Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the conduct of a minister.

The most generous thing I think we can say about the member for Hume, Mr Taylor, is that he is the unluckiest MP in the parliament. The answers today by Senators Cormann and Birmingham failed not only to address what has now become a daily display of failure by Liberal-National Party ministers to abide by the Prime Minister's own ministerial standards—remember, these are the ministerial standards the Prime Minister himself enforces—but also to reassure the public that they are acting in a way that the public would expect of their elected representatives. Paragraph 7.1 of these standards states:

Ministers must accept that it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether and when a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct.

It's the Prime Minister's decision, and what's he done? As Senator Birmingham said in response to a question: 'Zip, zilch, nothing'. He has done nothing.

Today the New South Wales Police Force confirmed that it had launched Strike Force Garrad to investigate the minister's involvement in the use of a false document. This morning in my contribution on the Orwellian named ensuring integrity bill, I was idly looking up the meaning of 'garrad' in the Urban Dictionary. I'm mindful of the President's ruling on functions in breweries, but if you look up the Urban Dictionary, you'll see that it says that 'garrad' means the dumbest—it doesn't use the word 'person'—person in the whole land, and maybe the New South Wales police have a sense of humour and that's why they've called it Strike Force Garrad. So when will the minister be stepped down?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you should respect the investigation.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection. We will take this investigation very seriously because what we have seen is that we have a minister who is repeatedly—repeatedly—breaching ministerial standards. Why do we know that? Because in the former term of this government we actually had a minister who did stand aside when there was a police investigation. Senator Sinodinos, who is about to become the Australian Ambassador to the United States, stood aside. They acted properly. They acted in a way that was consistent with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. Instead, what we have now is a minister, the member for Hume, who is under investigation. There is a police investigation ongoing. It doesn't matter why that happened. There is a police investigation happening.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Initiated by a political opponent.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And again I'll take that interjection. It does not matter how something comes to light. If the police choose to investigate it, the police choose to investigate it. In fact, what we have seen in this is the police investigating it despite the fact that the New South Wales police commissioner has now been improperly involved in the Prime Minister's friendship that they have. I bet the Prime Minister's superhappy that the New South Wales police commissioner, Commissioner Fuller, decided to give that interview on 2GB in 2018 saying of the then Treasurer: 'He's such a good friend. He takes out my rubbish bins.' And what the Prime Minister, the member for Cook, has done is actually, whether it was inadvertent or not, made it more difficult for the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police, a public servant. He has made it more difficult for that man to do his job without the question of bias being raised. That is an utterly irresponsible action.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just like your questions.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, someone has to keep you people to account, given that you are incapable of implementing your own Statement of Ministerial Standards. It is breathtakingly inappropriate that the Prime Minister would intervene in an ongoing police investigation by leveraging an old friendship in order to influence this. If the Prime Minister did not have sufficient judgement to not make the call, surely there are enough people in the Prime Minister's own office who might have thrown themselves in front of the phone to say: 'No. Don't make the phone call. It's inappropriate.' But, no, we shouldn't worry about it because—don't worry everyone—it was just an extremely short phone call. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Kitching. I find it ironic that Senator Kitching is leading this charge, given what the Fair Work Commission and the royal commission found in relation to Senator Kitching's own conduct. I think they found that Senator Kitching broke the law by falsifying the right-of-entry test and lying to both commissions by denying such conduct.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I think if you actually read through the documents you would see. I'm sure you've been given that by the Prime Minister's office. I would invoke standing order 193 suborder 3. Further to the point of order, I'm not sure whether Senator Seselja knows what that is, but it's about imputation, so, you can quote correctly—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quoting.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you quoting from the Hansard?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm quoting the Fair Work Commission.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps you can supply us with the quote, because otherwise I would ask you to withdraw it, but, if it's a quote—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was quoting. I was quoting from the Fair Work Commission.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking you to, at some point, show us. Perhaps it's a good idea to table the quote.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I don't need to table it in order to quote it.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you're not required. I'm asking you, in the spirit of good relations in the Senate, to consider tabling the quote, if it is a quote.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that request, and I thank you for it. The Fair Work Commission found on the totality of the evidence:

… I find that Ms Kitching performed these tests. Ms Kitching's denials of knowledge and involvement cannot be accepted.

