spoke to an acting deputy secretary of the department, advising 'We would like the website to be taken down.' The deputy secretary advised that he was in a meeting and would look into it 'as soon as possible'. The assistant adviser again called the deputy secretary, 'roughly 15 minutes later', asking for progress—just 15 minutes later—and the pressure was really on. But the deputy secretary advised that he was still looking into the matter and consulting the acting secretary of the department. The acting deputy secretary then took a phone call from Senator Nash—approximately half an hour after her assistant adviser's last call requesting that the website be taken down. The department at this time, I suspect, probably realised they were fighting a losing battle and complied with the request.

Mr Furnival was not only Senator Nash's chief of staff at that point but also a co-owner and director of Strategic Issues Management, which wholly owns the company Australian Public Affairs—which lobbied on behalf of Mondelez, the parent company of Kraft Cadbury, a company which expressed concerns about the Health Star Rating system. And prior to becoming a ministerial staffer, Mr Furnival said that he was an economist for Cadbury. Another client of Mr Furnival's co-owned company APA was the Australian Beverages Council, whose members include Coca-Cola and PepsiCo and which also has a close interest in the development of the Health Star Rating system.

In question time in the Senate, on 11 February, Senator Nash told the Senate:

… There is no connection, whatsoever, between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs. My chief of staff has no connection with the food industry and is simply doing his job …

This was simply not true. In fact, it was very far from the truth. Senator Nash claimed, in question time, on 12 February:

… my chief of staff complies with proper internal standards under the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff …

This was not true either. Senator Nash did make a statement to the Senate indicating Mr Furnival's spouse gave undertakings that APA:

… 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 other ministers of the Commonwealth in relation to the health portfolio.

That is not the test to be met in relation to ministerial staff standards—in fact, it is an arrangement that should not be necessary at all.

Unfortunately for the government and Senator Nash, we know that Mr Furnival breached at least three of the standards that all ministerial staff are obligated to adhere to. For the record, they are clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff. Mr Furnival failed to disclose and take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest in connection of his employment, which is essential to conform with clause 3 of the statement.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen. Mr Furnival also breached paragraph 4 of the standards. It says staff must:

Divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private company or business and/or direct interest in any public company involved in the area of their Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen either. He also breached paragraph 6 of the standards. It requires staff:

Have no involvement in outside employment or in the daily work of any business, or retain a directorship of a company, without the written agreement of their Minister and the Special Minister of State.

Senator Nash should not have allowed that to happen either. I note for the record that the Government Staffing Committee considers all ministerial appointments. This committee is centrally controlled by the Prime Minister's office—as so much is in the Abbott government. I also note that reasonable questions asked by senators at Senate estimates committees of ministers about the role of the Government Staffing Committee in the appointment of Mr Furnival were not answered, and I suspect reasonable questions that should have been asked about Mr Furnival's employment were not asked by any member of Mr Abbott's Government Staffing Committee either. But one thing that we can say for sure, as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has confirmed, is that the Prime Minister personally approves all ministerial staff appointments.

Senator Nash claimed in Senate estimates on Wednesday, 26 February, in relation to her former chief of staff, Mr Furnival, that 'he had resigned as a director from the companies.' That was not true either, as the records of Australian Securities and Investments Commission showed. In fact, Mr Furnival ceased being a director of Strategic Issues Management Pty Ltd on 13 February 2013, about five months after he joined the minister's office and only after this became a matter of notoriety after questions were asked in this very chamber by the opposition. Then Senator Nash claimed in question time yesterday:

Mondelez has not been a client of APA since my former chief of staff worked for me. APA did no work for Mondelez. I cannot be any clearer than that.

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

That is right.

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

'That is right,' says the Leader of the Government—big mistake! But I will have to give you this, Eric, it is the only time you have actually engaged in the substance of the debate at all.

