Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who cares?

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

I suggest to the member that there is a great deal of care out there. That attitude is exactly the one that I am referring to, and I would suggest that it is probably not a good line to interject with, as it will go down on the record. None of the ministers has taken any responsibility. Each of them trot out the line that no-one told them anything. None of them see any evil, hear any evil or dare speak of any evil they may encounter.

The government has so effectively trained the Public Service over the last 10 years in the methods of handling controversial issues that it appears nothing is ever written on such matters and nothing is ever processed through any channel or in any form that makes an accountability trail. Everything is designed to allow plausible ministerial denial. No minister takes responsibility for anything. They are never told; they never see documents. It appears that they also never speak to anyone, nor allow anyone to speak outside school. Public servants are even gagged from answering questions to the Senate.

Ministers rely on legal speak to provide information in question time which, while perhaps strictly accurate, is purposefully designed to not allow the truth of the matter to be exposed. National papers have to resort to FOI applications to simply access advice provided to ministers about matters of general public interest and importance, such as broad policy advice on the impact of various options in industrial relations. It appears that ministers climb out of their cars in the morning, stomp into the office, shut the door and put on the headphones and blinkers. Administration and decisions just happen by chance, apparently not only in the absence of ministerial oversight but also in the absence of ministerial direction.

The Australian editorial a couple of weeks ago said:

This Government has crippled the concept of ministerial accountability.

Day after day this week and in previous weeks media reports, editorialists and cartoonists identify the truth: that plausible deniability is going to be exposed to the light of day and that this government will be increasingly held to answer for its tricky tactics designed to avoid scrutiny, avoid responsibility and avoid difficult decisions. The only thing it is not worried about avoiding is incompetence, regardless of how this could have a devastating effect on Australian lives.

When some form of scrutiny cannot be avoided, it is conducted in as limited a way as the government can contrive. In the Melbourne Age this week, Michelle Grattan wrote of the gagging of public servants in Senate estimates:

This is just one more strike in the Government’s poleaxing of the Senate committees’ investigative process. Since the Coalition got the numbers in the upper house, the Opposition and minor parties obviously cannot set up embarrassing full-scale investigations. Even the inquiries into legislation (such as the industrial relations bill last year) are quick and dirty.

Quick and dirty indeed. The article goes on to describe the government’s excuse as ‘lame’, and its arrogance as ‘palpable’. It also describes it attempts to create an attitude in bureaucrats and independent authorities to do ‘whatever it takes’ to meet government wishes.

Michelle Grattan is far from alone in these observations. Another senior journalist with years of experience in observing governments, Laurie Oakes, had an article in the Bulletin this week titled ‘Serial contempt’ which says in part:

The government says it has nothing to hide in the AWB kickbacks-to-Saddam affair, and that may be true. But the way it is attempting to block parliamentary scrutiny hardly bolsters the claim. John Howard dismisses the Opposition’s concerns as ‘gratuitous criticism’ and argues that the Labor Party should shut up and wait for Terence Cole, QC, to complete his inquiry and deliver his report. But that is not the way the Westminster system is supposed to work. Ministers are answerable to parliament. The establishment of a commission of inquiry under a retired judge does not change that. Yet in this affair—as is increasingly common the longer the government is in office—parliament is being treated with contempt.

I would add that this means that the Australian public is being treated with contempt. Australians cannot rely on lack of knowledge to avoid complying with the laws of the land. For them, ignorance is no defence.

The article goes on to identify a pattern of behaviours it identifies as stonewalling replies, excuses, glib evasions and fudging. Mr Oakes concludes:

If the intelligence agencies really did nothing after receiving a tip-off like that, the PM should be demanding to know why, not making excuses.

Whilst this assessment is applied by Mr Oakes to the AWB scandal currently under investigation, it could equally apply to so many of the other scandals that this government has faced.

The truth is that if the government does not rein in its arrogance and its intimidation of free and frank public service advice it will continue to blunder into scandal after scandal, and its excuses will become less credible each time. It is terminal behaviour for a government. We are far away from the days in 1995 when the then Leader of the Opposition told Australians that he would establish new standards of accountability and trust in government. The Prime Minister in one of his first acts tabled in this place a document establishing these new standards. It has since never been looked at again. It is certainly never enforced.

One need only go back to scandals such as the MRI scandal involving the former minister for health, where confidential budget information was provided to radiologist businesses. There was never an admission that the then minister was loose with his mouth, which compromised public policy. There was certainly no apology or resignation. Then there was the scandal involving the former minister for Aboriginal affairs, who revealed that he still continued practising surgery while a minister of the Crown. He was quickly shunted off to a comfortable diplomatic posting in Ireland.

Then there was the telecard scandal involving the former Minister for Defence, who later went on to promote—quite disgracefully—the dishonest impression that children were thrown into the seas by their asylum seeker parents. The former minister blatantly lied to the parliament and the media—infamously on ABC radio while the television cameras were focused on the sweat of his brow.

