Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Watt and Chisholm today relating to the award of contracts to Newlands Civil Construction.

This is a very serious issue, and I don't think this issue has been given the due diligence from the Attorney-General in relation to how serious this is. The Attorney-General has dismissed this on a couple of occasions now, and this goes to the very serious issue of whether Senator O'Sullivan has a direct or indirect interest in a range of Commonwealth funded projects that are jointly funded by the state and the Commonwealth.

Senator O'Sullivan denied to AAP that he either directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. This is not about an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth; this is about a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. After the questions were asked of Senator O'Sullivan, Senator O'Sullivan updated his pecuniary interests in this area on 16 June 2017, and it says under O'Sullivan and Sons Pty Ltd, 'remove its subsidiary Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd'. This was done on 16 June 2017.

Newlands Civil Construction has been subcontracted to work on an 80 per cent federally funded government project which is worth about $2.5 million. Senator O'Sullivan went on to say, importantly, that a review by Newlands Civil Construction has proven that it does not hold any agreement with any company or any entity that has an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. So what we are expected to do, as Senator Brandis has done, is accept that Barry Jr, the son of Senator O'Sullivan, who is now the managing director of Newlands, says, 'There's nothing to see here; nothing to see here.' This is a company whose managing director, between 1991 and 2013, was Senator O'Sullivan.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. That's what the pecuniary interest says. Senator O'Sullivan has, as part of the O'Sullivan family, controlling interests. They are the controlling shareholders in this company. Due process, proper accountability and ensuring that the senator has no direct or indirect interest actually demands more than Barry Jr saying that Barry Sr—that is, Senator O'Sullivan—has no problem. Well, we think that there is more to be seen here. We think there is more to be answered. We agree with Minister Chester, who says that Senator O'Sullivan has an issue that he needs to explain. In my view, he certainly does need to explain why, after questions were asked, the pecuniary interests were changed so quickly. We need to ensure that Senator O'Sullivan is not using his privileged position as a senator to influence contracts and that he is not benefitting from these contracts, one of which is 80 per cent funded—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Brandis?

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

Madam Deputy President, as you well know, under standing order 193(3) there is a prohibition against senators using imputations of improper motives or personal reflections on other senators. I ask you to call the senator to order.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I ask that you be careful in this area, and perhaps rephrase your comments so that there are no direct imputations.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Madam Deputy President. These are issues that go to the credibility of the Senate, not just any individual senator. We cannot have a position where any senator is under a cloud in relation to section 44, or any practice that does not meet the requirements of both the Senate and the Constitution. Senator O'Sullivan does need to explain what's going on here.

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

No, he doesn't.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald says, 'No, he doesn't,' need to explain. Well, he does need to explain, because this is a problem that he has that should be resolved. This needs further clarity as to exactly what's going on with this web of companies that he controls. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cameron for raising this extremely trivial issue. I can't believe we're back here talking about ourselves once again. There are so many important things going on in the world and there are so many important things going on in our nation, yet those opposite once again decide to play the man, and not the ball, by talking about section 44.

Last week, it was all about Senator Nash. Not a single question during question time in this chamber was not directed to Senator Nash, yet this was at a time when we could have been talking about the military brinkmanship going on in North Korea. There was not a single question from those opposite about that. We could have spoken about the incredibly good news stories that were coming out of the economy, the green shoots that are showing through in the Australian economy—a quarter of a million new jobs—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. We could have spoken about the genuine action that is taking place on energy prices—imposing downward pressure on energy prices and finding a solution to the energy crisis in this country going forward—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash.

The repetition is becoming not just tiresome for those of us in the government but tiresome for those in the gallery. How very dull this can be. And yet, this week, they've decided to move away from Senator Nash and to move onto Senator O'Sullivan and whether Senator O'Sullivan directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in an organisation. The irony, of course, in all of this is that whatever contract there may or may not have been was definitely a contract with the Queensland government, not with the Commonwealth. Again, what we see is a significant misunderstanding of the issue by those opposite and an opportunity to play politics as opposed to dealing with issues of policy. I've got to say, at one stage I thought there was a moment there where, potentially, we could have been speaking about energy policy—energy policy which, let's face it, is possibly the most pressing issue facing this country right now. And what is it that those opposite are doing on energy policy? Well, I can't imagine—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I've not heard a single solution, Senator Cameron; not a single solution. Now, I'm not going to go the way of Senator Scullion and start talking about Blackout Bill, because I think that saying the words Blackout Bill when referring to those opposite is disrespectful, and Senator Scullion was right to withdraw it—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, please resume your seat. There is a message from the President about repeating offences. You are well aware that that was an issue raised at question time. I would draw your attention to the remarks of the President. I would ask you to withdraw those statements.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You are absolutely right. I think that Senator Scullion was absolutely right to withdraw those remarks and to not refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a disrespectful name. And I, too, withdraw—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Hume. Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume has reiterated the issue that the President dealt with. She should be asked to withdraw it and she should not be allowed to comment further.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, on the same point of order?

