Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:17): I move: That— (1) the Senate requires the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to immediately attend the Chamber to provide the Senate with a full explanation of his dealings as a director of Australian Water Holdings, with particular reference to political donations, his shareholdings and his role in contract negotiations negotiations and his statement made in the Senate on 28 February 2013 and reaffirmed during question time on 6 March 2014; (2) at the conclusion of the statement a senator may move to take note of the explanation; and (3) if no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 pm today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply. We have heard a significant amount of hyperbole in the contributions of those opposite. I think it is useful if we go through what is being sought by the Senate and by the opposition. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Senator WONG: Thank you. The assertion has been made that the only things confronting Senator Sinodinos are smears and innuendo. I make this factual point: this senator is being investigated by two separate anti-corruption inquiries—Operation Credo and Operation Spicer. Rather, his activities have been the subject of those inquiries. I also make this point. The opposition are seeking something very simple: we are seeking that Senator Sinodinos immediately attend the chamber to provide a full explanation on a range of matters that are set out in the motion. There are no allegations included in the motion, despite the hyperbole of those opposite. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators, you will have your chance to debate this issue in a minute. Senator WONG: Despite the assertions of those opposite and some of the overblown rhetoric on the other side, in fact all the opposition is seeking and has put before the chamber is a motion that requires the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber to provide a full explanation. If the senator has nothing to hide, if the senator has— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator WONG: Mr Acting Deputy President, I have Senator Macdonald just persistently interjecting. I would appreciate it— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind Senator Macdonald that interjections are disorderly and Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. Senator WONG: It has been asserted by those opposite that this is an abuse of process. I would make this point: the government say they want to have the carbon price voted on quickly, but they did not give leave for this motion to be moved, which required a suspension of standing orders today, and they sought to call a division even on a procedural motion around precedence, which also took up time, which seems somewhat odd if you really, as a government, do want to get on to voting on the carbon bills. I return now to the issues before us, and I again say there are many matters in the public arena which, given Senator Sinodinos's past statements and his position as a minister of the Crown, really do demand that he come to the chamber and make an explanation. It may be that he has answers to the questions which are raised. It may be that he has a clear explanation for many of the apparent inconsistencies between what he has told the chamber and what counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption has asserted in his opening statement. It may be there are answers to all of these matters. If that is the case, there is a very simple course of action which the minister can take. He can come to this chamber and he can give a full statement. He has chosen not to do that. We gave him plenty of opportunity yesterday in question time, and he chose not to take the opportunity, other than to say he would be vindicated. There are a few things I want to go through which explain some of the issues between the statement that was made on 28 February by the senator and statements on the public record. I go first to this assertion in the statement: I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water. I remind the Senate again that this was a statement made on 28 February 2013, acknowledged to be prior to Senator Sinodinos becoming a minister, but he has subsequently affirmed the statement as a minister, by way of his answer in question time on Thursday, 6 March. In relation to the assertion 'I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract', there are two pieces of evidence which have come to light in the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. The first is that Senator Sinodinos, as chairman of the company, wrote to the chair of Sydney Water, ccd to both the Premier of New South Wales and the Minister for Finance, in relation to contractual negotiations. He requests in that letter: I believe the best way forward is an urgent roundtable meeting that we attend with the Shareholding Ministers to resolve this matter once and for all. I would suggest that you and the Managing Director of Sydney attend this meeting. In addition, yesterday in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, a Mr Rippon, who I understand is an officer of Australian Water Holdings, confirmed that, subsequent to that letter, a meeting was in fact held, on 6 September 2011, to discuss the contract negotiations which resulted in the awarding of the contract in 2012. I should say: the subsequent event to this meeting—and, presumably, some other discussions—was the awarding of the contract in 2012. He confirms that Mr de Girolamo and Mr Sinodinos were both at that meeting. It may be that Senator Sinodinos has a very clear explanation as to why he can say on the one hand that he played no role in the awarding of the contract but on the other hand he both cc'd to the Premier and attended a meeting to discuss the very issue which included the awarding of the contract and contractual relationships. Maybe there is an explanation, but I think a fair-minded person would say it is a little difficult to understand how you can assert you have no role in the awarding of the contract if, on the face of the public record, there is a letter which requests a meeting to deal with these issues and then a meeting to deal with these issues. It may be that nothing was discussed at the meeting. It may be that there is another explanation. But we do not know, because that question has not been answered by Senator Sinodinos. The second point I would make is in relation to donations. Let us recall that this is at a time when, on the basis of the evidence, extraordinarily corrupt conduct appears to have been occurring within AWH. Amongst the allegations about the misuse of money, which has been made on the public record, is an allegation of the use of money from Sydney Water being used in effect to make donations to the Liberal Party. As far as I can see from the time frames, at all material times in relation to this issue, Senator Sinodinos was an office-bearer in both the Liberal Party and Australian Water Holdings. He was a director and then chairman, and I believe he held two different offices, one of which was treasurer, inside the Liberal Party. He asserts—he has very carefully worded it, and I will read it—in his statement on February 2013: In relation to the political donations by Australian Water, these were handled by the management of the organisation at their discretion. I do not recollect donations to political parties being discussed at board level. Then he goes on to talk about disclosure laws. So he does not go in his statement at all as to whether he knew that money that was being paid by Sydney Water was, amongst other things—it was not the only improper use of that money—being used to provide donations to the Liberal Party. The assertion by counsel assisting the commission