Mr RUDD (Leader of the Opposition) (2:55 PM) —I seek leave to move a censure motion.

Leave not granted.

Mr RUDD —I move:

It is remarkable indeed that on a day like this the government will not even take a censure on something as serious as the misuse of the Australian national estate for party political fundraising purposes by the Liberal Party. What we have on display for the nation and for the parliament is a government which has become arrogant in office, a government and a Prime Minister which have now lost touch with the Australian people, a government and a Prime Minister which believe that the taxpayers’ assets, the public assets, the people’s assets, are now the personal property of the Liberal Party of Australia. Their belief is that those instruments, those resources and those fundraising opportunities are now all political playthings available for their collective use in order to use to advance the partisan interests of their party.

This is a pattern of behaviour. It is a pattern of behaviour that we have seen unfolding again in recent weeks in this parliament. The Prime Minister sat there over recent weeks as he took question after question from us on what was happening with the government rolling its hand down into the pocket of the taxpayer to pull out wads of cash in order to fund party political advertising and to fund it straight from the taxpayer. We spent day in, day out trying to extract the truth from this Prime Minister on why and to what extent his government was using taxpayers’ dollars to prop up the political interests of the Liberal Party and the television ads which they had planned—which everyone knew they had planned, but which they did not have the courage or the honesty to admit at the dispatch box were then in process. This pattern of behaviour continues. It is not just reaching in and grabbing the taxpayers’ dollars for party political ads. It now goes to core parts of our national estate. Kirribilli and the Lodge are the official residences of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia in Sydney and in Canberra.

Since these matters opened up some five days ago following the coverage in the Sunday newspapers, we have had the government ducking and weaving around one simple proposition: was this a fundraising event or was it not? It is remarkable that here we are on a sitting Thursday and the Prime Minister still cannot bring himself to admit this fundamental fact. If you go to the text of the document itself, it is remarkable what it says. Let me read to you from the document of 2005—this was when they had fun down at the Lodge. The 2005 Liberal Party of Australia’s federal council document which was sent out to business observers says, ‘Registration form, Business observers: Please note, registration forms will not be processed until payment is received.’ That is the first point. Under ‘Attendance’, it says, ‘Registration fee: $7,500.’ And it goes to say: ‘The business observers registration fee includes all meals, including the council gala dinner, admittance to the business observers program and council material.’ It then says: ‘Numbers for some functions are limited. Please register and pay early to avoid disappointment.’ It also says, ‘To assist in administration and catering, please indicate your attendance at each of the following functions.’

So let us get the sequence right here. There is a $7,500 registration fee to gain acceptance and admission to the business observers program. Then you are asked on the selfsame form to tick the box as to which of the elements of this business observers program you are going to attend in response to the amount of money that you have paid. And what do we find on this list? On Friday, 24 June, you get morning tea with chiefs of staff. Then there is an economic luncheon with the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello. Additional tickets were $150 for that. There is the health luncheon, with the Hon. Tony Abbott. It was $150 for that. It would be interesting to see who went to what and who got the best numbers. And then there is this amazing little box: ‘Welcome reception’. It does not say where. It does not say whose welcome reception. But we now know it is the Prime Minister’s welcome reception. What we have been told by members of the business community is that when they are at their federal council meeting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The motion is to suspend standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion.

Mr RUDD —We are speaking to the urgency of the suspension, and it goes to the whole question of the integrity of the use of public resources in this country for their proper purposes, including the whole question of the national estate. But when we come to the proposition that the business community, having completed a form like this, were then bussed from the Hyatt over to the Lodge and greeted at the door of the Lodge by the Prime Minister, it is transparently obvious what the function was. If it smells like a fundraiser, if it looks like a fundraiser and, given the canapes on offer, if it tastes like a fundraiser, in all probability, Prime Minister, it is a fundraiser. Let’s just call a spade a spade here. It is like saying in the last few weeks we have been in the parliament that when it came to taxpayer funded political advertising, because it had not been approved, the fact that the advertising campaign existed meant, according to you, that it did not officially exist. This is the sort of word game, Prime Minister, the Australian people are growing tired of because they have seen it up hill and down dale.

Here is the second problem which the Prime Minister has in his defence. The Prime Minister says it is not a fundraiser.

The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will speak to the motion.

Mr RUDD —On the question of the urgency in this matter, it keeps coming back to the proper use of public resources, including the national estate. The Prime Minister asserts it is not a fundraiser at all. Yet if that is the case why then did he see fit to repay some money? There is a bit of a logical contradiction here: it is not a fundraiser, but we feel a bit guilty about it so we will return some of it. Of course, we do not know how much has been returned, nor do we know at this stage on how many occasions the Lodge and Kirribilli have been used for this purpose. These are mysteries yet to be unfolded for us all in this place. But when it comes to the use of these resources and the national estate, the Prime Minister has sought throughout this debate that we have been having all week in this parliament to evade basic accountability to the parliament on these key questions of truth. It happened in 2005; we know that. It happened in 2007. It was $7,500 a kick. There were a couple of hundred people rolling in the door, with Mr Howard greeting them, saying, ‘Welcome to the canapes.’ By the way, here is a question: which of the staff are actually engaged at this point? There are the official staff at Kirribilli and the Lodge. Then there are those which are seen to be engaged for the occasion. Are they separately accounted for in this exercise? These are matters to which we still do not have the answers, Prime Minister. But when you go through the final list of the 2007 function and look at all numbers listed, it is quite plain that the main event, the main attraction on that program for your $7,500 investment—

Fran Bailey interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism!

Mr RUDD —is to get to the Lodge and to get to Kirribilli for the purposes of being greeted by the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in your ministerial code of conduct you say:

Prime Minister, what did you mean by that? What did you mean by this provision of the ministerial code? If it says, ‘Their use of these facilities should be in accordance with this principle’—this principle being that they should be used for public and official purposes—then using the national estate for fundraising purposes is in gross violation of the ministerial code you have laid down for your ministers. Is the Prime Minister asserting that he is not governed by the ministerial code he has put out there for his ministers? Obviously he believes he is beyond it and above it.

Then there is the final element of the saga: the panic here yesterday as they sought to get on the phone to the AEC and make sure there was no problem—through the Special Minister of State’s office, via his Chief of Staff, trying to nobble poor old Mr Bodel, who is responsible for disclosure matters at the AEC, to make sure that that individual was not going to cause a problem for the Prime Minister.

Fran Bailey interjecting—

The SPEAKER —The minister for small business is warned!

Mr RUDD —This government exhibits arrogance pure and simple in its abuse of public resources. It is a government that has been in office too long. It is a government which has now lost touch with the people. It is a government which believes, Prime Minister, that the national estate is its personal property to use and do with as it pleases and, on this occasion, to raise money for the Liberal Party improperly to prosecute its election campaign. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER —Is the motion to suspend standing orders seconded?

Mr Albanese —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.