The facts are that Mondelez was listed as a client on the federal lobbyists register until last month, and I understand—as we have heard today—it was still listed on the Victorian lobbyists register yesterday. It was another statement about this matter, this time in question time just yesterday, that is simply not true. In Senate estimates on Wednesday, 26 February, Senator Nash indicated that Mr Furnival provided her with a letter on his engagement as her chief of staff relating to conflicts of interest between his business affairs and his role as a ministerial staffer. The minister was asked in estimates by Senator Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, to provide a copy of that letter. The minister refused to do so. But not only did the minister refuse to do so in Senate estimates, she has now refused to provide it to this chamber. She has now refused to comply with an order of the Senate to provide a copy of the letter. I would say that is a very, very contemptuous attitude from a very, very embattled minister.

It appears that the failure to declare conflict of interest became a habit. There is a standing item on the agenda of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation which requires members and supporting staff to declare any conflict of interest. Mr Furnival attended a meeting of that forum on 13 December 2013 in his official capacity with the minister. He made no declaration, and this also is a clear breach of the standing arrangements for what is a very important ministerial council. There are two key paragraphs in the statement of ministerial standards that I think are of particular relevance to Senator Nash and her conduct, and Senator Wong has mentioned these. The first of these is paragraph 3.2, which states:

… Ministers are required to ensure that official decisions made by them as Ministers are unaffected by bias or irrelevant consideration, such as considerations of private advantage or disadvantage.

The second is paragraph 4.4, which states:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

Now we have codes of conduct for staff and for ministers, and everybody in this place knows it. This is because the decisions of government must be made and must be known to be made on their merits, because decisions must be made transparently and because ministers must represent the interests of the Australian public, not serve the interests of private companies. As the Prime Minister said in the forward to his own statement of ministerial standards:

… it is vital that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence in them and in the government.

The integrity of government processes is a fundamental underpinning to our democracy and to our democratic system. If the Australian community cannot have confidence that government decisions and actions are based on policy not patronage, then we cannot have faith that the votes that are cast are part of the directing government in determining our country's direction.

Senator Nash's clear breach of the standards relating to private advantage and disadvantage has far more widespread and extensive consequences than just the removal of a food-rating website. Her failure to provide an honest and comprehensive account of her actions compounds the damage of her actions. Ministers provide answers to parliament as a crucial part of accountability. It is one of the most important ways the Australian community finds out what is done by the government—what is done in their name.

To treat questions in the parliament and in parliamentary committees with contempt, is to treat with contempt the right of Australians to know how their government acts. It undermines the basic tenet of democracy: that we cast our votes based on the assessment of the alternatives. We have been invited by the government to put the case against Senator Nash in this censure motion. Senator Wong and I have addressed these issues in substance and in detail this afternoon.

This is why Senator Nash's actions are so serious and so deserving of censure. If the Prime Minister will not take any steps to protect what I think are the principles at the heart of our democracy, by acknowledging Senator Nash's egregious failures, and if he will not take the appropriate action then I say—and I hope the majority of the Senate will join me in saying this—the Senate must do just that by passing this censure motion.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to pause for a moment to reflect on the reason we are debating this censure motion. It is because Labor and the Greens combined to suspend standing orders. What we witnessed in that act was the band getting back together. The much heralded divorce proved to be only a trial separation. Those on this side of the chamber know that Labor and the Greens—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order, on my left and on my right! The speakers have been heard in silence. It does not help if either side intervenes when the speaker is on their feet. The speaker is entitled to be heard in silence. If you wish to participate in the debate that is obviously something that remains within your province in this chamber. I ask both sides to respect the speaker.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the band is back together. Those of us on this side knew that Labor and the Greens were continuing to secretly cohabit. I know those on the left of politics around Australia will be rejoicing for this reunion.

The other interesting thing about the debate we have heard this afternoon is the deployment of Senator Faulkner. The Labor Party think, 'In case of emergency, break glass and deploy Senator Faulkner!' Whenever an argument is failing, they roll out Senator Faulkner to try and lend some of that well-honed gravitas to the argument that is before the chamber. We saw that today. Senator Faulkner was in high dudgeon, doing his very best confected-outrage routine. We know when we see Senator Faulkner mounting an argument in this place that Labor have effectively given up the case that they are prosecuting.

