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

At the outset I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Wakefield on his very thought-provoking contribution on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. I found it particularly interesting, and I believe it was a valuable addition to the debate in this place.

When I was interrupted last night by the adjournment debate, I had virtually finished my contribution on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005. The bill itself is not a controversial bill. A bill of similar form enters the parliament each year. Usually, both sides of politics support this bill because it is a sensible bill which provides a mechanism that allows for the allocation of the additional remuneration that is required to meet additional ministerial salaries.

The opposition has sought, through the amendment, to politicise this debate, and that is a matter somewhat lacking in virtue, in my view. I think this bill, being a machinery bill, is worthy of a speedy passage. When I look at what we do not pay our Prime Minister, our Treasurer, our senior ministers and other ministers, I think that at some stage some government in Australia will have to grasp the nettle and redress the situation where heads of departments are, in some cases, paid two, three or four times the amount of salary paid to the minister in charge of that department. I am not suggesting that those senior public servants are well paid by corporate standards, but someone at some stage will have to look at ministerial remuneration.

I know the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister and other senior ministers would work for virtually nothing if that were permitted, but equity determines and demands, in my view, that people who do have that high level of responsibility should receive a remuneration commensurate with that responsibility. When one looks at what some of the chief executive officers of Australian companies receive today and what the Prime Minister does not receive, one clearly sees there is some obvious lack of balance.

This bill will ensure that the Ministers of State Act 1952 continues to have the capacity it needs to meet the remuneration requirements of the government to ensure that ministers in fact receive the salaries and other remuneration that ministers under the law are currently entitled to. On that basis, I am very happy to commend the bill to the House.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 and also to particularly address my comments to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills, which reads:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for allowing Ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as Ministerial salaries are increasing”.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill, under the heading ‘General outline’, states:

This bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to increase the limit on the sum appropriated from the Commonwealth Consolidated Fund in 2005/6 and beyond in respect of the salaries of Ministers of State. The increase is necessary following a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal with effect from 1 July 2005 that increased the base salaries of all Senators and Members. The additional salaries of Ministers of State are set as a percentage of the base salaries of Senators and Members, so when the base reference point increases for Senators and Members, so too do the salaries of Ministers.  

And, under the heading ‘Financial impact statement’, it states: 

The effect of the amendment is to increase the total sum available to be appropriated for Ministerial salaries by $400,000 in financial year 2005/2006 and beyond. 

I do not bemoan ministerial salaries, or indeed parliamentary salaries, but I think they need to be looked at in globo, because there are a lot of benefits that flow with them. Some years ago we had a celebrated debate that concentrated on superannuation. I must say that, from a personal view, it has quite wrongly resulted in a marked differentiation between the salaries of newer members who were elected at the last election and existing members. It is my view that there are a lot of other things that could have been concentrated on which were let through the net. If you pay people and you pay them properly then they also have to be accountable, as the second reading amendment says. In the last number of years, we have seen ministers who have not been accountable to the extent that they should have been.

A very interesting publication was produced by the Parliamentary Library, called That’s it—I’m leaving. It traced resignations of ministers—some forced, others not forced—way back to 1901. There were a couple of resignations in the Fraser period. On 20 April 1982, the Hon. Michael MacKellar, the member for Warringah, resigned as Minister for Health over his nonpayment of duty on a colour TV set he imported and the submission in his name of an incorrect customs declaration form. The Hon. John Moore, the member for Ryan, resigned as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on 20 April 1982 over deficiencies in his handling of the payment of duty on the colour TV set imported by the Minister for Health, Mr Michael MacKellar. They were but two of the resignations throughout the period, but there were appropriate standards applied—as there should be, because, when you are in public office and receiving public money, in my view there needs to be a proper level of accountability.

In the first couple of years of the Howard government, which this week celebrates 10 years, we saw the forced resignation of five ministers and two parliamentary secretaries in the years 1996 and 1997. Since then, there has been zip. Basically, the shutters went up and, irrespective of the merits of particular cases, we have seen a redefining of ministerial accountability. That does none of us any good. I have an old-fashioned view of accountability and propriety. It was fascinating to read about a number of ministers in the early years resigning because of differences within cabinet about their policies, and other ministers being forced to resign in relation to articles that were published that were seen to be in breach of the position of the then government. That is all in that wonderful publication from the Parliamentary Library. So, when it comes to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill and remunerations, I have no problem in supporting increased remuneration to ministers, but we need to not have a shifting set of values when it comes to ministerial responsibility, because that diminishes us all.