Then we have the public bullying of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, who in answering a question on the Sunday program sensibly said that Australian involvement in the Iraq conflict had made us an increased terrorist risk. So ruthlessly public was the bullying of the commissioner that he, it was reported, considered resigning. Then we had the disclosure of secret national security documents deliberately made available to a Herald Sun journalist to discredit an officer from the Office of National Assessments over Iraq. Currently there are court proceedings under way against two journalists for publishing the details of a cabinet submission on veterans’ affairs issues, and a public servant has also been charged. But there has never been a resolution to the disclosure of a secret briefing on national security to the Herald Sun journalist. This government, in its ruthless arrogance, will use any means to discredit and slander any person who seeks to hold it accountable. But none of its ministers has any courage in walking the plank when incompetence or scandal engulfs them.

The Prime Minister in waiting appears to be enjoying question time these days. He sits there with that infamous smirk as the AWB Cole inquiry revelations roll out day after day, pinging this minister and that minister. Naturally, he will not forget his own incompetence and humiliation of last year over the Gerard affair. But, again, that old standard line was put about that he knew nothing. Nobody bothered to tell him that his appointment to the Reserve Bank board was compromised and unsuitable.

This endless list of scandal and incompetence might appear to be a joy to the media and perhaps it could be argued to the opposition, but there are very serious consequences to this soap opera of scandal. Already public trust in all politicians is extremely low. I saw a Roy Morgan opinion poll late last year which ranked professions on the basis of trust. It is always the case that politicians score very poorly in these polls, but journalists and the media generally are these days taking a substantial caning too. The Australian editorial shortly after made the point:

Once ... people have good reason to assume the powerful think they are above the law, or can act independently of community standards to suit themselves, the trust that ensures people willingly pay their taxes and obey the law inevitably unravel.

The continued erosion in public trust will inevitably continue to crack the foundation of our institutions and decision-making processes. We will all pay a substantial price in the long term.

This government is not a conservative government: it refuses to take action to conserve the traditions of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, many of its own party members have expressed grave concerns about these developments. If we are to continue to argue for economic and social reforms, Australians have to be able to trust what all politicians are saying in these debates. With that trust it inevitably follows that we must take responsibility for decisions, processes or events that go wrong. Ministers are charged with that high standard; the Prime Minister of the day is charged with custody of enforcing that high standard.

The Howard government has failed to live up to the standards it established for itself back in 1995. The vacuum in accountability and enforcement of standards will, whether the government realises it or not, be filled at some stage as frustration grows in the handling of this government’s incompetence. There is actually a gentle threat contained in the same Australian editorial:

... if ministers refuse to accept responsibility, or even to explain the actions of their departments, The Australian will have no option but to ask, and investigate, the public servants who actually administer the country. And the same standard will ... apply to ministerial advisers ...

I suggest that, if the Australian comes good on this threat, it should start investigating right now because, as it knows, the government puts controversial public servants out to pasture, usually overseas, with haste. The latest example arose following the release of the Palmer report. Extensive changes were announced to the department of immigration. The head of the department conveniently resigned and was appointed to a diplomatic post.

This government claims to be ‘in touch’ with the electorate. If that were so, ministers would accept that Australians are mature enough to know that mistakes are made, stuff-ups occur, scandals erupt and administration has unintended consequences. They should accept that, if any of these incidents or events occur, Australians expect the truth and that the problem should be fixed and responsibility taken. Australians do not accept being taken for mugs, and they do not accept being lied to. They do not accept that, along with the car, the office, the staff and the perks, ministers are not told anything and do not receive briefings, correspondence or departmental files. They do not accept that somehow, when a scandal erupts, a problem is exposed or incompetence arises, ministers magically disappear into a bubble. Australians want the person with whom the buck stops to front up, disclose and cop it on the chin.

The AWB wheat-for-weapons scandal is the latest episode in the soap opera that is the Howard government. It is simply inconceivable that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and present and former ministers for agriculture did not know that something compellingly smelly was taking place. The government says that, because it established an inquiry into this scandal, it should be congratulated for a display of accountability. Why, if it wishes this commendation, has it not included in the terms of reference scrutiny and examination of its own conduct?

I conclude by quoting a letter to the editor by a South Australian, published in the Australian, which sums up what I think many Australians feel:

I want to know who’s running the country because based on what John Howard and his ministers know, it isn’t them.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was one of those who sat in the House between 1993 and 1996, during the dying days of the Hawke and Keating governments. I can recall ministerial scandal after ministerial scandal. I can remember very well how ministers were called to the dispatch box. I can also remember how those on the back bench and those on the middle bench of the then government rejoiced in the difficulties their ministers were experiencing, knowing of course that, if a ministerial vacancy occurred—given the fact that hope springs eternal—there was a prospect of promotion. I am not suggesting for a moment that even on our side, if a minister were in trouble—during the period the minister is in trouble we all support the minister totally—those who were not in the ministry would not relish the opportunity of a ministerial vacancy and the possibility of a promotion.