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

Senator Hume did not repeat what was objected to. It's as simple as that and, therefore, there is no point of order—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. I think you are now raising a debating point.

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

It's not a debating point.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat, Senator Brandis.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Brandis, I've asked you to resume your seat. Are you now disobeying a request that I've made?

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Sit down, Senator Brandis. I think I've heard enough on this point of order. Senator Hume, whilst you did not repeat the offence, I think there was an implication there, so I ask you to note what happened at question time and note the comments from the President about repeating language that disparages senators or those in the other place. Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume on two occasions used exactly the same words that the President commented on. She should withdraw them. It should be clear and simple. That is not appropriate and they should be withdrawn.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I'll seek advice from the Clerk. I think she withdrew them, but I'm more than happy to check the record, Senator Cameron, and come back to you if necessary. Senator Brandis, did you have a further point?

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

No, I just want to make the point that Senator Hume did withdraw—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis.

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

and did not repeat the remarks in any event.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've made a decision, thank you. Senator Hume.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I understand that there is a need in this place of dignity to treat colleagues and those in the other place with respect, and I wouldn't dream of impugning those in this place or those in the other place either. What I am very disappointed about, though, is the inability of those opposite to deal with the issues of importance, not just the issues of importance in this place but the issues of importance to the Australian people. That's something that this opposition seems to have failed to do repeatedly.

On the issue of energy, which is how this topic came up—and rising energy prices and reliability are of great importance—what we've seen from those opposite is little more than game playing. It has been a game-playing exercise. The best example of that is this government's policy to abolish the limited merits review. The limited merits review was a policy that was imposed upon the Australian people by those opposite during their time in government. The Turnbull government has been moving in this parliament to abolish the limited merits review to stop the electricity networks gaming the system and boosting their profits. What we've instead seen is those opposite, as part of their game playing and as part of their lack of focus on what is important, not supporting such a basic and sensible policy. The limited merits review has cost consumers approximately $6.5 billion since it was implemented in 2008 under the previous Labor government, because it has come out in favour of the electricity companies, as opposed to the consumers, 31 out of 52 times.

If Labor were serious about the cost of living, it would support this very important policy. If it were serious about seeking solutions to rising electricity prices, it would do so. Instead, it has sent this legislation to a Senate committee for review. Again this is a delaying tactic. It could support the government's efforts, but instead it has sent the legislation to a Senate committee. Those opposite clearly are not focusing on the game and are not focusing on the ball; they are focusing on the man by focusing on Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Nash. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on the growing controversy surrounding the business affairs of Senator O'Sullivan, a Queensland LNP senator. I think it's useful to just map out what this controversy is all about. It comes down to three different contracts that have been awarded to companies controlled by Senator O'Sullivan and his family. Not only are there three contracts but—and this is the important point—they are contracts to provide works that are funded by the Commonwealth government.

In 2015, Senator O'Sullivan's family company was awarded a contract to undertake roadworks in Emerald in Central Queensland under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. That was a contract valued at $2.2 million. In October 2016, a second contract was awarded to Senator O'Sullivan's family business, this time for $2.5 million worth of work on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing—again, a project that is majority funded by the Commonwealth government.

What we've learned today is that there is a third contract for Commonwealth-funded works that has been awarded to Senator O'Sullivan's family company—this time for works on the Warrego Highway west of Brisbane to the value of $1 million. So putting those three contracts together, what we now learn is that Senator O'Sullivan's family company has benefited to the order of $6 million in contracts to provide works funded by the Commonwealth government. The common theme across all three of these contracts is that they are performed by Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. When you dig into the ownership of that company, of course it has the opaque, difficult-to-understand company structure that we've come to expect of Senator O'Sullivan. Newlands Civil Construction Company until June 2017 was owned 100 per cent by a company called O'Sullivan & Sons Pty Ltd. That, of course, is a company which, when you trace it all back, is part-owned by Senator O'Sullivan himself in combination with another company that is owned by his very own son. It seems that Senator O'Sullivan likes to keep it in the family—not only are he and his son both called Barry but they like to own companies which benefit from Commonwealth contracts.