The other thing that I think we need to look at, as members of parliament and as ministers, is proper savings to offset some of these salary increases. We demand productivity increases of the general community—and, indeed, in negotiations over their salary packages under the new regime, many workers in this country will be required to forfeit standards and conditions that they have held over a long period of time. Yet, as members of parliament and, indeed, as ministers, we have seen—I will have had 16 years in this place next month, on 24 March, and I have seen it—year in and year out, remuneration or entitlements creeping up and up.

The only time there was a retrograde move was the one I mentioned earlier in my speech, to do with parliamentary superannuation. That was an easy one for some members of the community and some on our side, I concede, to go after, but I think—with the greatest of respect—that it was the wrong thing to go after. I have no problem with proper community standards applying to us, but the nine per cent, in my view, is below the community standard. Fifteen per cent is more appropriate for the newer members, and we will see what transpires over time in relation to that.

There is one entitlement that ministers and former members have that I think should be withdrawn immediately. I am only speaking for myself here; I am not speaking on behalf of the opposition or the Labor Party, but these are some of the chestnuts and some of the things that I have a bee in my bonnet over. I think that, if they were looked at, they would give us more credibility. That entitlement is the gold pass for former members for parliamentary travel. For the January-June six-month period of 2004, that cost taxpayers $397,000. From July to December 2004, it was $497,000. From January to June 2005, it was $557,000. And, as I said, this appropriation to do with the bill before the House is for $400,000 in a financial year.

I cannot see why members of parliament or ministers, if they serve a particular period of time, should have a life gold pass ad infinitum for themselves or for their widows and spouses. I think it is an anachronism that diminishes all of us. I have no problem with former prime ministers—I put them into a separate category—some of whom are obviously required to travel the country because of their former position. In my view, they should continue to be able to travel on life gold passes. But if I am elected at the next election, which will be my seventh term in this place, I will be entitled to travel till the day I die—25 trips a year at taxpayers’ expense. What for? What other employer is required to pay for continuing travel entitlements for their employees?

I can see an argument where ex-ministers might have to discharge their functions, so you make an allowance in relation to some of this. Or you might have a celebration within parliament where you want to bring former members together. But even then I have a query on that. I think it is an indulgence that we have been given that is not deserved. So, when we talk about the ministers of state and their salaries—salaries for the Prime Minister, for ministers and indeed for backbenchers—I have no problem in altering their salaries and at the same time getting rid of these lurks and perks and still bringing in savings for the members of the public.

I think it has all been one way. When I first came into parliament the printing entitlement for members of parliament was $25,000, I think. It is now $125,000 per year. There was a disallowed instrument in August 2003 where the government wanted to increase it to $150,000 and, indeed, roll over 45 per cent of it. In my view, it is unconscionable. We do not need that amount of money to communicate with our electorates. But let’s say we do. What I think is highway robbery and extremely unconscionable is that, if I seek re-election as a member of parliament, I can use that printing allowance for my re-election. We are talking about many millions of dollars here. In any given financial year the possible expenditure by members of the House alone is $18,875,000. My view is that at the very minimum that should not be able to be used for re-election purposes. Indeed, quite frankly, I think an amount of $50,000 would be reasonable. We also have a situation where our $28,000 postage allowance has now increased to 50c per elector, which takes me from about $27,000 to $42,000, and 100 per cent of that can be rolled over.

In my view, what we are doing is corrupting the system. We are giving such an advantage to sitting members of parliament. At the moment the government have that advantage. Eventually they will get tossed out. That time will come; we do not know when—the sooner the better for some of us. Then the advantage will be Labor’s. In the state of Queensland, where the opposition only has six out of 28 members, we are really going down the American path of entrenching incumbency unless a big swing is on.

The Ministers of State Act 1952 requires increases to the limits when they are appropriated out of the consolidated revenue. There is nothing unreasonable in what the parliament is considering this evening, but overall what we have to do, if we are to maintain credibility, is look at these other entitlements that we get as members of parliament, ministers of state or whatever. I do not want to bag the VIP jet and the jet fleet. The thing I am filthy on is that when the government upgraded the fleet they purchased smaller jets, which meant that parliamentary committees could not use those services to go to remote and rural Australia for parliamentary committee inquiries. Basically, by the way those jets were ordered, they booted off backbenchers and backbench committees.

I think there is a real problem here, which is why there is such cynicism in the community. We have seen the debate over the AWB, where the government has used its majority in the Senate to decline to allow certain witnesses to be cross-examined by a parliamentary committee. The second reading amendment to this bill talks about not allowing ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as ministerial salaries are increasing. They are linked. This is not a situation that pertains just to the Liberal Party. The concerns that I have outlined this evening could equally be applied to a Labor government, because there is no doubt that in our period in office we changed entitlements to suit. I saw an increase in entitlements under the Labor government. I am not sitting here being Scrooge and saying, ‘No entitlements, no increases.’ I think there has to be a rationale and a justification because the separation of powers is important. It is important that our ministers, our politicians and our courts are held in high esteem.