If Labor had their hearts in this—if they believed for a second the argument that they are seeking to put in this place—why would we not have had a single frontbencher other than Senator Wong? Senator Moore spoke on the suspension motion. I acknowledge Senator Moore's contribution there. When we move down the line, was Senator Conroy going to participate? I do not think so. I really do not think Senator Conroy would be in a very strong position to contribute to this debate. Perhaps Senator Polley could have spoken? I will let that be a rhetorical proposition! Senator Cameron?—again, I do not think so. I guess colleagues are getting my point: there are not too many options on the front bench on the other side when it comes to people to prosecute cases. When an argument is particularly in trouble they bring back Senator Faulkner. We saw that today, so we can put that aside.

There have been some very serious allegations made today against Minister Nash. She has been accused of misleading the Senate. She has been accused of failure to comply with an order of the Senate. She has been accused of a failure to account for her actions. They are serious allegations and they should never be made lightly in this place. As Senator Brandis said, to impugn someone's motives, someone's behaviour or someone's conduct without being able to back that up is a very serious thing to do. It is an appalling thing to do.

What we have witnessed in the course of this debate is that the goalposts have continually moved, in terms of what it is that minister Nash is supposedly guilty of. The goalposts keep changing. I must say I have been following this debate in this place, in estimates and in question time, very closely. I have found it extremely difficult to work out what the precise charge against Minister Nash is. This first that was levelled was the question of whether there was a delay between the first question that Minister Nash answered in question time and when she came into the chamber to provide additional information that she thought was appropriate and necessary.

Labor have been getting hysterical. They have been hyperventilating over the fact that Senator Nash came into the chamber on the same day. I would have thought that it was a minimum standard that a colleague comes into this place on the same day. The time period that elapsed was six hours, and we are meant to gasp that there was a six-hour gap.

I would encourage colleagues who may not have been in the community affairs estimates committee last week to refer to the Hansard evidence of Senator Stephen Parry, the Deputy President of the Senate. An unusual thing happened in that Senate estimates hearing. Senator Parry sought the opportunity in that committee to make a statement. Usually, as we know, the format for estimates is that questions are asked and answers are given. Senator Parry sought the indulgence of the committee because he wanted to assist in their deliberations—and I acknowledge that Senator Faulkner and Senator Wong provided Senator Parry with that opportunity. What Senator Parry wanted to do was to forensically go through that six-hour period which Senator Nash supposedly was using to not come into this chamber. I refer colleagues—it is well worth reading—to the Hansard of the community affairs estimates of Wednesday, 26 February 2014. Senator Parry went through the pattern and the flow of what happened in this chamber on that day and made it very clear that Senator Nash availed herself of the first practical, reasonable opportunity to provide additional information to this chamber. I know colleagues around this room hold Senator Parry in some regard, and Senator Parry did a very forensic job at analysing the pattern and flow of that day. So I think we can put completely to one side that argument that Senator Nash in some way delayed providing information to the Senate. She takes her responsibilities very seriously, and she took the first appropriate and reasonable opportunity to provide that information.

Then there is the issue of the failure to comply with the Senate order, which, I guess, is the latest charge. The first charge was the six-hour delay; this failure, supposedly, to provide information to the Senate chamber is the latest charge. Senator Nash did respond to the order of the Senate. We all know in this place that, when you respond to an order of the Senate, those who put in the request might not necessarily like the way that you respond. They might not necessarily like the content of your response to the Senate, but the fact is that Senator Nash did respond to that order of the Senate. As to her response, which was in relation to documentation related to with Mr Furnival, her former chief of staff: I am pretty unsurprised by the content of her letter. I quote: 'The correspondence referred to contains information relating to the personal affairs of an individual staff member. It was provided to me on a confidential basis and it is not the practice of either past or present governments to divulge personal information about individual staff. I have outlined the relevant undertakings to the Senate previously and I refer honourable senators to the relevant Senate and estimates Hansard.' That is an entirely appropriate approach. Staff members of members and senators are entitled to some confidentiality about their particular circumstances. They are not members of parliament; they cannot defend themselves in various forums. So I think it is an entirely orthodox approach that Senator Nash has taken in responding to the order of the Senate.

