Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 implements recommendation 1 of the Bell inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, by amending the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide greater transparency and publicly available information regarding commonwealth executive government positions. It will do this by establishing legislative requirements for the publication of notices detailing the commencement or revocation of appointments to the Federal Executive Council or to administer a department of state or directing a minister of state to hold an office.

The opposition supports this bill. The opposition will always support sensible legislation that is put before this chamber, and it will in this case. Consistent with recommendation 1 of the Bell inquiry, the legislation requires the making of a notifiable instrument as soon as practicable after the Governor-General chooses, summons and swears in or revokes the membership of an executive councillor under section 62 of the Constitution; appoints or revokes the appointment of an officer to administer a department of state under section 64 of the Constitution; and directs that a minister of state hold an office under section 65 of the Constitution or revokes such a direction. I commend this bill to the House.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 goes to the very heart of our democracy and is part of the work the Albanese Labor government is doing to restore faith in this institution. Last year, we passed the bill to establish a national anticorruption commission. It is another vital part of the extensive work we are doing to bring integrity back into the government and to this place—something so dreadfully diminished by the actions we've all witnessed of the previous government. That was an election commitment we made, and I've spent hours listening to people in my community in Chisholm tell me how important acting on corruption and restoring faith and trust in government is. It is so important to the people I represent, and it is very important to me personally. I really do—as I hope most of my colleagues do—take the job very seriously here in this place. I don't treat the privilege of being here as a parliamentarian as something that is to be approached like a game. We should not hide from the difficult decisions and conversations we have to make in these jobs, and we should be honest and transparent and accountable to our communities.

While the National Anti-Corruption Commission is one of the ways we're ensuring that this is how the parliament and government function, this bill is another. I, like so many Australians, was completely and utterly appalled by the actions of the member for Cook when it became clear he had appointed himself to several ministries. It was a great shame that there was no meaningful apology to Australians following the revelations made to journalists writing a book, and honestly, we just deserve so much better than the so-called explanation we received as a nation.

I think we have one of the best democratic systems in the world, with compulsory voting and an independent electoral commission, and it should be a great source of pride to Australians that ours was one of the very first nations in the world to enfranchise women to vote. To trash this system, to try to play tricky games with the precious institution of democratic government, is disgraceful. We've seen recently in places such as the United States and Brazil how fragile democracies can be when we do not do everything we can to protect them. In Australia we have ourselves seen that we cannot take anything for granted when it comes to our democracy, and this bill is part of protecting and defending the system of government and governance that we have here. Very importantly, it is about treating Australians—people who vote for us and put us here—with the respect that they deserve.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency and accountability at the Commonwealth level of our system of government, and this is a great thing. It will ensure that Australians are able to access information relating to the composition of the Federal Executive Council, those appointed to administer certain departments of state, and the high offices that ministers of state hold. These reforms perform a part of our response to the report of the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC.

Introducing this bill demonstrates our readiness to act promptly to restore confidence in our federal system of government and to rebuild integrity in public sector institutions, processes and officials. Of course, the genesis for the Bell inquiry stemmed from media reports, where we all found out that the former Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, had been appointed to administer multiple portfolios during 2020 and 2021: Health; Finance: Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs. This was on top of his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I know that so many people were really shocked and appalled to find this out, and I'm really glad we're taking actions to make sure this cannot happen again.

The government referred these matters to the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. It was clear from his advice that the principles of historical government 'are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government'. Following his advice, it was also clear that an appropriate and swift inquiry was needed and that action had to be taken. I'm really glad that we took action. This really should not be about politics. This should be about the system of governance that should be treasured by all of us in this place, and indeed about transparency and accountability to the communities that send us here.

The Westminster traditions of checks and balances need to be honoured. As the Solicitor-General also said, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which department. So this really goes to something so fundamental about the way this place operates and about what Australians are entitled to know about who is running the country. It is so significant.

This amendment bill forms one part of our response to Ms Bell's recommendations. Specifically, this bill will require the official secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument, registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable, that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive counsellor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require such notification on the revocation of any of these positions. The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state where appropriate, and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. In the case of revocations, the notifiable instrument is to include the name of the person, the name of the former office and the date that such membership, appointment or direction was revoked. The notifiable instrument may also comprise a copy of an instrument by the Governor-General. I hope we can all agree this is only going to be a very good thing for the governance of this country and the accountability we owe to the people that put us here.