We have one of the best democracies in the world, but we are not seeing the wood for the trees. Over a period of time we have allowed some entitlements and benefits to creep into the system, which has led to cynicism by ordinary members of the public. I am not critical of the salaries of members of parliament or ministers. They are not high by professional standards. If you were a successful barrister, doctor or businessman you could earn a lot more. But that is not necessarily of itself a justification for you to automatically get a salary commensurate with those professions.

The other thing that is interesting is that we do have different qualities in our approach to our jobs. There is no benchmark for what constitutes a good or a bad minister. I can remember during the days of the Labor government the former Attorney-General reminiscing with me that his job was to keep out of the news and to keep the cabinet on the rails in terms of what it was able to do, what it wanted to do and what it could properly do. That is why I think we are losing the battle at the moment of the operation of and ministers’ accountability during question time in the parliament.

I have seen a decline. I can remember vividly as if it were yesterday the current Prime Minister telling us that he was going to raise the standards. There was criticism of the former PM because he only wanted to come to parliament two days a week. In the mother parliament, Prime Minister’s question time is only on one or two days a week and for a limited period as well. It is not necessarily about the amount of time you spend in this chamber but about the quality of time you spend in this chamber. When I look at the replays of question time, I see a lack of accountability. The opposition’s conduct  is not without blame either. Former Prime Minister Keating did not want parliamentary question time televised because he was frightened that it would turn the people in this place into a rabble—and it has. There is no accountability at question time. There is evasion and a whole series of things. I believe there should be more power in the Speaker to deal with ministers, to bring them to account and to require them to answer questions. This place is not being taken seriously. It is used as an evasion by ministers. I commend the second reading amendment to the House. It is worthy of support.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 and in particular the amendment moved by the member for Wills. In doing so, I will probably emphasise the amendment in my contribution. The fact is—and the member for Banks has clearly outlined the concerns I have in the main—that there has been a recent decline in the principles of ministerial accountability. There is no doubt that since the election of the Howard government in 1996 there has been a change of heart by the Prime Minister and the government about the way in which it, as an executive government, wishes to handle breaches of ministerial responsibility and accountability, and this has led to a deep cynicism and scepticism in the community about the role of people in this place. That is a great shame.

As the member for Banks indicated, there has been a whole host of ministers since Federation who have resigned from the ministry. As I understand it, the first resignation that occurred was in 1903 by Charles Kingston. He did so as a result of a difference of opinion with the executive government on policy. There have been a number of ministers who have resigned on fundamental policy grounds in moments of conscience. It occurred in the period when prescription was being proposed and throughout our relatively brief history as a nation. There is no doubt, if you look at some of the resignations from the executive government of ministers who believed they were in breach, say, in the 1970s and 1980s, you would find what we would regard as technical breaches of Westminster principles of ministerial responsibility and, therefore, cause for their resignations, but some of them pale into insignificance when compared with the failure of ministers in the Howard government to take responsibility for such breaches.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage wants to debate this issue. He can get up after me and defend his ministers. I am sure he will—probably starting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He can defend his ministers all he likes, but the reality is that there have been breaches. Since 1998 the Howard government has chosen to turn a blind eye to those breaches. Any of the members here who take any interest whatsoever in these matters would know that between 14 October 1996 and 26 September 1997—less than a 12-month period—there were no fewer than seven ministers who resigned from the Howard ministry for alleged improprieties in expense claims and travel expenditure. I think people generally know what that was about.

It must be difficult to come into this place and aspire to such high office and then have to make the decision, as a matter of honour and in abiding by long held principles, to tender your resignation. But in all of those cases—I will not name the particular ministers—they terminated their office and effectively offered their resignation to the Prime Minister in good faith, and I think they did so in good honour. They followed many others prior to the election of the 1996 government who also resigned for breaches of ministerial responsibility.