The other allegation which, I guess, has been thrown about—between the first charge of a delay in providing information to the Senate and the last charge of failing to respond to an order of the Senate; the accusation that has bounced around between those two goalposts—has been that of a conflict of interest. I have listened closely to Senator Nash and I believe that appropriate steps were taken to deal with potential conflicts of interest. In any ministerial office there are a range of potential conflicts of interest. What matters is what steps are taken and how those are managed. We know that there were steps taken towards divestment and that there were appropriate undertakings given. So I struggle with the proposition of a conflict of interest.

Then, between those two goalposts I mentioned before, we have had thrown around the issue of disclosure. Has Minister Nash appropriately disclosed all that she needs to? Minister Nash has answered question after question in this chamber during question time. Minister Nash answered question after question, hour after hour, in the community affairs estimates committee. And today, where Minister Nash, in the debate about the suspension of standing orders, did not shy away from rising to her feet and making her case—she had no hesitation at all. She has taken every opportunity to provide a full account of herself.

I guess what this debate really comes down to—and I think it is something that we probably would all agree with—is that public life is a test of character, ultimately. The conduct of senators in this place is a test of character on a daily basis. The conduct of ministers in their roles is, on a daily basis, a test of character. I have no doubt that Minister Nash, as a senator, passes the test of character in terms of her behaviour and conduct. I have no doubt that Minister Nash, in her capacity as a minister in the execution of her duties, passes that test of character. But, when it comes to a test of character in the conduct of one's duties as a frontbencher, I want to draw a contrast between Minister Nash as a frontbencher and Senator Conroy as a frontbencher. I think we all recall Senator Conroy in the immigration estimates committee, where it is now a matter of record that Senator Conroy accused Lieutenant General Angus Campbell AO DSC of being engaged in a political cover-up. I witnessed Senator Conroy warming up for that particular activity in the communications estimates hearing, where he accused Dr Ziggy Switkowski of being a liar, of misleading the Senate and of being in contempt of the Senate. So, if we are going to compare the conduct of frontbenchers as a test of character, I will put Minister Nash up against Senator Conroy any day of the week.

I cannot help but think, knowing how fond Senator Conroy is of Jack Nicholson movies, having cited A Few Good Men, that in the immigration estimates hearing he was combining two other Jack Nicholson roles—Jack Nicholson in The Shining and Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nestsuch is his fondness for Jack Nicholson movies. I refer to Senator Conroy to make the point that those opposite throw words around like confetti. They forget that words have meaning. That is why we saw Senator Conroy, in the communications estimates hearing, talking about Dr Switkowski lying, talking about Dr Switkowski being in contempt, talking about Dr Switkowski misleading the Senate: lying, contempt, misleading. Here today, we are again seeing that pattern of throwing words around as though they have no meaning. This time we are seeing the word 'censure'—this chamber seeks to censure Minister Nash for the charges laid out by Senator Wong. I point out to those opposite that words do have meaning. You cannot just walk into a Senate estimates hearing and accuse someone of being a liar. You cannot just walk into a Senate estimates hearing and accuse someone of misleading the Senate. You cannot just walk into a Senate estimates hearing and accuse someone of being in contempt.

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

You can't walk in here as a minister and say things that are a lie.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you cannot just walk into this place and throw the word 'censure' out there in relation to the activities of a minister.

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

She keeps saying things which are not true, and you are defending it.

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

Order! You have had your opportunity to participate. Senator Fifield has the call.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess I would call this approach to discourse in this place a Conrovian approach. Those opposite do need to pause and they do need to think very carefully before they make charges against people, whether they be witnesses at estimates hearings or ministers in this place. You must think very carefully about the words that you use and that you choose to level against people in the conduct of the parliament.

I think there are examples of genuine misconduct in public life—genuine misconduct in the form of the Australian Labor Party before an election saying that they would not introduce a carbon tax. I think that is serious political misconduct. And they did—we know they did. Before another election, they promised that they would be abolishing the carbon tax, and they have opposed that. I refer to those two examples because, as I say, the debate before us is about character. The charge that is being levelled at Minister Nash is that she has failed the test of character in her conduct as a minister, which I reject. I level the charge at the other side that they have failed, collectively, the test of character in public life with their repeated misleading of the Australian people before subsequent elections. I make the charge that Senator Conroy has failed the test of character in his conduct as a frontbench member.