The introduction of this bill shows the government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics, the centrepiece of which is the recent introduction of legislation for a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. The measures in this bill will go some way to provide greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office, especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are real checks and balances and where one person cannot gain powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament. I am really pleased and proud to support this bill.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022. Responsible government is the foundation of our system of parliamentary democracy. The principle that ministers are responsible to parliament and that parliament is responsible to the people is part of our great British constitutional heritage. It's one of the features of our parliamentary democracy that distinguishes us from the United States and from many European democracies.

Responsible government is a fundamental feature of Australian constitutional practice. To be sure, responsible government has been weakened in Australia by an increasingly powerful executive which dominates parliament by the means of party disciplines.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dead right, Monique!

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Bob! Responsible government in Australia has been undermined by the progressive defunding and disempowerment of what was once an effective and independent public service. Responsible government in Australia has been constrained by the loss of the concept of ministerial responsibility. Where once ministers lost their jobs for not declaring a Paddington Bear at Customs, we now see ministers evade responsibility for actions which result in the deep distress and suicide of Australians—as demonstrated in the former government's Prime Minister's and multiple ministers' shameful recent testimony to the robodebt royal commission.

But the most startling breach of responsible government occurred in a 14-month period from March 2020 to May 2021, when the member for Cook, acting as the Prime Minister, was secretly appointed to administer five departments of state in addition to that of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These appointments were not disclosed to the parliament or to the public. The secrecy of these appointments has been widely condemned. That eminent professor of constitutional law Professor Anne Twomey said this lack of transparency is 'indicative of a lack of respect for the institutions of government and of the general public'. The Solicitor-General said that the actions of the former Prime Minister 'fundamentally undermined' the principles of responsible government. In her report on the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, the Hon. Virginia Bell found that these actions were 'corrosive of trust in parliament'. My Kooyong constituents deeply value our rich British parliamentary heritage, our constitutional conventions and our system of parliamentary democracy. They want their representative to uphold and protect the tenets of responsible and transparent government.

This bill, to ensure greater transparency for executive appointments, shouldn't be necessary. But it will ensure that no future Prime Minister can ride roughshod over the most fundamental principles of responsible government. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Integrity, accountability and transparency: themes identified in the 2022 federal election campaign in my home electorate on the Central Coast, a significant part of my maiden speech to this parliament and themes that underpin my practice, my attitude and my behaviour both in and outside this chamber. A healthy democracy has, at its core, these notions: integrity, accountability, transparency. As your member for Robertson, I see it as the responsibility of every person in this place, in every seat, and in the other place, to ensure that we safeguard and protect it for future generations. This is why, when the opportunity presented itself to speak on this piece of legislation, I saw it as an opportunity to strengthen what we have here: a democracy that is the envy of the world.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency, to provide for greater accountability at the Commonwealth level for our system of government. I rise today to speak on a piece of legislation that will provide greater integrity and transparency surrounding the process of appointing elected officials into high office, especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances, and where one person, an individual, cannot again acquire powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian parliament. Access to information is absolutely vital. It is absolutely critical to this process. This bill will ensure that there are checks and balances. This bill will ensure that the Australian people will be able to access information relating to the composition of the Federal Executive Council, those appointed to administer certain departments of state and the high offices that ministers of state hold.

The reforms in this bill form part of a response to the report of the inquiry into the appointment of the former prime minister to administer multiple departments. This inquiry was led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC. What this piece of legislation demonstrates to the Australian public is our government's readiness to act promptly to restore peoples confidence in our system of government—confidence that was lost after 10 long years, a decade of Liberal Party rule—and to rebuild integrity in public systems, public sector institutions, processes and officials.

We all know where this started—the people of the Central Coast and around Australia, particularly those in this chamber and in the other place—and we all know why this bill is absolutely vital and absolutely necessary. In August 2022 media reports began detailing that the former prime minister and member for Cook had been appointed to administer multiple portfolios during 2020 and 2021—namely, the Department of Health; the Department of Finance; the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; the Department of the Treasury; and the Department of Home Affairs—on top of his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The government referred these matters to the Solicitor-General and Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. As was clear from his advice: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' Following the Solicitor-General's advice, it was also clear that an appropriate and swift inquiry was needed, and action had to be taken. The actions of the former prime minister have been condemned, not just by the Australian public but by multiple former Liberal prime ministers.

And so it was on 26 August 2022 that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, announced the appointment of former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to lead the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments. I need to state: the inquiry wasn't about politics. Instead, it was essentially a root cause analysis into why this occurred. It was an analysis into how this occurred. And, more importantly, it was an analysis into who knew about the events that transpired. It is important, it is vital and it is crucial that we have integrity and that we have accountability and transparency in our system of government and the processes within, because our parliamentary democracy relies upon these conventions and relies upon the Westminster traditions of checks and balances. As was made very clear by the Solicitor-General, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which departments.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 forms one part of the government's response to Ms Bell's recommendations. Specifically, the bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable advising that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state, or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require such notification on the revocation of any of these positions. The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state where appropriate, and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. In the case of revocations, the notifiable instrument is to include the name of the person, the name of the former officer and the date that such membership, appointment or direction was revoked. The notifiable instrument may also comprise a copy of an instrument issued by the Governor-General.

This legislation highlights the Albanese Labor government's commitment to delivering on an election promise to restore trust and integrity within our federal parliament and within our community. The foundation of this restoration was the recent legislation of a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. The measures in the bill will go some of the way to providing greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office; and especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances, a system of government where one person cannot again garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament. So I say again: integrity, accountability and transparency are vital in this place.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 50 years as a member of parliament, half a century, you see a lot of changes happen. Sometimes you can't actually grasp what is happening. Late last year I was asked to go down to a senior minister. I won't say what party, but he had been a senior minister off and on in various governments for some 20-odd years and is very highly respected. Before I could sit down in his office, he said: 'Bob, today politicians don't govern. They will not govern. They cannot govern. They don't govern.' I asked, 'When did you come to that conclusion?' He said, 'Three years ago.' I said, 'Well, you're one up on me, my friend, because I came to the same conclusion 3½ months ago. It's not because they're lily-pad lefties. It's not because they're ringbarking righties. It's not because of their other proclivities or ideologies that we see. They don't conform, or, if they conform to any of those, they just cannot make decisions. Let me be very specific.

The honourable Liberal member at the table, the member for Hume, is laughing. He was told to set up an emergency supply of fuel, and he put the emergency supplies in America. In all my time in parliament, I don't think I've felt more humour at a decision than that one.

Laura Tingle wrote a magnificent article—I think the best I've ever read of hers. George Megalogenis did a follow-up, another brilliant article. Laura Tingle said that the Public Service has been politicised. We saw that vividly in Queensland. As a minister, when I took the portfolio, I wanted to sack the head of the department, who I estimated probably had about a hundred First Australian children. You'll say that he must have been a monster. Well, other people and the good Lord can make judgement on whether he was or whether he wasn't. He was to be immediately sacked, but I couldn't sack him. We had a Public Service board, and I could not sack him. It was not quite as simple as that, but that's roughly the way it was. We had a Public Service board that protected him. As Laura Tingle said, the Public Service is now politicised. All the public servants that you have now will be changed with a change of government. When I say 'a change of government'—if Anthony Albanese is re-elected as the Prime Minister of Australia he will change the ministries. You have a new government with new ministers, or new portfolios, and the whole thing changes around.

In Queensland we had a very centralised, powerful government, and everyone is aware of that. The Bjelke-Petersen government was a centralised government—you'd have to go back to the days of Theodore in Queensland, but they were highly centralised. Bjelke-Petersen was a very powerful man, and Sir Leo Hielscher was the senior bureaucrat. No-one could get between that pair. If you were a minister, you did as you were told. A bloke like me—we had a difference of opinion. I felt my blackfella brother-cousins should own their own land and do whatever they wanted to do with it. There was a view that we should look after them and look after that land for them. That is a view that prevails today, of course. They have carbon credits, which is good for them—that's what we told them, that it's good for them. So we decided what's good for them. I think most of them wanted to put cattle on the land, but we decided what was good for them.

They said there is now a politicised Public Service. You might have a bloke who's never had anything do with a portfolio—agriculture or manufacturing, for example—in his entire life. But he'll suddenly be head of a department as an expert in this area, whereas in the Queensland Public Service, almost invariably, if you were an expert in agriculture then you stayed in agriculture. Overlaid on top of what has happened in Australia—this is how it pertains to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister couldn't get anything to happen. He sat there and he could not get anything to happen, and eventually he got frustrated. Malcolm Turnbull told me that he believed in ministerial government and that the minister controlled the operation of their portfolio, not him. That was telling me that it was useless for me to go running off to him, because I had a bit of a balance of power situation. It was useless me running off to him, because every minister would be making decisions in their own portfolios. Well, (a) the ministers didn't make the decisions and (b) he was impotent. The people elected him to govern Australia, and he was telling me he was not governing Australia. When the Prime Minister we're discussing today tried to govern Australia, he wasn't allowed to; the ministers just did not do anything.

Let me be very specific. The then Prime Minister's mother was a Gilmore, and they had 12 to 15 cattle stations throughout my home country, North Queensland's mid-west, or inland North Queensland, if you like. I knew the Gilmore's very well. Dame Mary Gilmore was on the $10 note. She's buried in Cloncurry, in my hometown. So I knew the family extremely well. I knew that this man would absolutely love to develop his homeland. He would love to put a dam in Hughenden and in each of the mid-west towns, and a dam on the massive Flinders River, where they'd use no water out of it at all for irrigation. There are two farms on the Flinders River. It's the sixth biggest river in Australia, with seven million megalitres of water. To put that into perspective, the Murray-Darling has 20-odd million megalitres of water; the Flinders has seven million megalitres of water and two farms. The Murray-Darling has something like 200,000 farms.

He wanted to put a dam at Hughenden. He wanted to put a little tiny dam in a little tiny town, which would take 300,000 megalitres out of a stream of seven million megalitres, and he couldn't get it to happen. I'm not here to denigrate people, but the minister in this place said, 'Oh, yeah, and I had the state government coming at me.' I said, 'Just call tenders; I mean, for heaven's sake, you want 48,000 reports!' We had to put a report in on the economic basis for this proposal. Then when we finished that, we had to do another report on cost-benefit analysis. Then we finished that we had to do a cultural assessment for the First Australians. Then when we finished that, we had to show the social effects on the area. Then we had to do an environmental report. We'd all be dead and gone long before anything happens!

In my day, in the state of Queensland, we decided whether we were going to build a dam or whether we weren't, and if you couldn't make a decision, then you shouldn't have been in parliament. Bjelke-Peterson set up a committee of inquiry. There was another colleague of mine—and we were all laughing in cabinet because we knew what was going to happen. In two months, he was sacked. Bjelke-Peterson quite rightly said, 'If this room is for people who can make a decision, if you can't make a decision and you have to run off and make a report, then get the hell out of this room.' And he ordered him out of the room, and the bloke burst out crying. That gives you some idea of the way you run a government. If you're running a government, you're running a government.

The most important thing I have to say is that the opinion to me of the most experienced person in the history of this place and, I would argue, probably one of the longest-serving cabinet ministers in the history of this place—and obviously I'm not in a political party, so I'm not in his party—is that they don't govern anymore. I used the example of the little tiny dam at Hughenden. There was a little tiny $28 million for a little tiny weir at Charters Towers, which is, again, in Gilmore country. The Prime Minister wanted to see it happen. He gave me $28 million—because that's how much it costs to build a dam—to build a dam. I saw the CEO last week. The local council's running it. He said, 'We've had to do three reports for the state government, and that took the whole $28 million.' It's gone on reports. So we keep spending money on reports. More than half of the cost of building a road now is spent on reports, and less than half of the cost is spent on actually building the road.

Democracy is faulting, and not just in Australia. Eight of the last presidents in America have spent most of their presidencies trying to stay out of jail. It is beyond the realm of possibility that eight people who were president of the United States were all criminals. No matter how cynical you might be about politics, that is not real. But, because they had to spend their time staying out of jail, there was no time to rule America. So we have a democracy that is malfunctioning very badly.

I have a friend who said: 'The mob get it right. In the end, in Australia, the mob get it right.' In this place stood three of the greatest Australians ever: 'Red Ted' Theodore, the creator of the Labor movement in Australia; Ben Chifley; and John Curtin. They all said that in a depression you must spend money. The newspapers ripped them to pieces. Sir Otto Niemeyer from the Bank of England ripped him to pieces. The establishment in Australia ripped them to pieces. Not only did they lose the election; the three of them lost their seats in parliament.

Now, the danger for you people in the big parties in this place is that the mob gets it right in the end. That's your problem. It's a big problem because we people over here got more than one in three votes in the last election. The government got less than one in three votes, and the opposition got less than one in three votes. So the mob are waking up, the same as they did with Curtin, Chifley and Theodore, who were not only returned to parliament—Theodore was too old, but the other two were—but made prime ministers of Australia. Chifley, of course, was the greatest Prime Minister that we've ever had in this country. So the mob will get it right.

Democracy is malfunctioning. China is leaping past the United States, with a 10 or 11 per cent annual growth rate versus maybe a faltering two per cent growth rate in the United States. Thirty or 40 years ago it was a joke to think that a communist country could rival a democracy. Quite frankly, the relationship between Japan and India is so close that you're looking at the greatest power equation on earth. They are democracies, so we have some hope for the future. But in Western democracies it would be hard to point to a single country that is operating successfully.

The three most sophisticated intellectual commentators in this country—and I don't mean to denigrate other people by saying that—Laura Tingle, George Megalogenis and Paul Bongiorno, all said that government today doesn't govern. And here was the most experienced and most highly respected person in this place for 30 years saying exactly the same thing, and being agreed with by one of the two people who have been the longest-serving members of parliament in Australian history: me and Billy Hughes—a terrible person to be associated with; a dreadful person; a dreadful creature. So there's no great kudos in being around a long time, and there's the proof! But you have seen a long period of parliamentary history, and you have seen enormously successful governments.

I was in a government that was fascist. They started throwing people in jail for having demonstrations. The party I belonged to got very, very angry, and the Premier was forced out of his fascism. It was a bad period, but it was a period that was overcome. It was a period in which every year we'd build a giant dam and create a new city in outback Australia! (Time expired)

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much was made in the wake of the announcement of the Bell inquiry about our government's priorities. Some in TV, the media and papers suggested that we should leave the issue of the former Prime Minister's multiple ministries in the past. Those opposite, in an act of deflection that was as desperate as it was transparent, argued for silence on the matter. When that didn't work, they accused the government of pursuing a politically driven witch-hunt. They dismissed the significance of the former Prime Minister's actions, they dismissed the advice of the Solicitor-General and they dismissed the outcry of the Australian people.

But the right priorities are something that this government and this Prime Minister, unlike those opposite, understand. We know that there is no greater gift than government. It is a precious opportunity bestowed by the Australian people to get things done, to make things fair and to leave this country in a better place than we found it. So we have not wasted a single minute. In our brief time in office the Albanese government has taken meaningful action on the cost of living and on wages growth. We've restored Australia's place in the world. We've got mums and dads back to work by making child care cheaper. And we're creating new, better-paid and more-secure jobs.

As we stand here in this place, we should be reminded that we have a greater obligation to Australians and, indeed, to Australia. But perhaps the greatest priority and responsibility is to protect and defend the institutions, the norms and the conventions that safeguard our democracy, because practically delivering a better life for Australians and standing up for our institutions are not mutually exclusive. It's no false dilemma, as those opposite would have you believe. It is core business. It's what our constituents put us here to do and is precisely what the Albanese government is doing with this legislation.

Like many on my side of the aisle, I'm very fond of former US president Barack Obama. In his final speech as president he spoke about the hope and fragility of democracy. His ode to and defence of our guiding political philosophy was timely and necessary.

Across the world, democracy has been under assault from enemies foreign and domestic. Wannabe strong men have ripped from the same pages of the authoritarian handbook. They've dabbled in the politics of hate and division, demonised and attacked the free press, waged war on the baseline facts which underpin the context of ideas, and undermined the norms and institutions that our democratic system is founded upon. In Ukraine, the attack is less subtle. Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine is intended to snuff out the promise of democracy, so powerful a threat to his authoritarian regime, on Russia's border. In defence of their sovereignty and our shared belief that governments should be chosen by and accountable to their citizens, Ukrainians have fought back, have shed blood and are repelling the aggressors. For that, we and all other democracies owe them a great debt.

We, as Australians, should take pride in the strength of our democracy. Our elections are held without incident, and the transfer of power is done peacefully. Our judiciary is fierce in its independence, and our government is held responsible to this parliament and the people we represent. But we cannot rest on our laurels and we cannot underestimate the fragility of democracy. That's why, when our institutions, our norms and our conventions are challenged, it is our duty to speak up and to act.

It bears repeating how we got to this point and why we are here legislating these changes to the Ministers of State Act. In August of last year it was revealed that the former Prime Minister had appointed himself to administer five additional portfolios. The Prime Minister was also the Treasurer, the finance minister, the home affairs minister, the health minister and the minister for industry, science, energy and resources. He made these appointments in secret. His ministers were not aware, the parliament was not aware and the Australian people were not aware.

