Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Constitution took effect on 1 January 1901 and established this parliament, the federal government, the executive government and the judiciary. Our form of government requires that the executive government, the Prime Minister and ministers, come from within the parliament and are responsible to this parliament. This is known as the Westminster style of government and follows the UK's model of convention.

On 14 March 2020, the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, chose to have himself secretly appointed to administer the Department of Health and, by the end of May 2021, he had been appointed by the Governor-General to administer four additional portfolios. The member for Cook added Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs to his resume, while the majority of the ministers responsible remained unaware. It was an unprecedented act. Even in the face of the darkest days of world wars, no other prime minister thought it was necessary to consolidate power in a single individual, especially himself.

When I first saw the reports in the media about the former Prime Minister's actions, I was disappointed and I was concerned about how the public would view these actions. These actions taken by the former Prime Minister undermine the public's trust in all of us, in all levels of government. Openness, accountability and trust are vital to our society and our democracy. The decision of the former Prime Minister has already been challenged in court, leading to issues with decision-making in the well-publicised PEP-11 case.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill that we're debating in the House today forms part of the Albanese government's response to the Bell inquiry and the actions of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook. When it became known that the former Prime Minister had been sworn into multiple other ministries without telling the Australian public, the current government sought advice from the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. His advice was clear: the 'principles of responsible government' are 'fundamentally undermined' by the actions of the former government. After this advice, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General appointed former High Court Judge the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to conduct an inquiry, which led to the amendments to the Ministers of State Act that we are debating today. The inquiry led by Ms Bell was at arm's length from the government to ensure that it was nonpartisan, independent and fair.

This bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide further transparency and accountability at a Commonwealth level. It ensures that the Australian people are provided with information about the composition of the federal Executive Council, who has been appointed and what responsibilities they have. This bill forms one of the government's responses 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 practicable—that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn in 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. This bill will also require notification of the revocation of any of these positions.

The Australian public expect and deserve to know where responsibility is placed. This is the basis of our system. There must always be a clear line of accountability that leads to a responsible minister. That simple, fundamental premise, which was an established norm, is what was undermined by the previous government and the previous Prime Minister. Unfortunately, there's been a clear gap in how our systems operate, but the previous Prime Minister, when he found out about it, didn't consider action was necessary to close it. When it was realised that there was a flaw in our system, it was not fixed immediately; rather, it was exploited. There is no justification for undermining our political system, and it's a shame to me that this bill is even necessary.

The former Prime Minister's explanation and justification was based on the COVID crisis. While that's not enough of a justification to erode trust in democracy and undermine the established norms that have formed the foundation of this parliament since Federation, I can understand how, very early in the pandemic, when the government was trying to plan for each and every eventuality, it may have made sense. What does not bear scrutiny is that the former Prime Minister kept swearing himself into portfolios until early 2021, long after the first wave of lockdowns and long before the delta outbreak. In fact, the only exercise of the former Prime Minister's new-found power was political in nature: overruling the other ministers for industry, science, energy and resources on the PEP-11 decision. And now we have the courts telling us how many problems that has caused. The former Prime Minister had all the powers that came with administering these departments, and none of the accountability. Criticism of these actions is not just political, and it should not be. Three previous Liberal prime ministers have also condemned these actions.

This bill will restore the checks and balances that our system relies on. It will ensure that one person cannot acquire power without any accountability or responsibility. The Australian people should not find out about the undermining of our political system in a book published two years later. The Albanese government is focused on restoring trust and integrity to politics. This bill, like the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation, seeks to help the Australian people regain lost trust in all of its governments—the trust that has been significantly eroded in recent years.

Democracy across the world faces challenges with the rise of authoritarianism. So it is vital—now, more than ever—that we safeguard our political system. The people who elect us to this parliament must feel that they can trust the fundamentals of our democracy and the checks and balances that provide integrity and stable government. That trust is a unique requirement for democracy to function. The power exercised by the parliament derives from the trust that the people of Australia place in us, their elected representatives. We are accountable to them.

The Albanese government knows this, and that's why we have moved quickly, closing this loophole as well as providing greater transparency and integrity to the entire political system through the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is our responsibility to the Australian people, and I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time, and I give the call to the honourable member for Bruce.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's two government speakers in a row, Mr Speaker. It's a bit of a sign that the opposition doesn't really want to talk about this.