Senator Wong has said that if this motion passes, she thinks that Senator Nash should resign. We have got to see it for what it is—it is a trumped up charge, and no such thing should happen if this motion passes. I think Senator Conroy should resign for his conduct. If we are talking about failing character tests, he has failed clearly, absolutely and utterly.

At the heart of the allegations made in the censure motion is the accusation that there has been a vested interest of some sort at play in Minister Nash's office—again, I have seen no evidence of this. However, on the other side of politics we see vested interests at play each and every day. We see them at play in the cheek by jowl relationship between the Australian Labor Party and various trade unions—not all trade unions; there are some good trade unions, but there are some trade unions that are not so good, and one of those is the HSU. If we want examples of vested interests inappropriately at play in public life then we need look no further than the relationship the Australian Labor Party has with certain trade unions. We have also seen some very curious relationships between the Australian Greens and certain individuals who give money to the Australian Greens. There are vested interests at the heart of the activities of the Australian Greens.

Senator Nash is a person of the utmost integrity. Those of us who know her well have no difficulty in trusting in her appropriate execution of the roles and responsibilities of a minister. Those of us who know Senator Nash have no difficulty trusting that she appropriately fulfils her obligations as a senator and—even more importantly—that she fulfils her obligations to this chamber, that she is accountable to it, that she is answerable to it, and that she answers each and every question put to her. We have seen her do that day after day.

We need in this place to be very careful before moving censure motions. As I say, words have meaning; words have power. They are not to be used lightly. We have seen a pattern emerging from those opposite where they will say anything about anyone for political advantage. Senator Conroy is exhibit No. 1 in that regard. I would urge those opposite to take the opportunity to pause and step back from this motion. It is not justified. It is not warranted. The charges against Senator Nash have not been proved. She has taken every opportunity to account for herself. As far as I am concerned, the fact that Mr Furnival has now left Senator Nash's office means the matter is closed. I do not accept for a second that there was an issue at play, but the fact that Mr Furnival has now left the office puts beyond any doubt that there is any matter that remains to be addressed.

I would urge colleagues not to support this motion, I would urge the Australian Greens not to support this motion and I would urge Labor senators not to support this motion. It is one of the gravest allegations that can be levelled against a colleague—that they are deserving of censure. Senator Nash is not deserving of censure; she is a person of integrity, she is a senator of integrity and she is a minister of integrity. She has given tremendous service to this place and she will continue to give tremendous service to this place, not only as a senator but also as a minister, for many years to come.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The substance of the defence from the government is that Senator Nash has provided answers to the allegations before her. It was the substance of the defence outlined by Senator Fifield and, previously, by Senator Abetz and Senator Brandis. On that we agree: she has provided answers. She has provided answers to the Senate during question time, she has provided answers during Senate estimates and she has provided answers here today. What we take issue with is the content of those answers. That is the issue here: it is not good enough to say that you have answered allegations, and that is the end of the matter. It is the content of those answers that is at issue.

Senator Wong and Senator Faulkner have gone through the sequence of events in great detail. I will not do that again. I will not dwell on the specific issues that have been addressed. I will, however, turn to a few points. The first issue is that—and people who are following this debate may not necessarily have followed every detail, so I will try and summarise it—during Senate estimates, Senator Nash said, clearly she knew Mr Furnival; she had known him for years; they had a longstanding relationship; due diligence was carried out; and they were fully aware of his relationship with the lobbying firm. There were no questions about that. What I cannot square off is that, in Senate question time, Senator Nash went on to say, very clearly:

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

I understand that sometimes we are caught on the hop in this place. Sometimes we panic. Sometimes we might not understand the question correctly. That is fine; that is what happens. But Senator Nash has been given a number of occasions to explain how we can square those two completely contradictory statements from her. On one hand, 'I have known him for a long time; I am fully aware of his connection to the company—in fact, we performed due diligence on his appointment', and on the other hand, to come in here and say, 'There is no connection whatsoever between Mr Furnival and the company.' It does not make sense. And without a thorough explanation, the only conclusion that we can come to is that the Senate was deliberately misled.