What seems to have happened since then is a blatant disregard for any accountability by ministers for such important events including, of course, the ‘children overboard’ affair. It seems now—at least since I was elected to this place in 2001 and some would argue from the commencement of the term previous to my election to this place—that there is a government that refuses to accept these principles. As I say, there was no doubt that significant matters arose from the ‘children overboard’ affair. I accept that the then Minister for Defence, Peter Reith, during the election campaign was no longer running for office—indeed, the parliamentary secretary at the table was his successor—but there is no doubt in my mind and, indeed, in the minds of the majority of Australians, I would say, that he acted dishonestly when he confirmed that they were photos—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that an accusation of dishonesty be withdrawn, even though it is against a former member of this House, because it is an allegation about his conduct whilst in the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the member would like to rephrase his statement.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to so that we can get on with the substance. Peter Reith, the former minister, asserted what we now know to be a lie. He asserted a fact when it was found to be untrue.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is simply moving from one formation to a worse and more accusatory formation. I would see the use of the word ‘lie’ as almost a direct defiance of your ruling.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 89, I think it could be deemed to be offensive and I would ask the member to use parliamentary language.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I am happy to withdraw the assertion on the basis that the alleged lie took place while the minister was in office. It is not surprising that the successor of Minister Reith wants to defend the indefensible by jumping to his feet in these matters. The obvious fact is that we know now that it was untrue that children were thrown overboard and the assertions made by the minister were found to be incorrect. Clearly, as a result of those assertions, the government gained politically. There was no accountability; there was no attempt by the government to account for its behaviour in that regard. There was no attempt by the Prime Minister to account for his repeat of the assertions that we now know were based on either incorrect assertions or dishonest statements made by whomever. The fact is that this government has probably, at least from the kids overboard on, allowed such matters to be perpetuated for political gain. I was very interested to read the editorial of the Australian today which correctly said:

But the Howard Government did have something to gain.

This is with respect to the kids overboard. The editorial also said:

Then defence minister Peter Reith and immigration minister Philip Ruddock knew an election-winner when they saw one and turned the “children overboard” affair into an anchor for the Government’s border protection policy. As evidence emerged that the incident never happened, ministers and minders all ducked and dived for cover. To their underlying disgrace, mandarins who should have served the public interest, not the Prime Minister’s electoral ambitions, helped them.

That is from the Australian newspaper today, which quite rightly points to the fact that the level of honesty, the level of accountability, had dropped from that moment on. The Australian concluded on this matter by saying:

The Government’s behaviour in the children overboard affair looks no less disgraceful now than it did back then—however the Prime Minister seeks to spin it.

I think the Australian newspaper is quite correct when, in today’s edition, it basically says the Prime Minister is more about spin than principle and more about providing an opportunity for him to gain electorally rather than being honest with the Australian people. I think it is important to note that this government has indeed used spin rather than honesty in its approach. I applaud the Australian newspaper for today making that point very clear when it suggests that the Howard government, indeed the Prime Minister himself, has been attempting to revise events of the ‘children overboard’ affair in his favour when we know that it was used dreadfully and was abused. People who found themselves in a very dangerous situation were vilified by this government in order for the government to gain electorally. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to associate themselves with the behaviour of Peter Reith, except for the parliamentary secretary at the table, and the fact is that the Australian got it right today by effectively saying that the government acted in a disgraceful manner when it came to its behaviour with the ‘children overboard’ affair.

I think it is important to note, though, that the first term of this government showed that the Prime Minister’s promise that there would be an adherence to ministerial responsibility was in fact the case. In less than 12 months we saw seven ministers resign as a result of breaches of ministerial responsibility, but from that time on, as the member for Banks indicated earlier, they have put up the shutters. They said: ‘We can’t really have the government bleed over matters as feeble as Westminster principles of ministerial accountability, so we’ll now deny when we make mistakes or, rather, we’ll blame somebody else for anything that occurs.’

We can see that with the Australian Wheat Board scandal. Here is a situation where it is clear from the evidence that the government was aware that kickbacks were being made to the Saddam Hussein regime, that $300 million worth of bribes were made under their watch—under the watch of the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their department. The government chooses either to ignore that or to blame someone else. If we are to blame anyone, they suggest that we should blame the public servants.

Something as significant as the largest bribe in Australia’s history going to a regime such as that of Saddam Hussein is a matter of such historical significance that it beggars belief that this government does not accept any responsibility for its actions or its behaviour in this regard. That is why I think the amendment moved by the member for Wills is quite correct in condemning the government for allowing standards to decline at the same time that salaries for ministers are increasing. It is not just about accountability; it is about the way in which the public perceives this place and our role as their representatives in the House of Representatives. The government has shown no concern for that.

Since 1998 we have seen an absence of accountability by this government. Even when matters of such significance, such outrageous breaches of ministerial responsibility, do occur, we see no action taken by the Prime Minister to force his ministers to resign and no honour, in my view, for ministers if it would not cause them to tender their resignations in these cases. That decline leads to cynicism and scepticism amid the community, which brings dishonour on this place.

