Doorstop - Parliament House, Canberra

SUBJECTS: Parliamentary votes; Member for Dobell; Carbon Tax; Pairing Arrangements

E&OE… 

Christopher Pyne: Well this morning ladies and gentleman, thank you for coming to this press conference, this morning the Parliament voted in favour of requiring the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the Parliament outlining the claims that have been made against him and why they are misrepresentations which as we know has been his defence. The Parliament voted 73-71 in favour of requiring him to attend, as you would know that’s not an absolute majority but is certainly a moral victory for the opposition and we were supported in that by the Independents, Tony Crook, Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie. I am surprised that the Members for Lyon, New England and Melbourne who talk about transparency and open government, when they get the opportunity to vote for it, in fact vote not to require a member to come and explain what is clearly an issue that is paralysing the government. Clearly the Member for Dobell has made the most calamitous defamation action since Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensberry and it’s high time he made a statement to the parliament exactly about the circumstances that make up his defence.

Journalist: Is it worth turning Margaret Olley’s funeral into a political (inaudible) into a moral victory?

Pyne: Well Margaret Olley’s funeral has nothing to do with the proceedings that have occurred in the parliament today, nothing at all. The Government, the Opposition was well represented at the funeral by George Brandis, the Government could have chosen to send an appropriately senior Senator to represent the Government. The place of Members of Parliament is in the House and that is exactly where they should be except in exceptional circumstances, and while Margaret Olley is a very significant Australian and one in which the Opposition has the upmost respect, and I’ll point out she was a self declared Liberal supporter throughout her life, it is not appropriate for a funeral to take precedence over votes in the Parliament about the integrity of the Government. This issue of the Member for Dobell is paralysing the Government, distracting the Prime Minister from the important day to day requirements of trying to deal with some of the major issues that are facing the country whether it’s border protection, whether it’s taxation, whether it’s the loss of manufacturing jobs and steel jobs, the Government is distracted, it’s time the Prime Minister cauterised this issue, require the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House and show that the government has some semblance of integrity.

Journalist: What about reneging on the pair for the Prime Minister so she could carry out an official duty welcoming a visiting head of state?

Pyne: Well the Government is entirely responsible for the Prime Minister missing the vote today on whether the Member for Dobell should attend the House because if they had not pulled a pathetic stunt at nine o’clock to suspend the standing orders themselves our motion would have been dealt with between nine and nine thirty and the Prime Minister would have been able to attend. So Anthony Albanese and the government, they’re entire responsibility for the fact the Prime Minister was not able to be there to vote.

Journalist: (inaudible)

Pyne: Well she would have been available between nine and nine thirty because the Seychelles meeting was at nine thirty and our suspension motion would have been done and dusted by then if the Leader of the House hadn’t made the mistake of the Government pulling it’s own stunt. I’d also point out of course that the Opposition won the vote 73-71, by two votes so even if the Prime Minister had attended the vote still would have been carried.

Journalist: But why hasn’t your Senator actually resigned as the chair of the committee that she presides over rather than inaudible, she is getting full pay whereas Craig Thomson has foregone his $12,000, it is one rule for the opposition and one rule for the Government?

Pyne: Well Paul I take your point, I think it’s worthwhile pointing out that there is absolutely no comparison what so ever to the…

Journalist: (inaudible) criminal charges…

Pyne: There is no comparison what so ever to the Senator that you talk about and what she is facing and the very grave charges that have been made against the Member for Dobell

Journalist: (inaudible) assault I believe are the other charges…

Pyne: I don’t think the man on the Clapham bus thinks that a $93 supermarket allegation ranks alongside the several hundred thousand dollars that are now at play in the issue to do with the Member for Dobell.

Journalist: But both the Senator and Mr Thomson are innocent…

Pyne: I’ve answered that question.

Journalist: What do you say to claims that in the past former Howard government ministers have faced serious allegations against them, they weren’t asked to come to parliament and make a statement even up until all the allegations had cleared, why isn’t this a double standard?

Pyne: I think you’ll find that the Howard Government routinely dealt with these issues in a much more open and transparent way than the current Prime Minister is dealing with the issues surrounding the Member for Dobell.  If the Government’s defence is that the Howard Government was no good, so neither will we be; I don’t think that is a very good defence in the court of public opinion. 