Then there is the issue of the conflict of interest. Again, just a few facts: that Mr Furnival owned the company with his wife. Let us be clear about that. He was a director of the company with his wife. He owned it and directed the company. We know that the ministerial code of conduct says very clearly—and this is not an area of ambiguity, if you have a pecuniary interest in an area in which a minister is involved, then that is a conflict of interest. This is a clear conflict of interest. Yet what we are told is that steps were undertaken to ensure that conflict of interest was dealt with—and we are provided with no evidence to confirm that those steps in fact have taken place. It is a clear conflict and, for me, it is a lesson in how you deal with a situation like this. The first thing is, you have to accept this point—that facts do not matter; that when you come into the Senate, facts simply do not matter. We are entering a parallel universe here, where black is white and white is black. When you are in a political crisis, dig in; if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one and tell it often.

For me the biggest concern here is not the issue around the appointment of Mr Furnival. It is not the fact that there was a conflict of interest. It goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with our Australian democracy at the moment—that is, the privileged role of special interests in the Australian parliament. Earlier today, we voted against gambling reforms because of the power of the pokies industry. Everybody remembers what happened during the mining tax debate, when the mining industry came to town and we saw the previous government turn its back on what would have been an excellent reform. We are hearing now about moves afoot to wind back protections for consumers in the financial services industry. We have my colleague, Senator Whish-Wilson, pushing to try and get container deposit legislation. And who are the biggest obstacles to that? The Australian Beverages Council, one of Mr Furnival's clients. That is the issue here. That is the problem that makes meaningful reform very difficult. It has a corrosive impact on the Australian parliament. If we look at the specific portfolio area that Minister Nash is responsible for, what are the great health challenges? What are they? One is obesity. We have a country with one of the highest obesity rates anywhere in the world. What was proposed? Providing consumers with information via a star rating website that made it very clear to consumers—to individuals—that some foods that they may have thought were healthy were in fact less healthy than they thought, or the reverse. That is what this reform was about.

What really confuses me here is that on the one hand we have a conservative government that says the only way for markets to work efficiently is if we have a decent flow of information, yet here we are with a reform that provides consumers with information and we have Mr Furnival, whose lobbying firm works on behalf of the junk food industry, preventing consumers from getting access to that information. Here is the paradox for the coalition: are they going to be true to that Liberal philosophy that says consumers should get access to good information, or is their connection to big business so entrenched that they will deny people that information?

Look at the area of alcohol reform. We recently had a big national debate about the issue of alcohol fuelled violence and alcohol related harm. At the same time, we had the defunding of an alcohol and other drugs agency on the basis that the work they were doing was duplicated by other agencies—which, we learnt through Senate estimates, simply was not true. When it comes to tobacco control we have a party—and a minister who belongs to that party—continuing to take donations from the tobacco industry. How is it that a party, and a minister, who has control over tobacco policy can continue to be the only party in the Australian parliament that continues to take donations from an industry that kills people? It is another obvious conflict.

No-one here enjoys this business. A censure motion is a serious thing. And of course there is a human element to all of this. I do not know Senator Nash. I am sure she is a decent person. But this is not about whether she is a decent person. Sometimes, good people make serious mistakes. Senator Nash has made a number of serious mistakes. What needs to happen now is straightforward. The website that was taken down should immediately be reinstated. People should not be denied access to information that will improve their health. If it is not the role of government to protect the health of the Australian community, then I do not know what we are doing here. The funding for the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council should be immediately reinstated. We need to ensure that the National Party are dragged into the 21st century and that they join the Greens, the Australian Labor Party and, most recently, the Liberal Party in ruling out donations from the tobacco industry. In taking these actions, the minister can demonstrate that she does put the health of the Australian community ahead of those privileged special interests. She needs to correct the record on the statements she has made, and then she should do the dignified thing and resign as minister.

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

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

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

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.