So, whilst we support the bill and support that an independent tribunal should of course measure the appropriate increase for minister’s salaries, the government would do well to consider their neglect of the long held principles of the Westminster system in this place and to return to some level of honesty and honour and ensure that when something improper occurs, such as the $300 million bribes paid in the Australian Wheat Board scandal, they take some responsibility themselves. They should not try to pretend it was someone else and they should not by virtue of a limited terms of reference of a commission avoid proper scrutiny. They should effectively say, ‘We have done the wrong thing here,’ or, ‘Something has been done under our name that has shamed this nation, shamed this parliament and shamed this government, and we will attend to that. We will atone for those failures and we will, in the case of the minister or ministers responsible, expect their resignations.’ That has not happened and, as a result, there is a high level of cynicism towards this government. Until the Prime Minister changes his ways and his approach to ministerial responsibility it can only get worse.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment moved by the member for Wills to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005. In this debate I want to refer to a slightly different matter in addition to those matters raised by the member for Wills which I just heard so ably outlined by the member for Gorton. What I want to refer to more is the monumental double standard reflected in this bill whereby the government is applying one rule for itself and one rule for others in Australia. I do accept and support the thrust of the amendment of the member for Wills and the comments that have been made in support of it about the appalling standard of performance by many ministers. I want to, in endorsing those remarks, point to it in a slightly different context. It is the standard argument of this government, when it relates to the incomes of every other person who works for a living in this country, that salary increases without productivity increases are inflationary. The government applies that rule to everybody else but not to itself.

More particularly, I want to refer to the double standard of how this increase has been agreed. I agree with the process, but I think it is shameful that we here are almost the only people to whom this process now applies—that is, we get an independent tribunal to award a salary increase to us but ordinary Australian workers will no longer be eligible to have that happen to them. We have passed a law that says, ‘What occurs for all of us cannot apply to any of you’. We can have an increase awarded annually as determined to be fair by an independent tribunal—and I reinforce that I support the bill because, for ministers, that is the proper process—but nobody else in Australia can have that. Obviously it will be argued in response that this is a special case, and it is, but it is preposterous to suggest that it is the only special case in Australia. The Workplace Relations Act no longer allows special cases to apply to other Australians, only to us here and, in particular in this bill, to ministers, including to the minister who came in here and said that tribunals should not be allowed to set the wages of other Australians.

It is the most monumental double standard. I would use a stronger word, but I understand the precedents with regard to propriety in language in this place, so I will not say what is the obvious word. I will simply say that it is applying one standard to itself and a different standard to other people. It is a double standard because, if there is a special case that says you cannot expect ministers to have individual contracts based on the quality of their performance and their value to the agency for which they work and therefore we need to have a special tribunal, we could at least make an equally powerful special case for firefighters, for police officers and for emergency workers. We do not want them negotiating individual contracts when the central element of what the community wants is for them to work together as a team. We do not want them engaging in the normal industrial relations hassle because we want them available, when the emergencies arise, to assist us. And we want them to be well paid because we want them to continue to provide the indispensable services they provide. But they do not constitute a special case under the Workplace Relations Act—only ministers of this government do.

Then we get to the other element of the double standard, which is that this is a collective agreement, common to every minister in exactly the same terms. Some of the terms, I suspect, determined by the tribunal—not covered by this act but determined by the tribunal—would actually not be allowable matters for any other worker to have in their agreement. But let us put that to one side. I suspect the minister would probably intervene to prevent agreements that would include some of these matters. But, dealing with the things that are explicitly covered by this bill, we are saying that it is okay for every member of parliament—and in relation to this bill every minister in this government—to have common terms and conditions to their employment so they all get paid exactly the same and get exactly the same conditions in every way but that it is not okay for ordinary Australian workers to have that. They have to have individual contracts which they negotiate with their employers.

I would like to suggest that maybe the ministers who thought that was such a terrific policy when they all sat around the cabinet table and voted for it should have to front up to the Prime Minister and ask, ‘Who’s prepared to do the most for the least?’ We all know they do not want to do that, because we all know that the member for Wentworth would outbid them all—he would probably pay to do the job, and not everybody could afford to compete with him. But that is what is being asked of every other Australian worker. They have to front up and negotiate how much they are prepared—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a bit of a cheap comment, Bob.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it’s a very expensive comment.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it’s an easy one to make.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. If I have offended the member for Wentworth—which I do not think I have—I certainly did not intend to do that. That was designed to be a light-hearted aside. If I have offended him, I apologise. I am sure I have not, but I certainly did not wish to offend the member for Wentworth, who is as entitled to be a minister as anyone else, notwithstanding his personal circumstances. Being poor or wealthy should not be a factor. I do not think I reflected on him, and I certainly did not intend to. I am sure he would not take it like that. But, if the parliamentary secretary thinks I may have, I will certainly make clear that I did not intend to.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not interpret it as a reflection on the minister; otherwise, I would have pulled you up.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure you would have. I appreciate that. Anyway, if the parliamentary secretary thought that was a possible interpretation, I hasten to make it clear that that was not my intention. It was a light-hearted aside in what is otherwise a serious point—that every other Australian worker would have to front up to negotiate who was prepared to do the most for the least but that ministers do not have that rule applied to them. I do not think they should have, but I think we ought to have some decent application of common standards and principles. What we apply to ourselves we should apply to others. I think that is a pretty good principle.