is as follows: Australian Water Holdings were making big donations to the Liberal Party—$20,000 here, $30,000 there—and on what I have seen, those donations were bundled up into the expenses and charged back to Sydney Water. From the records I have seen, it seems that Sydney Water has unwillingly, unknowingly been a principal donor to the Liberal Party. It might be that Senator Sinodinos can explain how it is possible to be a director and chair of an organisation that is engaging in this activity and not be aware of it. It might be that he can explain how it is possible for him to be an office-bearer of the Liberal Party at this time and not be aware of substantial donations. I think it is even more difficult for him to explain how he can be an office-bearer of both organisations—the payer and the payee—and not know about it. He may have an explanation for these matters. If he does, I think it is incumbent upon him—and in my submission to the chamber it is incumbent upon him—to attend and make that explanation. I think the public is entitled to know how it is possible Sydney Water—and, remember, ultimately this is the users of Sydney Water who are paying for this—money was funnelled to the Liberal Party at a time that Senator Sinodinos was both an office-bearer of AWH and an office-bearer of the Liberal Party and for him not to know about it. I suggest that it would be in Senator Sinodinos's interests for him to explain that fact. A failure to do so leaves the public, and the Senate, with this observation: Senator Sinodinos omits discussing this in his statement to the Senate, but on the public record there are very serious allegations of the misuse of this money. That is the second apparent inconsistency between his statement and his— Senator Brandis interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Order! Senator Brandis, Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. Senator WONG: As I said, it is an apparent inconsistency—it may not be inconsistent; he may have an explanation. But it does seem very odd, I am sure, to any reasonable person watching this debate or looking at these documents, for it to be believed that one could not know anything about what was occurring, when one was an office-bearer of both organisations. The third point that Senator Sinodinos needs to address is in relation to the—I think it has been described as a sham—loan agreement with the Obeid family. Senator Sinodinos does go to this issue in his statement. He said, and again, the words are very precise: I became non-executive chairman of AWH on 3 November 2010. I was not aware that, at around this time, the CEO of the company had negotiated what has been reported as a personal loan agreement with members of the Obeid family, secured against shares in Australian Water Holdings. I believe that there should have been such a disclosure made to me. What we now know is that on 4 November 2010—so this is the day after Senator Sinodinos became chair—the loan agreement was struck. The heads of agreement was signed on 4 November 2010. This particular transaction has also been the subject of evidence and comment at the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry, and is one instance of apparently corrupt conduct within AWH. Senator Sinodinos in his statement deliberately does not go to when he knew about that arrangement— Senator Abetz: Deliberately? How do you know that? Senator WONG: Senator Abetz, I used the word 'deliberately', that is true; I should probably replace it, I agree with that. In his statement, Senator Sinodinos does not go to when he knew about the arrangement. I would say to the chamber: if you are the chair of a company, and a multimillion dollar agreement—which is described subsequently in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry as being a sham loan agreement—is entered into the day after you became chair—I do think it is incumbent upon Senator Sinodinos to explain when he became aware of that. It does seem somewhat odd that you could be chair of a company which enters into such an extraordinary agreement—on the day after you have become chair—and you would have no knowledge about it. It may be that Senator Sinodinos knows nothing about it. It may be that he knows something about it. It may mean— Senator Brandis: Well, maybe you are just making something out of nothing! Senator WONG: I will take the interjection. The suggestion from the first law officer of the land is that I am making something out of nothing; I know that the Liberal Party does not like to look at the facts in this matter. There are extraordinarily serious allegations being made in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry that include— Senator Brandis interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There are extraordinarily— Senator Brandis interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please take your seat, Senator Wong. I will remind the Senate for the fourth time that senators have the right to be heard in silence and that interjections are disorderly. Senator WONG: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Unlike Senator Brandis, I do not think the public is airily dismissing the allegations which are being made at the Commission Against Corruption inquiry. I do not think the public thinks that having a corrupt set of activities by an entity, whereby money from water users is channelled to inappropriate purposes—including payments to the Liberal Party and a sham arrangement with the Obeid family—is something that can be airily dismissed by a man who is supposed to be the first law officer of the land. It may be that Senator Sinodinos has a clear explanation as to how, the day after he became chair, this sham arrangement which is the subject of a corruption investigation could have been entered into. It may be that he did not know about it. It may be that he did know about it but was misled as to its nature. I do not know. But I say to the Senate: if you come into this place and you give a statement which references some of what has occurred but omits key facts about what else has occurred, then you are entitled to be asked by this Senate to provide further details. That is particularly so when there are assertions on the public record which go specifically to the omissions in your statement, and it is particularly so when you are a minister of the Crown. Whilst all of us in this place have an obligation to be truthful and frank with this chamber, I would remind those opposite that, amongst other things, the Statement of Ministerial Standards also requires in relation to ministers that 'their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia, and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity'. That is what is required of ministers: that their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity. If Senator Sinodinos has something to say in response to the allegations and assertions which have been put on the public record in the Commission Against Corruption inquiry, I think that, as a minister, he should come in and make that statement. I am going to close now. I just want to make a comment about the statement of standards. This is a government that has been in office for around six months. In that short time we have seen the trashing of ministerial conduct and accountability and a contempt for this parliament. I would say this: this Prime Minister is a dangerous combination of arrogance and weakness. He is arrogant in leading a government which refuses to be accountable to the public and weak in failing to uphold his own statement of ministerial standards. A prime minister who stood by the high standards of conduct which are expected of ministers in his own statement of ministerial standards would have required the Assistant Treasurer to attend this Senate and make an appropriate and full explanation.