Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (14:52): Okay, wake up everyone please. You can imagine in Tactics at the beginning of the week: they decided, 'We're going to have our first big suspension motion, and we're going to build up to it,' because after you lose office the suspension motion is your big moment, your crescendo, where you start to define what you're about. And the issue they picked to define what their opposition is about is that ministers aren't selling down shares quickly enough. Let's just consider the shadow ministry that they are offering on this issue. If this standard were applied to them, the Leader of the Opposition would be in breach, the Leader of the Nationals would be in breach, the shadow Treasurer would be in breach, the Manager of Opposition Business would be in breach, the shadow home affairs minister would be in breach, the former Deputy Prime Minister would be in breach— Mr Wallace: You're in government! Mr BURKE: I just heard them saying, 'Oh, but you're in government.' So you've only just bought all these shares, have you? This has only just happened? This is all brand new? My favourite one of the examples: the shadow minister for climate change doesn't just have shares; he's got them in Rio Tinto and Newcrest. No conflicts there! No conflicts there at all! But the motion that we have, the whole concept of the resolution we're to suspend standing orders for—and, let's not forget, the whole concept of a suspension in the middle of question time—is that this is so important it's worth knocking off all the other questions that were going to be asked. That's what they're asking for. That's what this resolution is for. Mr Howarth: You did it every week! The SPEAKER: The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE: We never did it on anything as silly as this one. What they are going for here is on the concept: 'Well, the big thing we need to have happen is to seek advice from the Secretary to PM&C.' Remember the Gaetjens reports? Remember how many times we were told by those opposite, the answer to every question: 'Phil Gaetjens is looking into it.' I remember hearing about the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember seeing the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember a single one of those reports ever seeing the light of day. But it wasn't only on shares that those opposite had issues of integrity. Remember when respected Speaker Tony Smith was in that chair and was asked about a former Leader of the House who had set up a trust fund, and the impact of that trust fund to pay for his personal expenses, his personal bills, was being used on the declaration. All the questions they have asked this week have been based on going through the declaration, where ministers have been transparent. That's where all of this information has come from—because ministers have been transparent. What did the former Leader of the House's declaration tell you? There was a trust fund and you weren't allowed to know where the money was coming from. That was referred to the privileges committee in a reference that was made and then the Speaker had to consider whether or not it would be given precedence to even be looked at. For as long as I have been here and for as long as the Prime Minister has been here, when precedence is given the House then votes in favour of it. But, breaking that precedent, in a complete cover-up to forever conceal the financial interests of one of their own, they came in here to vote that reference down. And who do you think was the Leader of the House who called the division? Who do you think was the Leader of the House who said, 'We should never have a right to know where the money is coming from'? Who might be that person who stood right here and argued that the government would not be supporting the reference—and the culture of secrecy wouldn't just continue but that every single one of them would vote against the recommendation of the Speaker and make sure that the information was forever suppressed? Any ideas on who? I know you are all looking at your phones, but it was the now Leader of the Opposition who came in here and led the charge to make sure that the Register of Members' Interests was effectively rendered meaningless by one of his own receiving money that we will never know the origin of. Compare that with an incoming government where the Prime Minister has come forward with a code of conduct that those opposite never would have dared do. If any Prime Minister from their side had dared bring in a code of conduct where you were expected to get rid of your shares, they would have knocked off the Prime Minister in seconds. That's what they would have done, because it goes completely against the grain of how they operate. It goes completely against the grain of born to rule, born to invest, born to entitlement— Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE: And born to rort; that's right. It goes against the grain for every single one of them. What they are now doing is complaining and wanting to argue about a code of conduct which contains some of the principles that were there when we were last in government—all of which they got rid of as soon as they came in. They made sure that none of these principles around protecting the public interest and avoiding conflicts of interest were applied to them at all. On the occasion when one of their own was so openly flouting it that the Speaker recommended it be given precedence for the privileges committee, each and every one of them voted to shut the inquiry down. And now that the government has re-established proper standards of integrity, proper standards to avoid conflicts of interest, proper standards that make sure ministers are not caught in the sort of behaviour that those opposite were involved with, what do they do? They decide that that's their big issue. I have laughed this week thinking about the conversations that they must have had as to who should ask about a breach of the ministerial code. Do we have the person who had to resign over Queensland trips? Do we have the question relevant to the motion we now have in front of us asked by the person who somehow magically uploaded fraudulent documents about the Lord Mayor of Sydney? Do we have the question asked by someone who took an overseas trip to China in a private capacity, who suddenly appeared as a minister doing private work? Do we have people involved in water sales and water purchases? Do we have— Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE: And I haven't even mentioned the Leppington Triangle! I haven't mentioned that, but after this point of order I'll— The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat— Mr Pasin interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Barker will cease interjecting! Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting! When the House comes to order I'll call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, on the suspension of standing orders: he needs to be relevant and argue why standing orders should not be suspended. He's not doing that. The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. It is a very wide-ranging debate. I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr BURKE: I don't think that point of order was in the interests of the Manager of Opposition Business, I've got to say. But if he ever wants that to become the precedent for how we debate suspensions of standing orders we can start to go to that rule in the future, if that's where he wants to go! Of all the questions, right on cue: who might be the person who purchased land worth $3 million, paid $30 million for it, but then, when they had to work out, 'Let's rent it back,' decided that the land was worth even less than $3 million? Then, off the back of that— Ms Rishworth: From donors! Mr BURKE: From donors, I might add! Those opposite come to this debate in the worst of all worlds—in the worst of all worlds!—with zero credibility and wanting to talk about a standard that they evaded, that they rorted and that they did everything they could to avoid. I'm proud that we have a government where these questions can be asked, because the answer on every occasion is a standard that is being held here that never existed over there! And if that's going to be the sort of reason that you reckon we should interrupt the rest of question time and make sure that the crossbench don't get other questions—if you reckon that an issue like this was worth it—you are far more out of touch than we had even dreamed. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be disagreed to.