The truth is this issue is alive and well in the media and in the Parliament.  It is distracting the Government from the day to day business of dealing with issues that are of real concern to Australians.  The Prime Minister is yet to require the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House in spite of the fact that last night he resigned as Chairman of the Economics Committee.  Now, you would think that having resigned as Chairman of the Economics Committee it would be beholden on him to at least explain to the Parliament why these claims are of such significance that he can’t continue to hold the position of Chair of the Economics Committee. 

Journalist: Should the Health Services Union come out today with a clear statement about what they intend to do? 

Pyne: That’s a matter for the Health Services Union, and I understand there is a national executive meeting today and I’m sure they’ll make an appropriate statement after that. 

Journalist: Mr Pyne, at the moment there is not a police investigation; they’re only assessing what’s been presented to them.  The only investigation currently underway is the Fair Work Australia investigation.  That is not I think in people’s general perception the sort of organisation that would normally be looking into these sorts of matters.  Do you think the public are entitled to have full confidence that Fair Work Australia is the right entity, if you like, to be investigating this broad range of allegations? 

Pyne: I think Fair Work Australia is taking a great length of time to deal with something that apparently they’ve had on their books for two years.  Fair Work Australia should get on with their investigation.  Of course they should and I understand that since the Member for Dobell’s radio interview with Mike Smith a couple of weeks ago, Fair Work Australia is re-looking at the evidence that he gave them when they first started investigating a complaint that had been made to them by the Health Services Union two years ago.  I think Fair Work Australia should continue their investigation and should bring them to a conclusion. 

I think the New South Wales police is the appropriate organisation to investigate whether there has been a fraud or a larceny against the Health Services Union.  But I simply make the point that this goes to the very integrity of the Government and whether the Prime Minister is prepared to take the necessary steps to require the Member for Dobell to make a statement to the House, especially in light of the fact that apparently these claims are so serious that he’s resigned as Chairman of the Economics Committee. 

Journalist: (inaudible)

Pyne: The carbon tax is the most important issue facing Australia.  The carbon tax is going to wreck havoc on the jobs of Australians and the livelihood of Australian families.  The Government has admitted as much itself.  And we’re already seeing the beginning of the impact of the uncertainty that the carbon tax is creating in the economy and the Australian public are quite rightly concerned about how the Government is handling the economic crises that are affecting Australia and the rest of the world.  The carbon tax, being the most important issue facing the nation, every member of Parliament is expected to be in the Parliament to support or vote against the carbon tax. 

Journalist: So regardless of personal circumstances, you will not grant a pair?

Pyne: Well, I will simply point out, Phil, that it’s a matter for the Government when a vote on a carbon tax is brought on.  It’s a matter for the Government.  They will schedule that vote, not the Opposition.  If they schedule that vote at a time when there are Ministers at conferences either within Australia, or overseas, it will be on their heads.  There will not be a pair.  It is a matter for them. 

Journalist: On this scheduling of pairs, was it in pursuit of an absolute majority that you denied pairing for example today?  When you denied Malcolm Turnbull and Simon Crean going to Margaret Olley’s funeral?

Pyne: I’ve dealt with the Margaret Olley funeral pair issue earlier in the doorstop. 

Journalist: But was it due to the absolute majority?

Pyne: The question of an absolute majority or moral victory is really neither here nor there.  There are two members of Parliament that are paired, so there was never the possibility of an absolute majority.  The important thing that’s happened today is that a vote has been held that was won 73-71, requiring the Member for Dobell to come into the Parliament and the Government voted to stop that happening and still lost. 

Journalist: Why was it so important to deny that pair if you knew you weren’t going to get an absolute majority anyway?  What’s the difference between 73-71 and 72-70? 

Pyne: This is a vote about the integrity of the Government.  We believe a vote about the integrity of the Government is important enough to require the Prime Minister to turn up and vote. 

Journalist: Ok, so votes on Craig Thomson, votes on the carbon tax.  What else are you extending these pairing arrangements to? 

Pyne: Pairing arrangements are a matter between the Opposition and the Government.  They are not in the standing orders.  They are simply a precedent and trawling through when pairs will be granted and when they won’t be granted is really, quite frankly, a side issue. 

Journalist: But it’s you guys who are playing these games because you’re saying, “not on the carbon tax, not on this issue.” 

Pyne: I think I’ve answered that question.  We’re not going to be distracted by the circus of whether pairs have been granted or not. 

ENDS