I had and retain what was around this place the unpopular view that the changes to the superannuation provisions for members of parliament were correct—not because they are without criticism, not because they are perfect but because they are applying to members of parliament the same principle that applies to other Australians. We should apply the same rules to ourselves that we seek to impose on others. That cannot be exactly the case because we do not do exactly the same thing as others. I think more than a decade ago there was an attempt to tie members’ salaries to a particular category in the Public Service so that the general principle that applied to others outside the parliament applied to us in the terms of a determination of income. That has not been able to be applied absolutely because of the changes in the way Public Service salaries have been set since that time—that common benchmark, to some extent, evaporated—but the general principle still broadly applies. And, in my view, the more it can apply, the better it is.

So I feel very strongly—not that there is anything wrong with the provisions of this bill; like all other members of the opposition I will vote for this bill, as it is a bill that reflects the fact that ministers’ salaries are determined by an independent tribunal, as they should be—and deplore the fact that the salaries of the ministers who have barefaced brought in the bill should be determined in common by an independent tribunal and they should get over the years decent sized pay rises as a result while at the same time low-paid workers should have to go to the Fair Pay Commission and get what the Fair Pay Commission and the government expect to be a significant reduction in the rate of increase and that ordinary workers should not have access to such a tribunal or to such collective agreements.

I come back in conclusion—I did promise both the minister and the member for Grayndler that I would speak for only 10 minutes—that, in support of the amendment of the member for Wills, I sometimes do look across in amazement at the lack of performance of many on the frontbench. I think some of those people on the backbench on the government’s side must shake their heads and ask, ‘How is it that these people are there ahead of me?’

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Poor Greg.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have already had our little discussion and I do not want to go into that any further—nor with the parliamentary secretary who is about to take his place. But, over the years, the allocations have been extraordinary and, on the basis of performance based pay, some of them would have had to give their money back. I do not think the Prime Minister is quite as fond of the classics as some of our previous prime ministers, particularly Prime Minister Whitlam, who used to quote them somewhat more. But, if my recollection is correct, it was Sophocles who said:

To lay hands on victory is to hold a sweet possession. A reputation for justice can come later. For now, give yourself to shamelessness.

That is what we are seeing reflected in the collapse of ministerial standards. That is not what the Australian people expect from us as their representatives in a democracy. This bill, and the amendment to it, has facilitated an important discussion about ministerial standards. However, I want to emphasise a slightly different point while endorsing that discussion: the monumental double standard in the way our salaries are dealt with—in particular, the salaries of ministers, which we are dealing with today—compared to those of ordinary Australian workers in much less powerful positions who have to fend for themselves without the benefit of collective agreements or tribunals. It is a bill that needs to pass but, as the bill relates to industrial relations, the principles underpinning it should be applied to all Australian workers and not just to ministers in the government.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the amendment to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 moved by my colleague the member for Wills. It is appropriate that we in this House should be scrutinising the matters contained in this amendment at this particular time in history—the 10th anniversary of the election of the Howard government on 2 March 1996, the same day I was elected to this House—because, after 10 long years of the Howard government, there is arrogance and incompetence right across the show. We have the ongoing AWB saga. We have now had more than 21 documents raised by the opposition in question time. Day after day, ministers are being questioned about how they could sit by and allow $300 million to be paid in kickbacks from the AWB to the Saddam Hussein regime at the same time as Australia was preparing to go to war against that regime. An Australian government can make no more serious decision than to send our men and women to war. We made that decision based upon the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. We now know that we not only made that commitment on the basis of a lie but at the very same time were funding the regime to the tune of $300 million.

Four new cables were today raised in parliament and the Minister for Foreign Affairs conceded not only that he had been briefed on the documents but that he had read them himself. Those documents outlined very clearly, way back in January 2000, some three years before the war began, the clear concerns that existed about allegations of kickbacks to the Iraqi regime in contravention of UN sanctions against that regime. What was the government’s response? It was to ask the AWB, ‘Are you doing anything wrong?’ When the AWB said, ‘Oh, no,’ that was essentially it; that was the investigation of the government. That was symptomatic of this government’s approach to public policy.

