Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In resuming this debate on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 I acknowledge the speaker before me, the member for Ryan. In speaking to the bill the member for Ryan outlined the pay scales of certain people and compared them with those of members of parliament and ministers. Indeed, he outlined a number of sportspeople, actors, comedians and models and the quite generous packages they earn on an annual basis. I have to say to him that, whilst the pay packet in this place may not entice the fastest, the wittiest or the most beautiful, I certainly hope it does attract the best and brightest.

The reason the Labor Party have put forward a second reading amendment to this bill is that we are concerned that this place does not always attract the most responsible. I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate and I more than happily support the amendment proposed by my colleague the shadow minister for public accountability. The amendment quite appropriately seeks to emphasise the important requirements of accountability in the performance of ministers.

In less than a month, in fact within a few days, the Howard government will celebrate its 10th long year in office. It approaches this anniversary mired in breathtaking scandal, amid daily revelations and exposures at the Cole inquiry into the AWB ‘wheat for weapons’ saga. It does this in the context of a defection from the National Party to the Liberal Party, surrounded by internal sniping and the public verbal biffing of a coalition senator by another coalition senator. The Australian columnist George Megalogenis, in a column entitled ‘Sheeting the blame’ on 28 January 2006, told his readers:

It is almost eight years since a Coalition minister was forced to resign for dereliction of duty. This is a run of squeaky-cleanness that simply defies human nature.

In fact, the last resignation was by a parliamentary secretary to cabinet in March 2003 for a slanderous speech against a serving High Court justice, under the privilege of the parliament in the other place. Over the last decade this government has grown tired, arrogant and complacent, and it has tuned out to the role of ministerial responsibility and accountability in our parliamentary system. It relies instead on spin and diversion. It takes pride in fast footwork rather than in effective performance. It hopes that the Australian people will not really tune into the debate on the various scandals that have plagued its administration. It believes that scandal after scandal will simply be forgiven and forgotten. The government hopes that, in this age of distractions, serious scandal and administrative incompetence will simply go away. The Prime Minister operates on an assumption. As George Megalogenis said further in his column:

The cycle of crisis has taught him that he doesn’t need to dismiss or demote—regardless of how poorly a minister or official has dispensed his public duties—because voters and the media eventually switch off.

The government’s arrogance has recently grown even fatter on its control of the Senate. In the last 12 months, four administrative scandals have hit the government across a range of portfolios: the regional rorts affair, the detention of Australian citizens in immigration detention centres and the forced expulsion of another Australian citizen, the appointment of a Liberal Party donor to the Reserve Bank and, finally, the ongoing saga of the AWB wheat for weapons scandal. Each of these scandals has been presided over by a minister and defended by the Prime Minister, and each has one common element.

See this speech in context