Ms GILLARD (2:52 PM) —I move:

The SPEAKER —Is the motion in writing?

Ms GILLARD —Yes, the motion is in writing. Clearly today we have a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister desperately wants to get out from under explaining this matter and he has hidden behind the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is apparently not required to answer about the matter in the House. This is an incredibly smelly matter which the minister should be required to explain.

Let us be clear about what has happened here. More than $1.2 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated to a firm called A2 Dairy Marketers. How is this more than $1.2 million grant being made? Apparently it is being made in circumstances where the then parliamentary secretary Ms Kelly authorised the grant while she had in her employ a Mr Ken Crooke who at the same time was working as a director of a private company and being paid to lobby on behalf of A2 Dairy Marketers. How could there be anything more concerning about the obligations of this minister under the code of conduct—which, I would remind her, specifies an obligation of honesty and probity in public life and makes her responsible for the conduct of her staff? How could you have a more serious matter than an allegation that this minister signed off a $1.2 million grant whilst employing a person who was also lobbying for the proponent who sought the grant? This is a conflict of interest writ large. This is a conflict of interest that is extraordinary.

What makes this even worse is that the grant was made in direct conflict with the guidelines for this program. The Regional Partnerships program has amongst its guidelines `not allocating money to commercial bodies'. That is easy to understand. These moneys should not be used to create unfairness in the marketplace. So in direct breach of the guidelines this grant has been made to a commercial entity: A2 Dairy Marketers. In fact, so smelly has this matter been that ultimately the grant was withdrawn because A2 Dairy Marketers was found guilty of false advertising.

Let us just track the conduct here. The then parliamentary secretary, the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, employed on her staff a man called Mr Ken Crooke, Mr Ken Crooke at the same time being a director of a company that is in the government relations lobbying business.

Ms GILLARD —Allow the suspension of standing order and she can tell us it is not true. Do not yell at me that it is not true. Allow the suspension of standing orders and she can tell us it is not true. Thanks for your help. Vote for the suspension and she can tell us it is not true. You cannot protect her and yell allegations like that. Either put her up and get her to make an answer to the case or shut up.

What we have had is the mute minister—the woman who cannot defend herself, the woman who cannot come up to the dispatch box and give an honest account of her dealings with public money. What we have is the mute minister employing Mr Ken Crooke, Mr Ken Crooke at the same time being a director of a company which is engaged in the lobbyist business. And who is he lobbying for? He is lobbying for A2 Dairy Marketers. He is at a meeting with the relevant Queensland minister, producing a business card in his lobbyist capacity with two directors of A2 Dairy Marketers. They are all there lobbying for A2 Dairy Marketers. On the very same day he is in the employ of the then parliamentary secretary.

Ms GILLARD —If you want to give an explanation, Minister, come to the dispatch box and do it.

Ms GILLARD —Did you say that you are happy to do so? Get your leader to vote for the suspension. If you are happy to do so, we are happy to hear it.

The known facts of this matter are these: on 8 July Mr Ken Crooke is an employee of the then parliamentary secretary and is in a meeting with two directors of A2 Dairy Marketers, lobbying for A2 Dairy Marketers. They are the known facts of this matter. Then—surprise, surprise—this minister signs off a more than $1.2 million grant, and who to? A2 Dairy Marketers. You would have to say that she probably knew them pretty well. There is a man in her office who is lobbying for them; she probably knew them pretty well. Also, this grant falls outside the guidelines. How much more perplexing can you get than that? So here is a parliamentary secretary who is employing a paid lobbyist for a company—a person who has been lobbying for that company—signing off a $1.2 million grant in breach of the guidelines. That is what has happened here.

We could see the discomfort of the Deputy Prime Minister when he was asked about this matter. He was very keen to tell the House that it was the then parliamentary secretary who signed off the grant; he was very keen to tell the House that. He actually suggested in answer to a question that she might have something to add. At that point the Leader of the Opposition said, `Well, you know, if you allow us a supplementary question then perhaps the minister'—this minister—`could come to the dispatch box and give an answer.' Indeed I think, Mr Speaker, at one point you suggested that if we desired that result we could ask her the next question. As the forms of the House do not permit us to do it in that way, we are doing it by way of a suspension of standing orders.

If this minister does not have anything to hide, then she should ask the Leader of the House to have this suspension pass the House and give her an opportunity to do what any human being who knew they could clear their name would seize—and that is an opportunity to walk up to the dispatch box and explain to us why all of this is wrong. If she has an explanation, we are creating an opportunity for her to give it. If she has an explanation, she will be champing at the bit waiting to give it; she will be desperate to see me sit down so that this suspension can pass the House and she can give it. If she has an explanation, she will be so desperate to put it before the House that the government will pass this motion, we will hear from her and she can explain these circumstances.

Who is Mr Ken Crooke? We know the answer to that: he was an employee of the parliamentary secretary. Did she know that, when he was an employee of hers, he continued to be a director of Asia Pacific Corporation? Did she know that he continued to undertake lobbyist work on behalf of A2 Milk marketers? Did she know where he was on 8 July? Did she know that he attended, in the presence of two directors of A2 Milk marketers, a meeting with the relevant Queensland minister? Did she know any of these things on the date she signed off on the $1.2 million grant to A2 Milk marketers? At what point did she know the grant was in breach of the guidelines—before she made it or after? At what point did she know that A2 Milk marketers was the subject of legal action for misleading advertising? Did she know that before or after she made the grant? What was the course of dealing in making the grant, and what was the course of dealing in rescinding it? These are the things that need to come before the House.

You could not get a more serious matter in public life than questions of honesty and probity. That is why they are dealt with by the Prime Minister's code of conduct. That is the standard this minister needs to be held to account to. We have to remember that at the time she was the parliamentary secretary of a figure no smaller than the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Ultimately, it reflects on his actions and his parliamentary secretary, and there is an obligation for honesty and probity under the code. They have a golden opportunity now to walk up to the dispatch box and give an explanation of their conduct.

The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded?