Doorstop - Parliament House

SUBJECTS: Craig Thomson saga; Peter Slipper; Pecuniary interest register E&OE…………   Christopher Pyne: One of the key issues he failed to address is that if he has been set up as he claimed in his statement, it begs the question when the credit card invoices were presented to him why he signed them, why he paid for them.  He didn’t address the issue of the legal fees and loans from the NSW Labor Party.  He didn’t address the credit cards that he’s alleged to have been given by the printers of the Health Services Union and today also the Government failed to explain why he is not good enough for the caucus, but is still good enough to accept his vote in the Parliament.  The key findings of the Fair Work Australia Report that he gave false and misleading evidence to the report were not addressed by the Member for Dobell and four occasions, four occasions today the Opposition tried to have the matter listed for debate so we could scrutinise his statement and protect the reputation of the Parliament.  The Government gagged those attempts to have a debate about the Member for Dobell’s statement. For that reason the Member for Dobell’s statement leaves more questions unanswered than answered and I assume the Opposition will continue to pursue the statement and the role the Prime Minister has played and the fact the Prime Minister has yet to address the issue on why he’s good enough for the Parliament to accept her vote, but not good enough to be in the caucus.   Journalist: How do you respond to the Government’s ongoing claim that in seeking to pursue that you’re just setting yourself up as a Kangaroo Court and you should just as Mr Shorten said today let the courts get on with it?   Pyne:  Well, Mr Shorten must know more about Fair Work Australia’s operations than he’s let on in the Parliament today or in the public because Fair Work Australia is yet to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court, but I would say to that Parliament has a role to play in protecting its own interests and its own reputation.  On many occasions in the last 112 years, but at least on three occasions members have  been suspended by the Parliament because the Parliament has taken the view that their activities, their behaviour has besmirched the Parliament.   The Parliament has a role; an important role in protecting the integrity of the Parliament and all the members in it and by the Government continuing to run the protection racket surrounding the Member for Dobell as we saw today on four occasions they are actually damaging the reputation of the Parliament rather than enhancing it. I’d also say that if the Government really meant that; if they genuinely meant the Member for Dobell should be regarded as innocent as a rose until otherwise proven, why was he suspended from the caucus?  Why did the Government exclude him from the caucus before all these matters have been to court?   Journalist: Mr Pyne, do people still have faith in Fair Work Australia given that Mr Thomson raised questions of alleged interference by Michael Lawler and also the delegate investigating Mr Thomson and also the HSU Terry Nasios?   Pyne: The Member for Dobell made a lot of statements in his hour long statement of self justification today and I note that some of the people he named under parliamentary privilege today are already making their own statements to the press this afternoon and in fact Channel Seven, about whom he made a particular allegation have put out a statement disputing his version of events.  Mr Balano I understand is about to do a press conference of his own disputing the Member for Dobell’s version of events. The Member for Dobell also of course failed to explain why today he was able to name people under the privilege of the Parliament, but hasn’t cooperated with the NSW and Victorian police investigations until very recently.   Journalist: So you don’t think there’s cause for potentially not having faith in Fair Work Australia and the report they’ve produced?   Pyne: Fair Work Australia have produced an 1100 page report of findings, which they are intending to take into the Federal Court through civil remedies.  I think in terms of the court of public opinion it’s more likely that people will believe Fair Work Australia than the unbelievable statement from the Member for Dobell today which, quite frankly has more conspiracies built upon conspiracy than I’ve ever heard in my 19 years in Parliament.   Journalist: Mr Pyne, very briefly on the subject of James Ashby can you give us an explanation of what the very brief emails that were printed in Fairfax were actually about.  What was the extent of contact with your office?  What were the emails about?   Pyne: Well, I’ve answered all these questions over and over again, but I’m happy to say as manager of Opposition business my job is to both liaise with the Speaker and the deputy speaker’s office when Mr Slipper was the Deputy Speaker.  I’ve done that job and the email that was revealed last week was so innocuous as to be boring.   Journalist: But why innocuous?  Can you tell us what it’s actually about?   Journalist: What did it mean saying, “See my APH address only”?   Pyne: It meant exactly what it says that I have only one email address.   Journalist: What was the question in response to?   Pyne: It simply means what it says.  I only have one email address.  I’m much less interesting than most people who often apparently have two or three email addresses and I do them myself.   Journalist: Mr Pyne, what’s the context?  We still have no idea what the context of that conversation actually is.   Pyne: I think the issue today is the Member for Dobell’s statement to the Parliament.   Journalist: Mr Pyne, are you a member of a lynch mob?   Pyne: No, I’m a member of the Australian Parliament who has been here for 19 years who believes that the reputation of the parliament is important and that members of Parliament have a right to protect this institution.  This institution has been dramatically damaged by this Prime Minister over the last three years and particularly since September last year; firstly by ensuring the Member for Dobell has not made a statement to the Parliament until last week when the independents indicated they were going to vote to make him make a statement, has been dragged kicking and screaming to deal with the Member for Dobell and continues in Chicago today to obfuscate on what she thinks is an appropriate use of the Parliament by the Member for Dobell.   Journalist: Sorry I missed the start of the press conference.  You may have answered this, but are you still of the view there are grounds to suspend Mr Thomson from the Parliament, either temporarily, or (inaudible). Pyne: I think what needs to happen now is that the Member for Dobell’s statement needs to be properly considered by the Parliament and that is why I’ve moved four times today for that to happen only to be gagged by the Leader of the House.  