I remember, as a lot of Australians do, the day when Tony Abbott knighted Sir Prince Philip! Some commentators and pundits were distraught, as they concluded that it was the death of irony—that comedians would henceforth be out of business, as nothing could ever be weirder, let's be honest, and also downright hysterical, in a slapstick, WTF kind of way, Deputy Speaker. The former, disgraced, speaker Bronwyn Bishop actually threw member after member out of the chamber—including the member for Franklin, at that time, because she literally could not stop laughing during question time.

But then came the previous Prime Minister, who secretly appointed himself as Treasurer, finance minister, health minister, industry minister, resources minister, home affairs minister—and who knows what else. You couldn't make this up. No-one in the years before now could have imagined it necessary to pass a law so that, when ministers are appointed as ministers, Australians are told about it—a new law to say, in our democracy, 'You can't have secret ministers'! Now, this bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is only necessary because of the bizarre actions of the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A loose unit!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you said 'a loose unit'; I wouldn't use those words, Member for Moreton. Aided and abetted, he was, though, by his former cabinet colleagues in the Liberal Party, who knew exactly what he was like—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bruce, I'll just take a point of order.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, just on reflection on the acronym that the member used: I think it was not appropriate for this House and it should be withdrawn.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have made your point of order. I thank the member. Now, I was just getting settled into the chair, so I can't say I actually heard the acronym, and I'm not at—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member knows exactly which one it was. I won't—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, to assist the Speaker and the House, would the member withdraw, for just—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. Yes, Deputy Speaker; I withdraw.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't want to offend you, Member for New England! Your delicate sensibilities are restored? Excellent! But I was talking, actually, about how the previous Prime Minister was aided and abetted by his cabinet colleagues—which includes you, Member for New England—and the Liberal Party, who knew exactly what he was like and what he was up to.

If anyone hasn't read it, I recommend Bulldozed by Niki Savva. I started it one morning on my holidays, and finished 12 hours later on the couch. My step-count that day was a total of 506, involving me walking from the couch to the fridge and back again and occasionally to the bathroom, so gripping it was to find out what a truly dysfunctional government you were part of, Member for New England. You still don't actually understand how truly awful the previous government was. But the same people, when they had the chance, who failed to formally condemn his actions in a censure motion, say, 'This bill's alright.'

The previous Prime Minister's actions—the trashing of democratic conventions and norms—have been the subject of endless jokes. But I'm going to surprise some in the House; I'm not going to spend my speech repeating them because it is a deeply serious matter, as evidenced by the government's decision to appoint former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to investigate and report into those actions, so I'll make some serious remarks in kind.

Australians rightly expect integrity, transparency and accountability from their governments. They expect a lot more, but those values surely are foundational—the least that people deserve. These are fundamental notions necessary for the effective functioning of democracy to ensure public confidence in our system and the processes of government—know who the ministers exercising executive authority are. But, unfortunately, for the better part of the last decade of our federal government, the government was largely bereft of these ideals, with the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook, having led the way in undermining Australians' public confidence in government. We saw it during the bushfires, the floods and the vaccine rollout. Whenever the country was in crisis the previous Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen, other than occasionally briefly emerging from wherever he was hiding—under the doona, in Kirribilli—to explain to the Australian people why the job of governing wasn't his responsibility, why it wasn't his job at all. He didn't hold a hose in the bushfires. He didn't order the vaccines; that was the health minister's fault—although he was actually the health minister, as we found out later! He didn't build safe quarantine; that was the premiers' problem. There was always someone else to blame.

While the former Prime Minister was very keen on telling us what his job was not, he was a lot less keen on telling Australians what jobs he actually had taken on—that is, the five secret portfolios he had sworn himself into as minister. He was like Gollum polishing the ring: 'I'll amass more power. I know; I'll have another one!' But it took until August 2022, nearly 18 months after he was first sworn in as health minister, for Australians to find out what he'd been up to. Even when it came out, he then tried to hide the extent of what he'd done. He said he couldn't remember. Then he tried to make jokes about it on Facebook, undermining the entire system of responsible government—that ministers are responsible to the parliament for the offices they hold and the decisions they make or can make, the very foundation of our Westminster tradition. If only we'd known when he came out last election spruiking a slogan of 'jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs' that Side-hustle Scotty was actually referring to himself!