So it is interesting that it is Senator Kitching leading this attack.

But let's go to the substance of what the Labor Party are saying. They are saying that, because the serial referrer to the police, Mr Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General, has written another letter to the police, and because the police, when they get something from someone senior in politics like the shadow Attorney-General, have to give it due regard, they are saying now that should be the test and that people should have to stand aside.

What has Mr Dreyfus's record been in the past in referring? He has referred a lot. He has referred nine matters, I believe, to police or other agencies, wasting their resources. He is the vexatious litigant. He referred George Brandis. He referred Christian Porter. He referred Stuart Robert. He threatened to refer Jamie Briggs. Every time this guy gets up to give a press conference and wants to refer somebody to the police. How many times has it led to charges? None. So we've got the shadow Attorney-General, who couldn't become the Attorney-General, because of the poor performance of him and the leadership of the Labor Party, who couldn't get into government, now wanting to bring down ministers by writing angry letters.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dreyfus, of course, was the Attorney-General.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order, Senator Kitching?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, incorrect information.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a debating point.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, on relevance.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, the frustrated shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, whose party failed so badly to make him the Attorney-General and get into government, now wants to bring down ministers by firing off more letters. He should be seen for what he is: a serial vexatious complainant with complaints that lead nowhere. He wastes police resources time after time after time. What the Labor Party is now saying is that, every time the shadow Attorney-General fires off a letter to the police, and the police then take that seriously because he's the shadow Attorney-General, we should have to stand someone down—absolutely absurd.

We know, in fact, that the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was under investigation by the police and remained as the opposition leader, leading the Labor Party, and as the alternative Prime Minister.

Opposition senators interjecting—

This mob just sits there and interjects because the truth hurts.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, please resume your seat. I've asked you to resume your seat. Senator Seselja has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask people to respect that right. Please resume, Senator Seselja.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. But I understand why they want to interject: because they don't like hearing the truth of these failed attacks from Mr Dreyfus and the Labor Party and the politics of smear. What is this about? This is about the fact that the Labor Party can't live with the fact that they lost the election, and Mr Dreyfus in particular can't live with the fact that he lost the election. So he thinks he can just fire off letters to the police asking for investigations. In the past he has referred other ministers, and where has that led? Absolutely nowhere.

Minister Cormann made the point rightly in question time today: what if this were the new standard to be adopted by this serial vexatious complainant, the frustrated, angry Mr Dreyfus, who can't cope with his position in life, is considering his position in this parliament, wants to go off and be a QC again and can't cope with the fact that he is not the Attorney-General right now? I've got news for Mr Dreyfus and the Labor Party; the way to get there is not through the politics of smear. It is not by bringing good people down. It is not by firing off letters to the police. It is by going and convincing the Australian community that the plan you have for them is a plan in the national interest—that you have the better plan. But you took a plan for $387 billion of taxes, and the absolute politics of envy, fear and smear is now being brought into our federal parliament to replace policies of substance.

So we're not going to be lectured to by the Labor Party, and we're certainly not going to adopt this standard that the Labor Party never adopted. We're not going to adopt a standard that, when you get complaints from this serial vexatious litigant, the frustrated Mr Dreyfus, we would have to stand ministers down. It is an absurd claim from the Labor Party, and they would be laughed out of court. Mr Dreyfus would be laughed out of court, and he should be laughed— (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be clear about the facts:

The NSW Police Force is in the early stages of investigating information into the reported creation of fraudulent documentation.

That's the quote that's on the public record from the New South Wales police.

Detectives from the State Crime Command's Financial Crimes Squad have launched Strike Force Garrad to investigate the matters and determine if any criminal offences have been committed.

The way in which this government has chosen to answer questions and to impugn the shadow Attorney-General for daring to ask for an inquiry is a disgrace.