I think that statement needs to be properly dissected by the experts involved in this particular case and when that happens the Parliament will be in a better position to make an assessment. Journalist: Mr Pyne, would you contemplate taking action against Mr Thomson for contempt of Parliament given that people are denying what he has said?  Are there grounds there? Pyne:  Well today we referred the Member for Dobell to the Privileges Committee over the failure to update his Pecuniary Interests Register.  Of course if it emerges over the next 24-48 hours that the Member for Dobell’s statement is not a complete telling of the truth or in fact the unbelievability of it suggests that he has mislead the Parliament then of course the Opposition will take appropriate action.  One of those would be to suspend him, another would be to refer that potential misleading of the Parliament to the Privileges Committee for their assessment.   Journalist:  What did you make of Anthony Albanese…   Pyne:  You’ve had a question already!   Journalist:  Yeah this is a good one, you’ll like it.  What did you make of Anthony Albanese’s attempt to refer to the Privileges Committee the Member for Hughes and his business?  Was that simply an attempt by the Labor Party to engage in a tit-for-tat slime-war?   Pyne:  Well the Member for Hughes made a personal explanation after the debates in the Parliament today and I think the most telling point was that the Leader of the House claimed the Member for Hughes was a solicitor and in fact that has never been the case.  So I think the Leader of the House’s case against the Member for Hughes is very flimsy and, of course, what the Government is trying to do is to put smear upon smear in a desperate bid to distract the Parliament and the people from the woes the Government face.   Journalist:  Will you use the mechanisms of the House to give the people named in Mr Thomson’s speech and Mr Lawler the right of reply they have?   Pyne:  Well anyone who approaches the Parliament to make a right of reply goes through a process.  Part of that process is for them to present their side of the story to the Privileges Committee.  The Privileges Committee can then determine whether they believe that statement is appropriate to be incorporated in the Hansard.  If Kathy Jackson or Mr Lawler or Mr Bolano or even Mr Williamson, if any of those people named today wish to avail themselves of their opportunity for a right of reply that would seem entirely appropriate to me.   Journalist:  (Inaudible)… You said in the next 24-48 hours if you weren’t satisfied that he was telling the truth you would consider a suspension order or referring him to the Privileges Committee.  On what mechanism will you determine whether he is telling the truth or not?   Pyne:  Well, I mean, the Member for Dobell only gave his statement today at twelve o’clock and I think those people involved in this matter need to properly examine his statement, compare it to the Fair Work Australia Report’s findings and also the interviews he gave both on the Today Show and to Mike Smith he gave on the radio some months ago and see if exactly what he said passes the believability test.  And if the Parliament resolves it doesn’t then the options open to it are to suspend him or refer him to the Privileges Committee for a potential misleading of the Parliament and obviously the Opposition will do whatever is necessary to protect the integrity of the Parliament. Journalist:  Why not leave it to the Courts?  Why not leave it to the Courts to determine whether that statement is false?   Pyne:  Well the Courts have their role and the Parliament has its role.  And part of the role of the Parliament is to protect its reputation and this institution and that is what the Opposition is seeking to do while the Government instead runs a protection racket around the Member for Dobell.  Now many times in the past the Parliament has dealt with Members of Parliament they think have besmirched the reputation of the Parliament.  In 1989, in 1987 and back in the early part of the twentieth century.   Journalist:  Mr Pyne, do you believe in the presumption of innocence?   Pyne:  Well of course and what I find remarkable about the Government’s current wailing in the Parliament is, of course, they were the party that reversed the onus of proof in the Fair Work Australia Act which the Opposition voted against.   Journalist:  Are you confident every Opposition MP has updated their Pecuniary Register and, secondly, with the higher standard of what you’re now demanding of Mr Thomson would Tony Abbott have run afoul of that standard given it took him I think eighteen months to update his Register over his remortgaging his house.   Pyne:  Well I think there’s an important distinction to be made.  There is a difference between, for example, forgetting to update  the Register because you’ve forgotten the Samoan Government’s given you a gift.  There is a difference between inadvertently failing to update the Register over a matter that was already on the Register that you simply haven’t increased or changed.  There is a vast difference between those types of failures and, on at least two occasions that we know of, the Member for Dobell not updating his Register when he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New South Wales Labor Party for legal fees and loans and it appears he only updated his Register when he received media enquiries about those failures.   Journalist:  Have you had any chance to talk to the cross-benchers to see what they made of Mr Thomson’s statement?   Pyne:  Well the cross benchers voted today with the Opposition on four occasions to allow the debate so we could consider the Member for Dobell’s statement.  They voted to stop myself and Julie Bishop being gagged and they also voted for the suspension of standing orders.  So I think what the Independents are clearly indicating is that they believe it is a very serious matter that should properly be dealt with by the Parliament.   Journalist:  Mr Pyne, why didn’t you come out and give a full statement and explanation following the release of the Ashby emails?  Why did you hide from media scrutiny?   Pyne:  Well I never hide from media scrutiny.  I love the media.   Journalist:  Then why didn’t you give an account?   Pyne:  I’ve answered every question that’s ever been put to me about that matter.   Journalist:  Do you think Mr Thomson succeeded today in muddying the waters?  Maybe not in proving his innocence but sort of in casting enough doubt over the story of wrongdoing?   Pyne:  No I don’t.  I don’t think Mr Thomson dealt with the key issues in his statement today and I outlined those at the beginning of this conference. ENDS