In November 2022, former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC provided her final report to the government on the member for Cook's secret appointments to administer multiple departments of state. This bill forms part of our government's response to that very serious inquiry. The bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publicly announce, as soon as reasonably practicable, any appointments to the office of minister under the Australian Constitution. No-one ever thought this was necessary until this moment! For 123 years our federation has been around and no-one thought it was necessary to pass such a law, but here we are. In plain English, it will prevent anyone in the future from ever doing again what the previous Liberal Prime Minister did.

The opposition, to their credit, have indicated they'll vote for this bill. They've said it's very sensible; that's welcome. But they're having a bet each way. They're talking out both sides of their mouths. On one hand the Liberals have described this bill as 'very sensible legislation'—but they're not here to talk about it; they don't want to talk about it—but on the other hand they're in denial about why the bill is necessary. They had their chance to take a stand and they squibbed it. They failed to vote to censure the member for Cook for his actions.

When this House rightly censured the member for Cook, those opposite showed their true colours. They consoled him, patted him on the back and said, 'Well done; what a good job you did.' They backed him in. Even John Howard came out and criticised the disgraced former Prime Minister's actions. But the current-day Liberal Party, under this weak Leader of the Opposition, have gone so far off the deep end, so into bed with the extremists, that even John Howard's views hold little sway over them anymore.

'Weak' may seem a strange word to some to describe the Leader of the Opposition, given his aggressive macho carry-on all the time. But it's apt. He has no spine to stand up to extremists in his party room. He's so desperate to hold his ramshackle show together with bandaids, sticky tape and compromises that he couldn't even do the right thing, the basic thing—to defend our system of government and the Constitution and acknowledge that what the member for Cook did was profoundly wrong.

Frankly, though, the whole situation wasn't just a reflection, then, on the character of the member for Cook and his obviously perverse obsession with the accumulation of ever more power and portfolios. It was also about his distrust and his disdain for his colleagues. How poorly the previous Prime Minister thought of his own ministers that he appointed his housemate. We'll get to him—we'll get to Joshie. In that respect he was prescient; neither he nor the other minister for health, Greg Hunt, remembered to order enough vaccines in time. Neither of them got around to building enough safe quarantine. Both of them, though, managed to pick fight after fight after political fight with the states and territories when it suited their own 24-hour media cycle interests.

Only a few weeks after he took on the health ministry, though, the member for Cook obviously got a bit of a taste for grabbing more power and thought: 'Ooh, this is good! Who else can I secretly become next?' So he had himself sworn in as the finance minister as well—all that money. Unbeknownst to poor old Senator Birmingham, though, the member for Cook was lurking behind him in the shadows the whole time he was the finance minister. Did the member for Cook not trust Senator Birmingham to be able to capably carry out his role as finance minister? Now, I've sometimes found Senator Birmingham to be quite a reasonable person, but maybe the former Prime Minister's obvious distrust for him is a reflection on how moderate people, more normal people, are not welcome in the modern Liberal Party.

But health and finance could only satiate him for so long. Just over a year later, in April 2021, he took on Industry, Science and Technology, alongside his very good friend Christian Porter, all unbeknownst to Christian, of course. When old mate Christian eventually walked the plank—'Well done Angus', the member for Hume, took over, never realising that 'Menacing Wallpaper', as a former Liberal MP described the previous Prime Minister, was already the industry minister. Not content, though, with that, he then went after Home Affairs. To her credit, the member for McPherson was rightfully outraged when she found out, calling the former Prime Minister's actions 'unacceptable' and calling on him to resign and leave the parliament. If only anyone over there actually listened to the member for McPherson.

But even all this power was still not enough. So he turned on poor old Josh Frydenberg and decided to take his old job back and secretly swore himself in as the Treasurer too. The people of Kooyong, I must admit, did seem to agree with the previous Prime Minister's assessment of poor old Josh Frydenberg at the last election. What happened to Josh? I should say I actually quite like Josh. We went to university together. He's a very personable chap, very decent compared to many. Though he believes in absolutely nothing, except becoming Prime Minister. I said that about him once in an MPI, when I was first elected, in 2016, when he was the environment minister. I said, 'He's saying the right things, but he doesn't believe in anything.' Josh came up to me the next day, after question time, and said, 'I saw what you said about me yesterday,' and I said, 'Oh, what was that?' He said, 'You said I didn't believe in anything.' I said, 'Well, I said you're a nice guy and you don't believe in anything,' and he laughed and walked off, so that was that.