When one listens to what the honourable member for Cunningham said in her contribution on the bill, one could somehow think that this government is without ministerial standards. I do not think anyone could realistically suggest that to be the case. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, as the leaders of the Liberal Party, have ensured that there has been a very high level of scrupulous behaviour on the part of ministers and those who are entrusted to that high office. Similarly, the National Party has also ensured that its ministers act in a very responsible way. I think it is totally inappropriate for the member opposite to suggest in some way, shape or form that this government has thrown ministerial standards out the window. I am not saying that those of us who are not presently in the ministry would not rejoice if the opportunity to enter the ministry were to occur, but I do think that it is wrong to suggest in some way that our current ministers have performed in a less than appropriate manner.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill. In many respects it is a machinery bill, but it is important notwithstanding. I note in the second reading amendment to the bill moved by the honourable member for Wills that the opposition does not want to decline the bill a second reading but ‘condemns the government for allowing ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as ministerial salaries are increasing’. I think ministerial salaries in Australia are appallingly low. When one compares what the Prime Minister of this country is paid with what the Prime Minister of Singapore and the ministers and parliamentary secretaries in Singapore are paid, it is pretty clear that our Prime Minister works virtually for nothing. Given the heavy responsibilities of ministers and parliamentary secretaries—who in this country, under the Ministers of State Act, are also ministers—they are paid only a pittance of what their counterparts are paid in other countries. So I think it is wrong to suggest, as the member for Wills does, that in some way ministerial salaries are inappropriately high.

One also ought to recognise that the opposition in this country currently comprise members of the Australian Labor Party. Some of those members would be well aware of the situation that occurred in the state of New South Wales. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I understand that you were a former distinguished minister in the New South Wales parliament, and I suspect that you, like me, would be looking very carefully at the ministerial scandals that almost on a daily basis unfold in that jurisdiction not very far away from Canberra. The opposition might well complain about accountability. However, one ought to look at Labor in government. One ought not to listen to what people say; one ought to look at how their party acts when entrusted with the keys of government.

It is a tragic situation to see what is happening in New South Wales. The ministers of that state do not even front the media on crises in their portfolios. They send out the head of their department. When the opposition in the Australian parliament criticises Australian ministers, could you imagine what would happen if we were to send out not the minister himself, which is what we do, but the head of the department—the unelected, unaccountable person who probably gets paid two or three times what the minister does—to respond to queries about departmental and ministerial behaviour? I find that to be quite a bizarre situation. For the member for Cunningham to come into the House and suggest that somehow this government is without standards is just breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of the opposition.

When you look at the Labor Party in government in New South Wales and at the Labor Party in government in Canberra between 1993 and 1996, you see that ministerial standards were non-existent in the government in Canberra and they are currently non-existent at Macquarie Street in Sydney. The member for Cunningham had a straight face. To be honest, you have to give it to her; I do not know how she managed to muster it all together—but she did. She went through a 20-minute diatribe, criticising the current government for our ministerial standards when, in reality, she comes from a party which historically has not had any standards in government at all.

Mr Speaker—and I welcome you to the chair—this bill aims to ensure that the Ministers of State Act 1952 has the capacity to meet the tasks that it was designed to do—in particular, to facilitate the remuneration increments to which government ministers are entitled. As the entitlements of ministers are tied to those of members and senators, which were subject to an inflationary increment last year, the ministerial entitlements have also been subject to an increment. In consequence, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 provides the mechanism that allows for the allocation of the extra remuneration required to meet those inflationary increases. This is not a controversial bill. I recall in my prior manifestation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration that I regularly used to have to introduce similar bills to the House to make the necessary adjustments to meet changed financial situations.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 initiates an increase from $2.8 million to $3.2 million to be used for the purpose of ministerial remuneration. This is a special appropriation of consolidated revenue funds that are administered by the Department of Finance and Administration. The provisions of the bill enable the modification of the act to enable the increment and to allow that increment to commence from 1 July last year—that is, 1 July 2005.

As all members are aware, as each year goes by the workload of elected representatives of parliament increases and, of course, the workload of ministers is no different. Ministers have very heavy responsibilities and, as I said earlier in my contribution, I am of the view that this parliament does not adequately remunerate members of the executive and that sooner or later some government is going to be prepared to grasp the nettle and make the necessary changes to ensure that those people who have a very heavy responsibility—a responsibility that in many cases exceeds that of CEOs—are adequately remunerated. This bill, though, is a mechanism bill, a machinery bill, which just seeks to remedy certain necessary changes, given the impact of inflation and flow-on of increases of ministerial salary.

Debate interrupted.