Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) (3:19 PM) —As far as suspensions go, that was exceptionally weak. One would have thought that, having prepared today on the back of the Australian Financial Review, at least the member for Lilley would have been able to sustain for 10 minutes a case in relation to this matter. But he was unable to do that. We finished off with a general barrage against me, against the government, against Ron Walker, against all sorts of people on all sorts of things other than the Reserve Bank and Mr Gerard. I should point out, although I will not be going into it today, that since the member for Lilley is so worried about corporate standards he will no doubt be enlightening the press about his own role in the Shepherdson investigation and his own standards in relation to corporate governance and brown paper bags when he was state secretary of the Queensland Labor Party. Having fairly and squarely now raised the issue in a denigration of Mr Rob Gerard of past conduct, there can be now no objection to this parliament acquainting itself as to the nature of the Shepherdson inquiry and the allegations that were investigated in relation to the member for Lilley. I just give notice of that fact here today.

The charge made against the government was that we have given away the independence and integrity of the Reserve Bank of Australia. In what way is the independence or the integrity of the Reserve Bank of Australia under threat? The independence of the Reserve Bank is guaranteed by statute and by an agreement between the government and the governor, which I entered into in 1996. I say in passing that that agreement to give full operational independence to the Reserve Bank of Australia was opposed by Labor. The then shadow Treasurer, Gareth Evans, said that it was illegal and threatened to sue in the courts to have it struck down. It has become the pillar of the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The second thing that the member for Lilley said was that Mr Gerard’s company, Gerard Industries, and its litigation with the tax office had been in the press and therefore he knew, meaning I knew, and on the basis of that litigation that he was unfit for office. It was in the press; therefore, people knew. I will go back and search the record but the Australian Labor Party must have known. I assume that, having read the court reports in the press and believing that this made Mr Gerard unfit for the board, there will be copious statements on the record in 2003 from the Australian Labor Party, objecting to the appointment.

Ms Gillard —Careful where you go with this.

Mr COSTELLO —Let us follow the argument through. The Treasurer must have known that Gerard Industries had done something wrong because it was engaged in litigation and, on the basis of press reports at the time, the litigation was so heinous that Mr Gerard was unfit for appointment. If the Treasurer must have known because it was in the papers, the Labor Party must have known. If the litigation was so heinous at the time, then no doubt the record will show that the Australian Labor Party in March 2003 issued press statement after press statement saying that, by reason of litigation then in the courts in Adelaide, Mr Gerard was unfit to be on the Reserve Bank board. Nothing could be clearer. If it is as clear as day in 2005, it must have been even clearer in 2003.

The record will show that the member for Lilley, I assume, the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition were all on notice, because we are all supposed to be on notice as to what is happening in the courts in Adelaide, and all believed that this litigation was so heinous that Mr Gerard should not have been appointed, and they protested on those grounds at the time. I do not think so. I do not think they did. My recollection is that they took swipes at Mr Gerard, because he may have been a supporter of the Liberal Party, but I do not believe that anybody in the Labor Party said that, on the basis of reports of litigation in the Adelaide courts at the time, he was unfit for office. If of course no such statements were made, the whole argument that has been put here by the member for Lilley just collapses, as in fact it should collapse.

Let us go through why Mr Gerard is a member of the Reserve Bank board. Mr Gerard is a very substantial manufacturer in Australia. In fact I doubt there would be many larger manufacturers than Mr Gerard. In the manufacturing industry Gerard Industries employed 3,300 people. Not only was it a substantial manufacturer in Australia but Gerard Industries had expanded throughout South-East Asia with the Clipsal brand. Clipsal would be one of the most famous brands in manufacturing in Australia. As I said earlier in question time, Clipsal sponsors the South Australian motor car race—a very famous race, the Clipsal 500. The South Australian government apparently has no objection to Mr Gerard and his sponsorship of that race. In fact the Premier was seen down at the races launching the sponsorship, so proud was he to be associated with the Clipsal 500.

Mr Gerard is an officer in the Order of Australia, so one thinks that if the Labor Party believe he is ineligible for the Reserve Bank board presumably he is also ineligible to be an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia. He has also been the South Australian of the Year, and presumably he should have been ineligible for that. He was also chairman of the Australian Made campaign, so presumably he was ineligible to be on that. He was president of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and apparently ineligible to be on that. He was Civic Entrepreneur of the Year in 2002 in recognition of his outstanding service to South Australian business. I could go on. His contribution to manufacturing and to the South Australian and indeed the national economy has been recognised.

When any person comes up for appointment to the Commonwealth they are asked to give an undertaking as to their tax affairs, and I have tabled that undertaking in the House. In addition, the Commissioner of Taxation had sent a letter to Mr Gerard, indicating that there were no disputes, and I have tabled that letter in the House. What does the Financial Review say today? It says it has a tax investigation. I cannot verify that, because tax investigations are not given to politicians and not normally leaked. If indeed it has been leaked to the Australian Financial Review it brings no credit to the Australian Taxation Office. The Australian Financial Review says that it has an investigation and, then, as I understand it, the Australian Financial Review says that this matter was ‘the subject of litigation and settled by agreement between the parties’—with the agreement of the Australian Taxation Office.

So the Australian Taxation Office came to a settlement in relation to a tax matter without any admissions of liability and with a full contest as to what had happened. These are not findings by a court; these are allegations in what we are told but cannot authenticate is an investigation which has been improperly and illegally leaked. To come into this House and to say that on the basis of an investigation which nobody has seen, which must have been improperly and illegally leaked, there is an allegation, in a case which was settled by agreement, without admissions of liability and in which the commissioner has given a letter saying that he has no disputes, is the flimsiest case of denying somebody the right, and in fact denying the Australian people the right, to have somebody of the ability of Mr Gerard on the Reserve Bank board. If you want the final answer to this, Mr Speaker, you got it from the Leader of the Opposition, who said during question time that the opposition was not disputing that Mr Gerard was a ‘fit and proper person to be on the Reserve Bank board’. He interjected to make that point. I heard it with my own ears. I repeated it. I hope that Hansard got it, because the Leader of the Opposition realises now what a terrible error he made because he endorsed Mr Gerard himself. (Time expired)