He then appointed himself as resources minister. That ended well, didn't it? He made a secret decision on PEP-11. There was a fight within the cabinet. Too gutless was he to ask the resources minister to bring the matter to cabinet—collective, responsible government, what we're supposed to do. Prime Minister first among equals—not everyone. We've now ended up, post the election, as this truth has come out, in litigation before the courts, forcing the government to make a fresh decision with a blank sheet and clean up the legal mess that we've inherited from the previous government because of the previous Prime Minister's actions.

This bill shouldn't be necessary. The disrespectful manner in which the Liberal Party—and I say 'Liberal Party', not just the previous Prime Minister, because everyone knew what he was like, yet still they let him remain as Prime Minister—has treated the Australian people and our democracy over the last decade has fuelled growing distrust. It's not the only reason, but it is part of the reason for distrust in our system of government.

The Albanese government is delivering on the promise that we made to the Australian people last election to restore trust and integrity to federal politics, though we never even imagined this is what we'd need to do in delivering this promise. We had more in mind things like behaving like adults, telling the truth, answering the question at press conferences, taking responsibility, introducing a national anticorruption commission—stuff like that—but here we are.

The bill will provide greater integrity and transparency around appointments to public office. It will be a small step, but it turns out a necessary step, in case those opposite ever get into government again, in restoring checks and balances to make sure that what the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook, did can never happen again. I commend the bill to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in favour of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 as it will strengthen and protect the foundations of our transparent and accountable democracy. After winning the election, the Albanese government knew we would have to put in the hard yards to win back the public's trust in Australian politics after a decade of rip-offs, rorts and waste. It is why the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission was our top priority and it is why we have brought this bill to the House. It is to uphold what are clear principles and values, to uphold the expectations that the Australian people have of us and the expectations that come with holding high office. The bill will only strengthen the integrity of Australian politics. It will make sure there are mechanisms in place to ensure that never ever again can any megalomaniac individual make unorthodox and secret power grabs.

I must admit, I knew a lot of work would have to be done when we came into government. After having nine years of the coalition and with public trust in the government rapidly declining, our place in the global corruption standards was something not to be proud of. Labor developed a plan to tackle the key issues voters brought up during the campaign: integrity, transparency and accountability. But nothing could prepare us for what came next. The member for Cook was able to use a loophole to monopolise and cement his control over cabinet but without them even knowing.

The amendment bill is a defence of our democracy and its principles, something the previous Prime Minister wouldn't understand, considering he trampled on these principles in his blind pursuit for power. When the secret ministries of the former prime minister started being reported in August, the nation was shocked. The general attitude of the opposition was that it should be something easy for the Australian people to get over, despite being misled. While five secret jobs are often used as a joke on satire website 'Down the pub', Australians are still feeling a sense of disbelief and bewilderment that something like this could happen within our democracy. What the member for Cook fails to grasp is that what he did may have been legal but no-one who values our democracy or our nation would say that it was right, which is why we on this side are moving swiftly to implement the recommendations of the Bell inquiry so Australians can—which that might come as a shock to the other side—know who is responsible for which ministries and which departments. It is essential for what we do.

The Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donahue KC, in the wake of the revelations, said, 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' The review that Virginia Bell AC conducted came from the advice of the Solicitor-General and the outcry from the public for action to be taken. To make this non-partisan, the government appointed an independent person from the outset of the inquiry. The review took contributions of current and former public servants, ministers, ministerial advisors, academics and experts in the fields of constitutional law and public administration. Ms Bell wrote to the leaders of the minor political parties representing the parliament, all the independent parliamentarians, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, inviting them to meet with her. Why do I go through such detail? It is because I want to highlight the lengths that Ms Bell went through to create the rounded picture of the situation and to highlight the utter disregard and, to be frank, disrespect that the member for Cook had during this process.

While the member for Cook paraded around and said he would fully cooperate with any investigation, we ended up seeing the former prime minister not having the courage to meet with Ms Bell. He even squibbed it, saying that he would only communicate through lawyers. It is familiar, isn't it? I wonder who else in recent political history was known for running in the other direction when asked to take responsibility? This report found that the former prime minister's actions led to a highly centralised government, with even his own chief of staff in the PMO not being clued into all the portfolios that the Prime Minister swore himself into.