The New South Wales commissioner for police has been impugned in this place today by what the government clearly think is a clever argument. They have diminished Mr Fuller by attempting in this place to create a perception that he was incapable of making a sound judgement about whether to proceed or not to proceed. Mr Fuller, on the facts presented to him, chose to proceed with an investigation. The minute he did that, the Prime Minister should have taken the action that is required of him by the Statement of Ministerial Standards. He should have implemented 7.1, which says:

Ministers must accept that it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether and when a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct.

Well, it is alleged. There are many allegations that linger long around Mr Taylor, the member for Hume. The commissioner of police in New South Wales, Mr Fuller, has determined that there is sufficient evidence for him to launch an inquiry. In the context of that inquiry, Mr Taylor, the member for Hume, should be stood down. If he doesn't have enough integrity to do it himself, the Prime Minister should stand him down.

This bloke has form. I am proud to be the Labor senator who looks after the seat of Hume, and I visit there on many occasions. There's embarrassment in that community about their current member. The $80 million water buyback—this is that guy. The repeated misleading claims on carbon emissions—that's this guy. 'Grassgate'—Mr Taylor accused of misleading the Australian parliament regarding his involvement in a scandal connected to his family businesses—that's who this guy is. He has form. On 24 June this year, when Councillor Moore and a member of the New South Wales parliament declared a climate emergency, which was endorsed by the council, they wrote to the federal government, and it upset Mr Angus Taylor. He was so upset that he wrote a letter to Councillor Moore in response to her suggestions and suggested that the council should take practical steps. The problem is that, in the letter he wrote, he articulated a claim that the council spent $1.7 million on international travel and $14.2 million on domestic travel, which was completely at odds with the figures that remain today on the website he says he acquired them from.

The guy has form and it's all bad. It stinks to high heaven, and this government knows it. Yet they are lining up to defend him—perhaps not all; we have to go to Senator Birmingham's responses today. Their shortness was quite good, actually. I would appreciate that more often. He said:

That is the advice of Minister Taylor.

…   …   …

I refer … to Mr Taylor's statement …

…   …   …

Minister Taylor has made a statement …

That's the degree of defence offered by Senator Birmingham. The reality is that, like rotting prawn shells cooking away in wheelie bins across this country, the stench of Angus Taylor is becoming more rank by the day, and, like a primitive poultice stench, that stench now hangs around the neck of the Prime Minister. Australians deserve better. Apparently Mr Morrison can manage to take out the rubbish in the shire. He should be taking out the trash here in Canberra as well. I call on the Prime Minister, as my colleagues in the other place have, to stand down Mr Taylor. He deserves to go. The police commissioner in New South Wales deserves a lot more respect than a mate-mate conversation by the Prime Minister seeking to influence the outcome of the inquiry. (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are—another question time; another take note of answers—and we've seen, yet again, that those opposite have nothing to offer the Australian people. All we see is more fear, more smear and more negativity. These people are meant to be the alternative government of Australia. Where's the vision? Where's the inspiration? This is all about one letter from a political opponent in the other place—the member for Isaacs; the shadow Attorney-General, no less—to the New South Wales police to start a politically motivated investigation. The Prime Minister has made the government's position clear on this. It doesn't matter how many times you ask the same question or how many times we provide an answer that you don't like; our response does not change. This is nothing more than a distraction from those opposite to fool the Australian people into thinking that they're doing something.

On this side we're actually interested in governing. We're interested in delivering to the Australian people. This week, whilst we've been delivering historic trade agreements with Peru, Indonesia and Hong Kong, among many others, including China, Japan and Korea, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they have a record of inaction. We have a record trade surplus—a $22 billion trade surplus—while their record in government is abysmal. Not just that. We saw the unions threatening, at the Northern Territory party conference, to dump MPs who support our position on trade. They are truly beholden to them.

Then we have the ensuring integrity bill. They should be standing with us, standing with small and family businesses, including the 31,500 SMEs in the building sector. They should be standing with everyday Australian workers, standing with us against the lawlessness, intimidation and bullying in Australian workplaces, but they won't, because it's not in their best interests. Rather, they're standing up for union bosses over the workers they claim to represent—unions over small businesses and family businesses, unions over everyday Australians and the economy, and unions over the law. It's no wonder they're looking for a distraction.

