Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos. I refer the Assistant Treasurer to his previous answers concerning his dealings with Australian Water Holdings. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware that company treasurers are required to be honest and careful in their dealings, to know what their company is doing at all times and to ensure that their company keeps proper financial records? As a director of Australian Water Holdings—indeed, as chair—was the Assistant Treasurer honest and careful in his dealings, did he know what his company was doing at all relevant times and did he ensure that is company keep proper financial records?

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

As I have ruled on other occasions this week on questions similar, the minister need refer to only those matters that pertain to the portfolio.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Sinodinos does not need my help, but clearly it is your role to rule out of order questions which clearly have no relevance whatsoever to this parliament or to this portfolio. I ask you, Mr President, not to ask Senator Sinodinos to answer on his portfolio but simply to rule the question out of order.

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

There is no point of order. I have made it quite clear that the minister need only address matters that pertain to the minister's portfolio.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is a particular question that the opposition want to ask me, they should ask it.

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

Mr President—

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

Senator Sinodinos has sat down as his response to the question.

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

The question directly related to the minister's responsibility in terms of regulation in regard to ASIC and the responsibilities of directors. It was specifically related to his responsibilities. For him to sit down in that way is clearly contemptuous.

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

That is a debating point at this moment because the minister has finished his answer and has sat down.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I want to respond to the point of order.

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

I have just ruled that there is no point of order. It is a debating point.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I will take another point of order. Does this mean we can ask a Labor senator about what he or she did at the doors of Parliament House well before they were in parliament? Is that relevant?

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

That is not a point of order.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister has refused to answer my question with respect to his careful dealings with Australian Water Holdings, with respect to him being aware of the company's dealings at all times and, indeed, managing their financial records. I also ask: did the Assistant Treasurer stand to gain from the awarding of a contract by Sydney Water to Australian Water Holdings in January 2012? Did that gain amount to a parcel of shares, valued at approximately $3.5 million?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! Clearly, this is before the minister was a minister. I rule that out of order.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I invite you to reflect on your ruling after question time. A ruling that suggests an entire question is out of order is a very broad ruling. Does it go to the supplementary to the first question, which those opposite also claimed was outside the minister's portfolio area? In fact, if any of those opposite chose to listen to the question, they would find it was entirely within his portfolio responsibilities. To suggest that the minister only has to answer parts of the question that he feels are inside his portfolio is, at times, a very reasonable ruling and it has been used on all sides of the debate. But to actually rule something completely out of order is something that I would invite you to consider after question time.

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

There is no point of order. If you look back at questions through the week you will see specific questions that went to statements that have been made in this place. And I have been consistent.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note, again, that the Assistant Treasurer has answered questions previously before the Senate with respect to Australian Water Holdings. In that respect I ask: did the Assistant Treasurer know who owned interests in Australian Water Holdings; and, if not, why not?

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

The Assistant Treasurer, again—in so much as it applies to the minister's portfolio.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have answered questions consistently all week on this subject. I stand by my previous statements and those statements will be vindicated in another place. That is all I have to say.