The secretive nature of these actions had ripple effects across government. It was a tool that undermined public confidence in government. Yet, despite those findings, we are yet to see any remorse or any effort to help rebuild the institutions the member for Cook took a torch to. For another perspective, constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney called these secret appointments 'bizarre' and 'utterly inappropriate'. She went on to argue that the secretiveness of this ordeal spells a wider problem.

The pandemic is often used by the member himself and his supporters as an explanation for his actions. If it is so good of an explanation, why did he keep it from the public? Why weren't the Australian people told of his secret plan to take over the government from the inside?

If for some reason you are still on the fence about the severity and plain bizarreness of the former Prime Minister's actions, you can simply look to members of his own party and at what they said. The member for Maranoa, when asked about the secret ministries of the former Prime Minister, said, 'If you have a cabinet government, you must trust your cabinet,' and that it was the Prime Minister's job to create an environment where those decisions could be made, not just on his own. The member for McPherson went further and said that the former Prime Minister's behaviour was unacceptable and that she was 'concerned about the impacts of this going forward'.

Even members of his own party recognised that our democratic institutions were being trampled and saw the need to rectify and take responsibility for it. The last bit is important—taking responsibility for. Those on the other side should be apologising to the Australian people about (a) what happened, what the member for Cook did, and (b) how they stood by and let it happen. None of them have come out and said that it's time to go.

I am in total agreeance with the observations that the member for McPherson made about the ordeal—that the former Prime Minister 'needs to resign and he needs to leave government'. That statement should be read every single day. Every single day we should be reminded of the crooked actions that were taken by the former Prime Minister that left his colleagues in the lurch.

His flatmate, Josh Frydenberg, the Treasurer, was his mate and sidekick. Yet he was shafting him from behind by appointing himself as Treasurer and not giving him the decency to even acknowledge that.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you know what you've got to withdraw.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do I have to withdraw?

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the benefit of Hansard.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has brought into his speech a part that I think is demeaning on this parliament, and he should withdraw it. He shouldn't play games. Just withdraw it. Don't be a clown.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been a point of order for the member for McEwen to withdraw. If it assists the House, I ask the member to withdraw.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, to help you out. I'm more than happy to.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate it.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't raise another point of order on irony, because that would be a ripper. Even the member for Cook's flatmate, his best buddy, said his actions were an 'extreme overreach'. This is something the member for New England stands up and says is right and wants to defend.

It's imperative that we protect the core values of accountability. It is reasonable for people to be demanding us to make sure this never happens again. It was such a big betrayal of public trust. It was built on a foundation of public trust being broken down by the former government. We saw millions and millions of dollars go on things that the public never saw. We got a $1.2 trillion debt. That was where we were heading if we kept the same regime we had before. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on a drought envoy for a report that was never seen. Apparently only a 40c SMS was all we got. That was the value we got for it. These are the things that happen. That's why this bill is about making actions speak louder than words.

The Albanese government will continue to work to improve public trust in the government after what we've seen over the past nine years. We are sewing up these loopholes and putting safeguards in so that the Australian public can rest assured that the ability for one person to monopolise ministerial positions is stopped.

The bill is implementing the first of six recommendations from the Bell inquiry, and we have committed to implementing them all. It follows the steps the government has already taken to establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, one that was opposed before the last election by the former government. Draw your own conclusions. This will make sure that the parliament, the party in opposition, the Public Service itself and, most importantly, the Australian public will be able to hold government and its ministers accountable. It creates transparent and accessible processes to avoid dodgy dealing in the background.

We are doing this to fulfil Labor's promise to make parliament and all politicians more accountable to the people who give us our jobs. This is just one of the many initiatives and pieces of legislation we are introducing after making a policy of transparency and accountability a key element of our promise to the Australian people. I know this is important to Australians, especially to constituents of our electorate of McEwen. From community meetings to chats on polling booths, to conversations I have when I just pop down the shop, I know integrity in government is something that is at the forefront of people's minds. This bill will not only work to increase transparency and accountability to the Australian public but it will prevent people from using their ministerial positions as Pokemon cards, when they try and collect them all. I'll leave the debate with one of my favourite Irish sayings: anything that keeps a politician humble is healthy for democracy. We should all take that to heart, and that is why I proudly support this bill.

Debate adjourned.