Mysteriously, only a week or two ago, Senator O'Sullivan updated his pecuniary interests register. One would have to wonder why, after all of this activity being undertaken for so long, all of a sudden he decided to update his register to record company restructuring which happened back in June. So he was well beyond the 30-day requirement to update his register after a company restructure. But let's leave that aside. The most interesting thing about that is that in June 2017, on the very day the government made announcements about new NDRRA funding that it was going to be providing, he restructured his arrangements to transfer his company's interest in Newlands Civil Construction to another company. And, what do you know, that's a company that is part-owned by his son. So we're still keeping it in the family. We're still keeping it from Barry Sr to Barry Jr, and now we're passing it from Barry Sr's company through to Barry Jr's company. It doesn't really matter, as long as there's a Barry O'Sullivan who's drawing a benefit. That seems to be the guiding rule for Senator O'Sullivan's business activities.

We've asked a number of questions about this today and last week in question time. What has been very conspicuous is the lack of enthusiasm by both Senator Brandis and Senator Nash to jump to the defence of their colleague Senator O'Sullivan. The strongest we've heard from Senator Brandis is that he has no reason to believe that Senator O'Sullivan is in any trouble or that anything untoward has occurred. I would hardly call that a ringing endorsement. That's not the kind of language I'd be looking for from my Senate leader if I was in a spot of bother. The reason for that is that they know that Senator O'Sullivan is in trouble. They know that he has a problem under section 44 of the Constitution, which says that a senator is disqualified from holding office if they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Commonwealth.

In Senator O'Sullivan's case, there's not just one agreement with the Commonwealth; there's not just two. There are now three agreements under which Senator O'Sullivan's family companies draw a benefit via Commonwealth funding. Commonwealth funding is passed through a range of different entities and, what do you know, at the end of the day it finds itself in the pockets of Senator O'Sullivan and his son, Barry Jr. Senators Brandis and Nash should ask Senator O'Sullivan some questions, and Senator O'Sullivan should make a statement to the Senate explaining himself.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another question time and another little grubby display of Labor backroom tactics. They are probably mildly amusing to those people who sit at home and do nothing other than watch Senate question time. But, to the rest of the world, it matters nought. I feel sorry for the people here in the gallery today and for those students who have come through to see what's on display when it comes to the tactics—

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

That's why they're all leaving.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they're walking out. You're quite right, Senators Brandis, they are leaving—I suspect in disgust. Off the back of a failed tactic at the beginning of question time, where questions were being asked of the wrong minister, which backfired embarrassingly—I haven't seen that in my time in the Senate, I have to say—they picked themselves up, or at least so they thought, changed tact and went on with this fascination, this obsession, the Labor Party has with pecuniary interests of senators in this place. Again, it's something that matters nought to the people of Australia, frankly.

Opposition senators interjecting—

And, as much as those on the other side chuckle and guffaw and think it's a great little show and that we should be sitting down with a bucket of popcorn to take it all in, the reality is that people out there in the real world, don't care. They're not worried about this sort of thing.

I have to say, though, in my own mind, it conjures up images of Labor senators and their staff sitting in smoky, dark rooms with dim lighting, rifling through the pecuniary interest register of senators to see what they've changed, what they own, what they had yesterday and what they're going to be changing if things are put on the public record, as they assert. It doesn't fill one with confidence about a group of people that aspires to lead this country in government one day. They're more interested in rifling through bits of paper and trying to sling mud at members of this place about fake arguments around what they own and the benefits they may be drawing. As Senator Brandis mentioned in his answer to the questions that he was asked, he canvassed these matters last week, and much of this was put on the public record. That begs the question: why are we back here? Because it's all about mud-slinging; it's all about characterising this as something that it is not. The questions have so much loaded language around the actual situation. All are assertions that are trying to draw conclusions that cannot be established on the facts available.

It was most enlightening to hear Senator Watt, under pressure by way of interjection from the Attorney-General, change his language. He was talking about Senator O'Sullivan having contracts with the Commonwealth when, in fact, the contracts with companies—whether or not there is an interest held by Senator O'Sullivan—are held with the Queensland state government, not the Commonwealth. Senator Watt realised that and he changed his language quite significantly, talking about benefits derived. There, immediately, he highlighted that he accepts that this argument does not hold water, and, really, it is only further ambulance-chasing and grubby politics, which is exceptionally disappointing.

