29 November, 2012
Doorstop Interview
The Senate, Parliament House
Canberra
29 November 2012
7.50am
E & OE
Subjects: National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), AWU Slush Fund
MITCH FIFIELD:
As the Shadow Minister for Disabilities, I welcome the introduction into the Parliament today of legislation to give effect to a National Disability Insurance Agency. But the Opposition does call on the Government to provide funding certainty today. Legislation establishing a scheme without the funding to back it up is merely a hollow gesture.
The Opposition have been strong supporters of the NDIS, strong supporters of the billion dollars in the last budget and strong supporters of the five launch sites. But the money that was in the last budget is only a quarter of what the Productivity Commission said was necessary to establish the first phase of the scheme. We call upon the Government today to provide funding certainty. Australians with a disability deserve a better deal. They don’t deserve to be led on. The Government need to account for how they will make this scheme a reality.
JOURNALIST:
Do you guarantee that the Coalition will provide certainty?
MITCH FIFIELD:
The Opposition supported the billion dollars that was in the last budget. And we would welcome funding certainty being announced today. We don’t know what our starting point will be in government. We don’t know what we will inherit from this government. We don’t know if they will make a mess of the launch sites. If the Government don’t provide funding certainty for the National Disability Insurance Scheme then obviously that will have implications for the implementation timetable no matter who wins the next election.
JOURNALIST:
You could have had a chance in Parliament this week in the Lower House to get some questions to the Minister to try and hold her accountable there and question her on these concerns you’ve raised. Are you disappointed that instead every question bar one yesterday has been about the Slater & Gordon affair?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I have been asking questions in the Senate of Minister Wong about the financing of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I called upon her to explain how the scheme will come into effect when the Government hasn’t provided funding certainty. She didn’t provide an answer.
But it’s entirely legitimate for the Opposition to be asking questions of the Prime Minister in relation to the AWU affair. The Prime Minister has yet to give a full account as to her involvement in the establishment of the AWU Workplace Reform Association account. She has yet to explain why the account title was at odds with the intended purpose of the fund. By her own account, the purpose of the fund was to be a slush fund for the re-election of union officials. Yet the title of the fund gave an entirely different impression. And we know from the revelations today that she helped draft the rules for the fund and that those rules said that the purpose was, among other things, to ensure workplace safety. The Prime Minister needs to give a full account today of her involvement and why it would appear that she misled the West Australian authorities.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that her position is untenable today?
MITCH FIFIELD:
The Prime Minister hasn’t come clean. She hasn’t answered entirely legitimate questions that raise issues as to her credibility. It’s a matter for her caucus colleagues as to whether they feel comfortable having as Prime Minister someone who did a sly side deal to set up an account, the funds of which went to purposes which weren’t appropriate. She didn’t tell the union responsible and she didn’t tell her own law firm. She needs to answer why she didn’t do that.
JOURNALIST:
Again it will come to a point where you’re saying she needs to answer questions. We don’t know what those questions are from the Coalition. Is this a smoking gun or is this just what the Prime Minister says is a smear?
MITCH FIFIELD:
They’re pretty straight forward questions. The Prime Minister herself said that she was uncomfortable as a result of some of Mr Wilson’s activities. And as a result they parted ways. The Prime Minister needs to answer what she knew. What made her uncomfortable. When she knew that. And what she did with that information. The Prime Minister also needs to answer why she established what she herself has described as a slush fund, that had a title that said it was for the purposes of the Australian Workers Union. She needs to answer why she helped draft the rules for a slush fund, yet the stated purpose of the fund was for workplace safety.
JOURNALIST:
You’ve had a chance to look at the documents. Does it appear that there’s anything criminal at this stage in the Prime Minister’s behaviour?
MITCH FIFIELD:
There are questions as to whether she provided accurate information to a statutory authority in Western Australia. I would think that if you provide incorrect information, knowingly and deliberately, to a statutory authority that that would be contrary to the law.
JOURNALIST:
You would think that but Tony Abbott is now saying it appears it may have been a breach. He seems to be going further. Can you make that same assumption based on the transcripts you’ve read and the reports that you’ve read?
MITCH FIFIELD:
The questions need to be answered by the Prime Minister. We have some documentary evidence. It’s incumbent on the Prime Minister to explain that.
JOURNALIST:
Are you satisfied with Julie Bishop’s attack on this issue and the missteps she’s had over the last few days? Are you worried about them and how they may have damaged the Coalition on this issue?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think Julie Bishop has been doing a forensic job at prosecuting this matter. I don’t think she has made any missteps. She is asking questions which need to be answered.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
MITCH FIFIELD:
The reason that there’s confusion is the Prime Minister has not given a clear and comprehensive account as to her involvement in the establishment of what she herself describes as a slush fund. If the Prime Minister gave a comprehensive account, if the Prime Minister answered the legitimate questions which are being asked, then there would be no confusion. Thanks.