Having learnt of the member for Cook's secret ministries, the Albanese government sought advice from the Solicitor-General—as they should. Dr Donaghue's opinion was unequivocal: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' It was clear from the Solicitor-General's advice that further action was needed. Australians were owed an explanation as to how this happened, why it happened and who knew about it—not for political pointscoring or retribution but because our democracy is fragile; it's worth protecting, because fundamental to the functioning of our government is transparency in its processes. You cannot have checks and balances in our Westminster system when its ministers are appointed in secret.

As the Solicitor-General makes clear in his advice, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which departments. So the government acted swiftly, appointing former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell to lead an inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments. Justice Bell's inquiry concluded that the lack of disclosure in the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.

This legislation is one part of the Albanese government's response to Justice Bell's inquiry. It will end the possibility of Australians not knowing who runs their government. It will require the official secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument, registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state, or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require the notification of the revocation of any of these positions.

This legislation is important because it provides a mechanism to ensure that the Australian people always know who their ministers are. It's important because it will enshrine greater transparency and accountability in our system of government. But what is most important is the message it sends from this place that this government will not waiver in restoring the Australian people's trust and confidence in our system of government, our institutions and indeed our Public Service. It shows that we are serious about restoring integrity in our politics—an afterthought for the previous government.

When it was revealed that the member for Cook had sworn himself into five additional ministries in secret, it was as shocking as it was somehow unsurprising. Such an outrageous abuse of power by a prime minister would be unfathomable if it were not the member for Cook. Only he could treat the Australian public with such contempt. Only he could have the hubris and the arrogance to treat our institutions with such disrespect. Only he could stand in the House of Representatives and provide no explanation, no apology to Australians for what he did—even after Justice Bell's inquiry found the former Prime Minister's justification 'not easy to understand and difficult to reconcile with the facts'. Perhaps he did it for more power, or perhaps it was because he thought he could get away with it.

But in May of last year Australians showed that they saw the former Prime Minister for what he was and is. They were tired of his lies, his failures of leadership and his inaction: 'I don't hold a hose,' 'It's not a race,' 'It's not my job.' It summed up a prime minister and a government who did not see the Treasury benches as a gift but as a birthright, a prime minister who abdicated leadership and who was more focused on skirting responsibility and blaming others, a prime minister who could do such a thing as swear himself into five additional ministries in secret.

Australians wanted a prime minister they could trust. They wanted a change from the nastiness of the Morrison era. They wanted integrity back in politics and they wanted a better future for our country. So, from Higgins to Tangney, that's how they voted. You would think, then, that the coalition, those opposite, would consider the implications of that federal election result, that losing 18 seats in the House of Representatives would be cause for some introspection, and that, when it was revealed that the member for Cook had betrayed their liberal ideals and so many of his colleagues in their party room with his decision to appoint himself to their portfolios, perhaps it was time to re-evaluate their relationship with the former Prime Minister. But no—when this House censured the member for Cook, most of those opposite saw fit to shake his hand, offer a pat on the back and condemn the motion passed in this place as political retribution. They attacked the independent Bell inquiry. They dismissed the advice of the Solicitor-General. They ignored three former Liberal prime ministers who condemned the member for Cook's actions. Tony Abbott said:

I'm just not going to defend what was done. It is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox and shouldn't have happened.

Malcolm Turnbull said:

This is sinister stuff. This is secret government. This is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard in our federal government. I mean, the idea that a Prime Minister would be sworn in to other ministers secretly is incredible.

They even ignored John Howard, who said:

I don't think he should have done that. I don't think there was any need to do it, and I wouldn't have.

The Dutton opposition have shown that they have learned nothing, and that they will continue to disregard the message the Australian public sent them loud and clear in May and in the months since then.

For me, what is worse is the opposition were given an opportunity to stand up for our Westminster system of government, to affirm support for the institutions, the norms and conventions that safeguard our democracy. Instead of seizing that opportunity, they decided to play partisan politics. They chose to back in a former prime minister that the people in my electorate of Hawke and so many others rightly rejected. Their decision is a great shame.

The Albanese Labor government understands the fragility of democracy. We know it is something that is precious and needs to be defended when challenged. The former Prime Minister's decision to appoint himself to multiple ministries in secret was indeed a challenge to our system of government, and we have acted swiftly and decisively to respond. It is what Australians expect of all of us. It is our duty as parliamentarians.

This bill shows that the Albanese government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. The measures in this bill will go some way to providing greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office. Importantly, this bill strengthens the fundamental principle that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances. This bill will ensure that one person can never again garner extraordinary ministerial powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australia people and the Australian parliament. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.