One thing I would ask is whether those opposite have actually done an ASIC search of Senator O'Sullivan's companies. I wonder whether they would find, as I understand the case to be, that a simple ASIC search will show that Senator O'Sullivan holds shares in none of the companies that have been mentioned. I wonder if the next opposition speaker—I assume that will be Senator Chisholm—would be able to answer that question for me when they rise to their feet to contribute to this debate. It is about the facts; it's not about the assertions. We have to remember that.

The other thing we have to remember—as I started by saying—is that we ought to be focusing on the issues that actually really matter to people. It was revealing that this took up the lion's share of the opposition's questions today. Again, there is more of that 'gotcha politics' arrangement going on. They are not focused on things that people are concerned about. Senator Gallacher did ask a question about jobs. It was the last question, just squeezed in in time. But, beyond the feigned interest in jobs for communities outside of Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne, there was not much talk of real-world issues, which is disappointing. I think it is about getting the facts on the record. It's about clarifying the assertions that have been put on record in here—the disappointing reflections on individuals and just slinging mud left, right and centre to try to get someone. That is what this is all about. It's politics; it's not policy. It's not about advancing our country and it's not about advancing the lives of Australians that we apparently represent in this place; it's about slinging mud. It is exceptionally disappointing. I invite senators who want to pursue this matter to do so in a way that is based on facts and nothing else.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the important point that Senator Duniam touched on here is: let's get the facts on the record. I couldn't agree more. Let's get Senator O'Sullivan in the chamber to make a statement about these important issues. That's a sure-fire way we can get the facts on the record. The reality is that he has not addressed them. There have been numerous questions put to the government and they, as well, have failed to address them. I'd love nothing more than to get on with it and talk about other issues. But integrity is so important.

The question marks over this government around section 44 are so important. They go to the very heart of this government's decision-making. We know the Nationals have a problem with section 44 of the Constitution. Two other senators, Senator Canavan and Senator Nash, have a problem with section 44. We know the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place has a problem with section 44, as does Senator O'Sullivan. For those opposite who have a bit of a whine about wanting us to ask other questions, the answer is easy: give Senator O'Sullivan a ring and get him to come here and put on the record what he knows about this. The reality is that he has not done that and he won't do that, and the government won't come forth either.

There have been a number of questions that raised serious concerns last week and this week that the government have failed to answer. These have been questions around the contracts that Newlands Civil Construction have won, how many contracts there have been and how much money they are worth. From questioning that we have put and from what we have been able to identify, so far we know that three projects that have federal input have been won by Newlands Civil Construction: the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements in Emerald, and the Warrego Highway west of Brisbane. All up, we know that this company has done more than $6 million worth of work that has a federal contracting influence. But, when we have put questions to Senator Brandis and Senator Nash, the lack of answers only raised further alarms with us about the way in which the government has been dealing with this matter.

It would be easy for Senator O'Sullivan to come in here and clear this up a very quickly. But what has Senator O'Sullivan done? Recently, he changed his entry on the pecuniary interest register and failed to make a comprehensive statement to the Senate on these concerns. We know from Minister Chester, his own National Party colleague in the other place, who is in the cabinet—and I think this is very illustrative—that this is an issue that needs to be explained. This is coming from someone on his own side, a National Party minister in government, who is saying that Senator O'Sullivan needs to explain.

We will continue to pursue this because of the failure of the government to have answers and also because of the actions of Senator O'Sullivan. What are those actions? Why can't they come up and tell us the number of projects that Newlands Civil Construction has won that have federal government influence in them, the amount of money these contracts are worth and what the government have done about these serious allegations. These are the themes of the questions that we put to Senator Brandis and Senator Nash today and also raised in this place last week. But, so far, the government have been dismissive and have failed to answer the substantive nature of these questions.

When you look at the way they treated the questions that we put in the chamber today, it's easy to see why they have become embroiled in so much controversy over section 44. They really fail to do their homework. They fail to realise the seriousness of the allegations and, therefore, they pay the price. This leads to the chaos and dysfunction that we see from the government. We see it when it comes to the ministers and their failure to tackle the important policy challenges around section 44. When those opposite come in here to take note of answers, they talk about why they want questions on the serious policy challenges, but they're a government that are unable to deal with such questions because of the chaos that they face around the potential ineligibility of three senators—two when it comes to citizenship and one when it comes to the pecuniary interests of Senator O'Sullivan. So, when the government have opportunities to answer questions about Senator O'Sullivan throughout the rest of this week, it really is incumbent on them to have a look at what they have done in this regard and come into this chamber prepared to go on the record about contracts from which Senator O'Sullivan's company has benefited.

Question agreed to.