When it comes to the Prime Minister’s code of conduct, we saw at the beginning of the process a number of ministers—John Herron, Jim Short, Brian Gibson, Geoff Prosser and others—having to fall on their swords and resign. Peter McGauran also had to resign, but he made a comeback. He is still a member of the National Party—for the time being. Over a period of time, the Prime Minister’s standards have disappeared. We have had scandals involving Michael Wooldridge, Wilson Tuckey and Richard Alston. We had travel rorts and we had balaclavas on the waterfront. We had Stan Howard and National Textiles. We had the telecard affair concerning Peter Reith and of course the children overboard affair.

I would ask all Australians to read David Marr and Marian Wilkinson’s book Dark Victory because that clearly outlines the symptomatic way in which the government was prepared not only to vilify and abuse asylum seekers but also to misuse the Department of Defence in a way which completely abrogated the independent way in which Defence should operate. Even as late as this week the Prime Minister was still attempting to say maybe they scuttled the boat. Of course that was not true. That was not found. It is quite clear that the whole basis of the children overboard affair was that once again this government was prepared to put its political interest above the national interest. That comes through the Department of the Environment and Heritage, which I have responsibility for as shadow minister, and that comes through on the subject of the management of water issues, which I also have responsibility for. This government is so drunk with power that it silences dissent and stifles debate. It controls both houses of parliament so it thinks that we have a one-party state—accountability goes out the window.

A recent Four Corners program raised some very serious allegations that senior CSIRO scientists are being silenced on climate change issues. Australia’s top scientists are being gagged from saying we need greenhouse gas emission targets. They cannot even say that environmental refugees will be an issue when Pacific island nations flood because of climate change. That is contrary to specific advice given to the government by the department. On 5 January this year, when Labor released its policy on a Pacific climate change strategy, the response of the government was: ‘Let’s just hope it never happens’—quite contrary to the specific advice that it had been given. It is a tragedy that CSIRO scientists are operating in a climate of fear where anything that indicates that they disagree with current government policy is censored. Leading CSIRO scientist Dr Barrie Pittock was expressly told he could not talk about climate change mitigation in dealing with rising sea levels in the Pacific. One of the world’s leading climate change scientists, Dr Graeme Pearman, was gagged because he said we need greenhouse gas emission targets and we need carbon trading to help avoid dangerous climate change.

The Age reported last week, on 20 February, that the government had suppressed a key chapter of its landmark Climate change: risk and vulnerability report. The report has a number of chapters outlining the threats to Australia—the threat of a decrease in rainfall, the threat of increased extreme weather events and the threat to our iconic areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu. Yet a chapter that was never published by the government was the chapter outlining the recommendations. So you had the problems revealed in the Climate change: risk and vulnerability report but you also had the suppression of the key chapter outlining priorities for action. This is an absolute scandal. The government and its ministers consistently fail to be accountable to the Australian people.

In terms of other environmental issues, it is quite clear that this government is prepared to have completely inconsistent positions when it comes to the independent advice that it has been given. If you want to see how ministerial standards and accountability have declined over the past decade, look at the contradictions that litter the government’s climate change policy. Take emissions trading, for example. On 14 February 2006 in Senate estimates, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said this:

I think carbon trading schemes are part of the policy answer ... There is nothing radical about supporting trading schemes.

Yet today in question time in the Senate, when he got a dorothy dixer, he criticised emissions trading schemes. On 14 April 2005, he said:

... we don’t think it’s an effective way to reduce greenhouse gases. The costs imposed particularly on, let’s say, domestic power bills far outweigh the benefits of the emissions reduced.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So where does the government stand on emissions trading? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is at the table, says he agrees. I wonder if he agrees with his leader in waiting—and waiting and waiting and waiting—the member for Higgins. The Treasurer, who went across to the United States, spoke at a conference during G’day LA events on 18 January 2006.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did he say?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said this:

A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used ...

…       …            …

Price signals in an efficient open market will promote new and more efficient investment ...

So the environment minister is in the Senate today saying price signals are bad but the Treasurer goes to LA, thinking that something called the internet does not exist, and says it is good. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said this on 31 July 2005:

We know that emissions can’t continue at their current rate. That’s going to require research, collaborative research. It’s also going to mean we’ll have to investigate price signals coming from energy ... By changing price signals, obviously that leads to changes in the investment patterns. You can get more investment into cleaner energy through changing pricing signals ...

The foreign minister was right on 31 July 2005, the Treasurer was right on 18 January 2006 and indeed the environment minister was right on 14 February 2006, but they say a different thing today on the issue of emissions trading and the need to get price signals. You can only have two forms of price signals: emissions trading or a carbon tax. Maybe they are in favour of a carbon tax rather than emissions trading, but the Labor Party is in favour of emissions trading. That would appear to me to be what some of the government, some of the time, are arguing should happen—but not just yet. That is one of the inconsistencies in government standards.

