Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House. I'm going to begin by agreeing with the chair of the committee and thanking the secretariat for their excellent work; applauding the chair's careful, deliberative and consensus-driven approach to this committee; and paying tribute to all the committee members. The House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests is, I say—and I'm biased—the most important committee in this House because it protects the autonomy, the independence and the reputation of the House of Representatives. I think this report goes to that quite directly.

On the Labor side there are over 80 years of parliamentary experience in our five members. On the government side there is the Father of the House in the member for Menzies. So there's a wealth of experience, and in all our reports we make a commitment to withdraw from partisan rancour and to concentrate on what is in the best interests of this House in maintaining the reputation of the House of Representatives as the paramount heart of democracy in this country. That's why this report is so important.

I want to begin by reflecting on the draft code of conduct for members of this House. It hasn't been adopted, but sections 5 and 6, I do think, guide the work of every member of this House. Section 5 is 'Primacy of the Public Interest', which states:

Members and Senators must base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interests and the requirements of public duty, and resolve any conflict, real or apparent, quickly and in favour of the public interest.

Section 6, 'Personal Conduct', says of members:

They should act at all times in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Parliament and its Members.

Now, while it is a draft code of conduct, I can say with certitude that every member of this House strives to follow those two commitments to the primacy of public interest and personal conduct in their behaviour in this House and as MPs. I regret to say that this inquiry found that the former member for Dunkley, the Hon. Bruce Billson, failed on both those counts. I say without any duplicity that I would draw the same conclusion and I'm confident the committee would draw the same conclusion if it was a Labor member, a Greens member or an independent member. The actions of Mr Billson did not meet the expectations and the standards of this House.

First, on declaration of members' interests, Mr Billson failed to comply with requirements in relation to his registrable interests, and an additional failure was discovered during the inquiry. This was quite incredible. Mr Billson disclosed to the committee that he'd also failed to disclose his activity of a personal company called Agile Advisory during the conduct of this inquiry. While the committee found that this did not constitute contempt as it was an oversight rather than deliberate, it was a failure to live up to the expectations and standards of this House.

Second, around the role of lobbying while a member of parliament, Mr Billson's acceptance of payment for services to represent the FCA represented a conflict of interest with his duties as a member of parliament. While there was no clear evidence that would have met the burden for contempt, it is very clear that Mr Billson generated a perceived conflict of interest.

Let's be clear here: members must make decisions to avoid misunderstandings and perceived conflicts of interest. That is the finding and the strong view of the committee, and to do otherwise damages the reputation of the member in question and the parliament. It's clear that Mr Billson damaged the reputation of himself, sadly, and the parliament, by not understanding that there was at a minimum a perception of a conflict of interest.

In fact, the committee expressed serious disappointment that Mr Billson continued to misunderstand his obligations throughout the process of this inquiry. The correspondence is attached to the inquiry's report. It's clear Mr Billson still does not understand that beyond an actual conflict of interest—the committee could not find that there was an actual conflict of interest, or there was a lack of evidence of such—there was most definitely a perception of a conflict of interest, and Mr Billson did not do anything to allay that perception. He should not have accepted the job he took with the FCA whilst a member. The committee found that his decision and behaviour fell below the standards expected of a member.

As the chair discussed, recommendation 1 is that the House censures the former member for Dunkley for failing to fulfil his responsibilities to put the primacy of the public interest first and to conduct himself along those lines. Recommendation 2 is that standing orders be amended to include an express prohibition on a member engaging as a lobbyist while an MP. I would say that common sense would suggest that that prohibition should already be in place. I think it's long overdue that the committee has recommended that. I think this House should definitely adopt that.

I will end where I began, by emphasising the bipartisan nature of this committee. There was no partisan rancour in the deliberations. I can say quite earnestly that if the behaviour we examined were undertaken by a Labor member I would be equally forthright in my criticism. These are really strong recommendations that demonstrate this committee is working effectively. We've held two substantive inquiries in the life of the parliament. This one has strong recommendations around banning lobbying whilst an MP and censuring a former member. The first one reasserted the authority and the autonomy of the chamber against the executive arm of government through the Federal Police raids conducted against the member for Blaxland. This is a very important committee doing very good work.

In conclusion, I want to express my disappointment at the way Mr Billson interacted with the committee. His correspondence is there to be seen. Probably more worryingly, given the high esteem they are held in in this House, I am also disappointed in the lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Billson, MinterEllison. I think their submission is quite incredible. They reflected on the ability of this parliament—this House of Representatives in particular—to be able to manage itself. It said, 'the fractious nature of the 45th Parliament and the precarious political balance impedes this self-management', which I find to be incredibly offensive and a slur on every single member of this House. The House Privileges Committee demonstrates that parliament and the House are able to get on and do their job no matter the numbers in the chamber, because ultimately the parliament is made up of good women and men committed to advancing the public interests of this nation. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context