Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:06): There is a deficit at the heart of this government. There is a deficit at the heart of the government that performed so shamefully in question time today. I am not talking about the national budget deficit, the accumulated $150 billion budget deficit delivered by a government that, when in opposition, promised the Australian people that they were committed to budget surpluses. I am talking about a deficit of leadership at the heart of this government. I am talking about a deficit of trust in this government amongst the Australian people. It is not surprising though that there is a deficit of trust because this government is based on a deliberate and duplicitous statement made by the Prime Minister prior to the last election on the issue of a carbon tax. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The use of the term by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 'deliberate and duplicitous' is outside the standing orders and I would ask her to withdraw. Ms JULIE BISHOP: I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker. She made a deliberate and calculated statement— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader has to withdraw the disorderly statement. Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. She made a deliberate and calculated statement designed to mislead the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is not able to say that the Prime Minister made a statement 'designed to mislead'. That is disorderly and I would ask her to withdraw. Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. Let me come to the Prime Minister's performance in question time today. This Prime Minister likes to talk about leadership principles. At the recent launch of former Victoria Police commissioner Christine Nixon's memoirs, the Prime Minister lauded Ms Nixon as: … person of integrity who opposed corruption at every turn. The Prime Minister said the book was 'a record of Christine's leadership'. These are traits that the Prime Minister clearly admires in others but has not adopted for herself. We have heard repeatedly this week that the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Dobell. She accepts his explanation for the use of his union credit card to pay for escort services, cash advances and tens of thousands of dollars on his election campaign—reportedly undeclared to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Prime Minister apparently does not want the member for Dobell to provide that explanation to the people of Australia, let alone to the members of the Health Services Union. This week the coalition has attempted to provide the member for Dobell with every opportunity to speak under parliamentary privilege to the Australian people and the tens of thousands of members of the Health Services Union about the explanation he gave the Prime Minister in relation to these allegations, the explanation upon which the Prime Minister bases her full confidence in the member for Dobell. Yes, last night the national secretary of the Health Services Union said: Anyone in our organisation who misuses union money—be it for prostitution services or other unauthorised services—has committed a crime and in particular has defrauded the membership. The Prime Minister should inform the Australian people whether she believes that such conduct would constitute fraudulent and criminal behaviour. We are unlikely to know. As Kathy Jackson said of the member for Dobell: ... he should go on the record and repeat those statements ... He owes it to the members of the Health Services Union. The Prime Minister does not respect the wishes of the Health Services Union members, the tens of thousands of members of that union who Kathy Jackson described as: ... working-class people, they earn less than $20 an hour doing work that nobody else wants to do ... These people are salt of the earth. These people deserve answers ... Yet the Prime Minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the member for Dobell and to prevent him from giving a statement to this parliament under parliamentary privilege. We are not talking about a few dollars here and a few dollars there; we are talking about the systematic and calculated defrauding of what the union claims to be over $100,000. Under this Prime Minister, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations and protect the member for Dobell from scrutiny. Mr McClelland: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: with respect to the deputy leader, she is quite entitled to speak in general terms, but she is not entitled to make assertions if they are directed at an individual member without an appropriate notice of motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. I will ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to observe the standing orders. Ms JULIE BISHOP: As I was saying, under this Prime Minister's leadership, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations. After the defamation action collapsed, Labor stepped in to pay the member for Dobell's legal bills and presumably struck a deal with Fairfax to suppress further reporting of the matter. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions on this issue, but the Australian people are entitled to ask: who advised the Health Services Union to inexplicably refer the matter of the misuse of union credit cards to Fair Work Australia? It is inexplicable, as the Attorney-General would know, because it would appear that a matter of fraud should have been referred to the New South Wales Police. What jurisdictions does Fair Work Australia have over a fraud investigation? Perhaps it might make some sense when one realises the connection between officials in Fair Work Australia and the Labor Party. According to the Health Services Union, this issue was referred to Fair Work Australia more than two years ago yet there has been no progress in terms of a finding. There are many questions that need to be answered about this slow-moving fraud investigation and the Prime Minister has failed to show any inclination to come clean about this matter. It goes to the very heart of the deficit of leadership and the deficit of trust that the Australian people have in this Prime Minister. We know from Senate estimates that there has been contact between the government and Fair Work Australia about this matter, but the Prime Minister has refused to detail that contact. When asked about it today, she avoided answering the question, so it remains unanswered. These questions will continue to dog the Prime Minister beyond next week, beyond the week after and until parliament returns. Did anyone in the government advise the union to refer the matter to Fair Work Australia? If so, what was the legal basis for that advice? Why was the matter regarding the member for Dobell—this was two years after he was elected as member—referred to Fair Work Australia and not to the police? What has been the nature of discussions between members of the government and officers of Fair Work Australia? This investigation has been going on for two years. It has been reported that the general manager of Fair Work Australia is a factional ally of the Prime Minister and was appointed by this government in 2009 to be responsible for Fair Work Australia. Mr McClelland: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, again imputations are being made against an officer of the Commonwealth and if those sorts of imputations are going to be made, that they have acted— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Ms JULIE BISHOP: The National Secretary of the Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, has said that the investigation of allegations against the member for Dobell by Fair Work Australia was far too slow. I asked the Prime Minister today to detail the contact between her as Prime Minister or in her former role as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, or the contact of her staff or any minister and their staff with officials of Fair Work Australia. She not only avoided the question but the Prime Minister appeared slippery and shifty. She will not say what has gone on between Fair Work Australia and the Prime Minister's office over this investigation. But should we be surprised by this lack of principle on the part of the Prime Minister? We know how the Prime Minister came to office. She had promised faithfully as Deputy Prime Minister that she would never challenge the Prime Minister for the leadership of this country prior to the last election. She was specifically asked on radio on 10 May 2010: So will you promise you will not be leader at the next federal election? Julia Gillard: I can, completely. … this is, you know, it makes good copy for newspapers but it is not within cooee of my day-to-day reality. You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No I'm not... So how can the Australian people believe anything this Prime Minister says? She misled her leader into believing she would never challenge him for the leadership, and challenge she did. She stood before the Australian people at the last election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would, before calling the honourable member for Fraser, just remind all honourable members that, while this is a wide-ranging matter of public importance debate, we are as a parliament debating the impact of the government's failures in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families. Families, of course, are the subject of this particular matter of public importance.