On 27 October 2005 the environment minister described climate change as ‘a very serious threat to Australia’, but at the same time his department was in court challenging the very existence of climate change. The environment minister has said on numerous occasions that global emissions need to be cut by at least 60 per cent by 2050, but the government’s climate change policies will—according to the report from ABARE on the Asia-Pacific climate pact—increase emissions by 70 to 80 per cent by 2050. That was the most optimistic assessment if all the proposals discussed at the Asia-Pacific climate pact meeting were adopted.

Let us look at the Great Barrier Reef. The government’s own Australian Greenhouse Office has for years highlighted the dramatic impact climate change will have on the Great Barrier Reef. The report to the government and to the minister, the Climate change risk and vulnerability report—the report which had the chapter about what to do about it suppressed by the government—said this:

The Reef itself is likely to suffer from coral bleaching events, which have long recovery times and flow on effects for the whole ecosystem. Climate model projections suggest that within 40 years water temperatures could be above the survival limit of corals.

The evidence is very clear. It has been given to the government, and yet what do government ministers say? On 9 February this year, the industry minister said this:

I think the Reef is in good shape. Those areas where it is being closely managed... it is probably in better shape than it has been for years.

The government is all over the shop when it comes to the fundamental challenges before it.

Let us look at the Kyoto protocol. On 19 December 1997, after the Howard government signed the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister described it as ‘a win for the environment, and a win for Australian jobs’. This is a government that now holds the Kyoto protocol in the same affection as the National Party hold Senator McGauran. On 16 February 2005, the environment minister said, ‘Quite frankly, the protocol is a dud.’ At the same time, when the Asia-Pacific climate pact meeting was being held, the government was saying that it complemented the Kyoto protocol and that the Kyoto protocol, as the international agreement, was important.

Let us look at the issue of whaling. On 22 June 2005, at the end of an International Whaling Commission meeting, the environment minister arrogantly exclaimed:

Australia and pro-conservation nations have today won a massive victory for whale conservation. This is a fantastic outcome because it reinforces Australia’s determination to ensure all commercial and so-called ‘scientific’ whaling is consigned to the dustbin of history.

Tragically, the slaughter of whales has not been consigned to the dustbin of history. Night after night over the Christmas period, Australians were shocked by the images of whales being slaughtered in our territory, in territory declared by this government as part of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. And yet the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, intervened in a case involving the Humane Society International about whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary to say that it should not be successful because it would create a ‘diplomatic disagreement with Japan’.

Far from an end of whaling, we have actually seen a doubling of whaling since the minister declared that. There has been a doubling in the catch of minke whales to 935 and an expansion to include 50 fin whales. If it were not for Greenpeace’s actions, Australians would not know what occurred in the Australian Whale Sanctuary over the Christmas period, because this government was not interested in monitoring the activities there.

Now the environment minister is saying that Japan will probably have majority support at the next IWC meeting, which will be held in the Caribbean this year. The government has sat on its hands while Japan has stacked the IWC. He says that he wants to consign whaling to the dustbin of history, but he has not been willing to take the government of Japan and other whaling nations to international courts such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

We also know that when it comes to heritage issues this is a government in which ministerial accountability has gone missing. On 18 December 2003, the Prime Minister stated that Anzac Cove would be the first listing on the National Heritage List. He said:

It seems to me ... entirely appropriate that the Anzac site at Gallipoli should represent the first nomination for inclusion on the National Heritage List. And, although it’s not on Australian territory, anyone who has visited the place will know that once you go there you feel it as Australian as the piece of land on which your home is built.

So what was actually going on while you had the Prime Minister and other ministers saying this? What was going on was that they were requesting road works to trash this sacred piece of our heritage. When I raised it in the parliament and asked questions of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s response was that it was regrettable that it was even being raised. Although Anzac Cove is still not on the National Heritage List and in spite of the public outcry about what has occurred there, reports were given at Senate estimates that the area is continuing to be desecrated. (Time expired)

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up this bill, could I thank the various people who contributed to the debate. I am sure any casual reader of Hansard might be a bit perplexed about what some of the matters, particularly those just raised by the member for Grayndler, have to do with the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005. Obviously they have nothing to do with this bill. However, it is an appropriation bill, so members can speak on all sorts of matters—and clearly members have. I will not delay the parliament tonight in summing up. I will simply reiterate that this is a very minor amendment to a bill which allows for salaries to ministers, which is why the relevant act is called the Ministers of State Act. The bill is a one-line amendment to that act, replacing one dollar figure with another dollar figure. Really in summing up I should not say any more than that, other than to state that the government clearly does not accept the amendment moved by the member for Wills. The amendment clearly also has nothing to do with the bill. It is simply a political statement and it will not be supported by the government. I commend the bill to the House.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wills has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.