Over there, on that side of the chamber, what you see is a party so bereft of inspiration, vision or any plan for this country that they must tear us down at any opportunity. When they can't get any traction on policy, they start going after people. They're afraid of our record of achievement. After all, we're standing up for everyday Australians out there having a go. We're a threat to them. We're growing the economy. We're delivering economic growth. We've put in place a business and investment environment which is creating jobs and providing opportunities for all Australians. All they have is fear and smear. That's one thing, but it's another to continue to talk down our country and stand in the way of jobs, growth, enabling policies and productivity. It's not in their interests to do otherwise. Over there, they're worrying about annoying the union movement and whether they can support legislation that would support Australian businesses. We'll be over here, undeterred, governing and getting on with the job. They just don't get it. The Australian people won't get caught up in their distractions, their politics of envy or their grievances. The Australian people are just concerned about living their lives—working, raising their families and having access to world-class government services, which they deserve, and that is what we're delivering in the Morrison government.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we've heard the most confused and inconsequential defence of a minister in the Morrison government who should have gone yesterday and must go today. We saw the Prime Minister, all this week, defend the member for Hume. Today in the Senate, Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham gave wholly unconvincing accounts. Apparently, this scandal is the Labor Party's fault. Apparently, it's okay to ring the commissioner of police in New South Wales about an active police investigation. The commissioner of police, as you've said before, is your mate, so you get on the blower to the commissioner of police in New South Wales to sort out the details.

Today in the Senate, Senator Cormann dodged the question about whether the government and the Prime Minister were going to provide the transcript or other records of that conversation. It must be provided today if there is going to be any shred of credibility left with this government. The government is loose with the truth and doesn't have a plan for the real issues that confront Australians. Today and tomorrow, this is a government that wants to impose upon Australian workers a bill cutely entitled 'ensuring integrity'. Integrity? These people wouldn't know integrity if it bit them in the face. Who is this bloke, the member for Hume, Mr Taylor? He's had a golden run into the parliament. He is the square-jawed son of the squattocracy and had the finest boarding school education and university education that money can buy. A silver spoon doesn't touch the sides of the level of privilege, entitlement and unwarranted expectations that surrounded this bloke's rails run into the Commonwealth parliament. The National Party, or what remains of the National Party in this country, even stepped aside to gift this bloke from Woollahra a country seat. What craven characters they are!

He was described on his way into the parliament as having Kennedy-esk good looks. People on that side of the joint said he was the hope of the side—a future Prime Minister. Somebody said—I bet it wasn't Senator Fierravanti-Wells—that he was 'blisteringly intelligent'. How the mighty have fallen! In the year of his pre-selection, records show that he made a $155,000 donation to the Liberal Party in New South Wales. Parliamentary life can be tougher than people think on the way in here! All he has done since he has come to this place has been for personal advantage, personal advancement and wilful ideological follies. It has all come to a shuddering halt.

This born-to-rule sense of entitlement means that he is a weak link in a weak government. What is his record? It's a record of entitlement, poor judgement, low capacity and the relentless pursuit of self-interest. In October he was out there claiming incorrectly to the parliament that Australian emissions were going down when they were going up. He has already been exposed in this parliament for advocating to the then Minister for the Environment about a property that he part-owned. An investigation of land clearing in endangered grasslands was commenced about the property that he partly owned. What did he do? Well, he did what one college boy does for another college boy: he picked up the phone and he went for a meeting. I'm sure it was brandy and cigars and 'What can we do about this, old chap?' The bunyip aristocracy in New South Wales and the seat of Hume lives on. Some farmers resent regulation of land clearing and some don't, but the law applies equally—unless you're the member for Hume.

This week's calamity is about forged, fraudulent documents that were leaked to The Daily Telegraph by this minister, in a way that he cannot account for, in order to damage an elected official in the City of Sydney. The New South Wales Police has commenced an investigation. He must stand down today.

Question agreed to.