Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I heard that the former Prime Minister the member for Cook did what he did in terms of his executive positions, I thought back to Sir Henry Parkes, who of course was the Premier of the Colony of New South Wales on multiple occasions and who is known as the Father of Federation. His great Tenterfield School of Arts speech was where he really set the platform for conventions that would take place across a number of years before we got to the point in January 1901 when we became a federation. Sir Henry Parkes said this, and I think it's relevant to this particular debate today:

I believe that the time has come, and if two Governments set an example, the others must soon of necessity follow. There will be an uprising in this fair land of a goodly fabric of free Government, and all great national questions of magnitude affecting the welfare of the colonies will be disposed of by a fully authorised constitutional authority. This means a distinct executive and a distinct parliamentary power for the whole of Australia, and it means a Parliament of two Houses, a House of Commons and a Senate, which will legislate on these great subjects.

So Henry Parkes understood it. He understood the idea of a parliament for the whole of the country. He called it a House of Commons. We call it a House of Representatives, as per the American system. But he got it and the idea that the states would be represented in a senate. He understood the fact that there would be a constitution that would establish the parliament and establish the country and establish the executive, and that the monarch and the monarch's representative would be referred to the Governor-General. He got the idea of a distinct executive. Those were his words, 'a distinct executive'.

What we saw by the member for Cook as Prime Minister was a muddling of that distinct executive, so we didn't know who was accountable. And not only did the public not know, his ministers didn't know, his caucus didn't know and the opposition didn't know. So that distinct executive that Sir Henry Parkes talked about was dishonoured. He utterly dishonoured a distinct constitutional authority and that we have a constitution in this country. I wondered what people like George Reid, a Conservative prime minister, a former governor of New South Wales, would have thought; what Edmund Barton would have thought; or Alfred Deakin would have thought about that. It's important in the establishment of our constitutional system of government.

I learned, when I was at the University of Queensland studying law all those years ago, that our system of government is not just about the Constitution but about the principles of constitutionalism, where there is a separation of powers in a Westminster system of government. In some respects, it's a Washminster system, with a Senate rather than a House of Lords, but the executive must be accountable to the parliament. That means that the parliament must know who's serving in distinct offices, that there must be a distinct executive, to pick up Sir Henry Parkes's words. We didn't know that. The public didn't know that. The government didn't know it. The member for Cook kept that secret.

Democracy is a fragile thing. I come from the state of Queensland, where, growing up, at times it was a bit like a hillbilly dictatorship, where one political party could get elected with 18 per cent of the vote and form a majority in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, where ministers in the executive had conflicts of interest and decided on issues of mining leasing when they themselves had shares in those companies. A Premier could arrange a voting system in a gerrymandered way to make sure not only that the Labor Party was disadvantaged but also that the Liberal Party was disadvantaged. Representative democracy was trashed. Sir Henry Parkes talked about the idea of a house, this place, that was representative of the people, and a Senate, the other place, that was representative of the states. We are fortunate that the forefathers of this country decided that we wouldn't have a House of Lords, a sort of bunyip dictatorship or aristocracy, but we would have a parliament.

This legislation, tragically, is a necessity because the member for Cook didn't listen to Henry Parkes, Alfred Deakin, Edmund Barton or even the great Labor hero Andrew Fisher, one of the early prime ministers. I wonder what those prime ministers who served in office in the first two decades of our Federation would have thought about a Prime Minister, 100 years later, confusing the public. They had a Minister for the Navy, a Postmaster-General and an Attorney-General. They had these types of distinct ministerial positions. There were fewer, because our country is more complex now and it's a lot bigger in population. The NBN, the internet and TV weren't known to Andrew Fisher when he was growing up, when he came from Gympie as the member for Wide Bay. He wouldn't have understood about them. It would have been science fiction to him. But the principles of 100 years ago or more still apply. In the last few years, in countries that we honour and believe are our allies and friends and that we identify with, like the United States of America, Brazil, and other places, we've seen people take peaceful protest to the point where it's almost armed insurrection.

The legislation that we have before the chamber today is absolutely vital because of what the member for Cook did. I never thought I would see a prime minister do that. I never thought I'd see a prime minister appoint himself to a variety of different ministerial posts without it being published. I wonder what the former member for Kooyong really thinks in his heart of hearts about the fact that the former Prime Minister was appointed to the Treasury in his place, when they were bunking together in the Lodge during COVID. The former Prime Minister did not tell him, his good friend and political ally, that he was actually in the same role as him. When we were asking questions of the Treasurer or the Minister for Home Affairs in the last parliament, when we sat on that side of the chamber, we could have been asking them of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister didn't tell anyone. It's no good the member for Cook saying: 'You never asked me. No-one ever asked me. Therefore I didn't tell.' That's just not good enough. I mean, seriously, what sort of insult is that to the intelligence of not just this chamber but his colleagues? I can't believe how disrespectful he was to his own ministerial colleagues and to his own caucus. I am absolutely convinced that, if he'd told his colleagues about what he had done in appointing himself to all those portfolios, without them knowing whatsoever, he would not have been the Prime Minister within 24 or 48 hours. They would have simply shunted him off. I'm convinced there would have been a special caucus meeting of the Liberal Party, and he would have been replaced either by the member for Kooyong or by the member for Dickson. I'm sure that would have been the case. But he didn't tell anyone about that.

We've got legislation here that has come about through the advice of the Solicitor-General and of an eminent former justice of the High Court of Australia. It really is sad that we've had to bring this legislation before the chamber, and that we have to make sure that when you're appointed to a ministerial post it's actually published so the public can know.

What possessed the member for Cook to think this? He got elected by the public in that area of the shire; they voted for him. You would think that at some level he respected democracy or the democratic process. To think he could come into this place, sit in that chair and in that office, and not tell anyone that he'd done this is just astounding. And then he appointed other people, like the member for Capricornia and his good mate the member for Tangney, into roles as well. At the time they were assistant ministers. There was an assistant minister getting responsibility for one of the most important portfolios, Home Affairs.

I wonder what the member for McPherson really thought? I'll give her her due: she's been very clear and very succinct about what she thought in some respects. I would have been furious with the member for Cook. And it's hard to believe that the former member for Tangney—we've got a good member for Tangney now—wouldn't have understood. Wouldn't you have thought that Ben Morton would have rung up and said: 'By the way, Karen, I just got appointed to this role. Is there any brief you'd like me to do? Perhaps I can approve a few visas while I go.' But it never happened.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A one million backlog—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right. There was a backlog of one million; that's a lot of backlog. If they'd appointed three or four people to get through the visa backlog that would have been a good thing, but they didn't do it at all.

The excuse of the member for Cook was that, somehow, he wanted to appoint himself for COVID reasons. It would have taken a couple of minutes to appoint a new minister! The other excuse I heard him say was that it was because he couldn't trust the member for Hinkler—I think that's who it was—with a decision he might make in terms of resources and the environment. Honestly, how much faith did the member for Cook have in his National Party colleagues that he couldn't trust him to do that? It's just amazing that in 2022, 2021 and 2020 he was doing all this stuff. Sometimes governments use all manner of excuses during emergencies to avoid democratic accountability and transparency, but this takes the level of hypocrisy, secrecy and covert operations to an astronomical level.

It was a sad day for Australian democracy when we had a censure motion in this chamber in relation to the conduct of the member for Cook, not because we had to do it but because he put himself in a position where it was so important to say to this place that representatives who are elected by their constituencies can have a say. It was important to say to the member for Cook, 'What you did was not on.' I couldn't believe it when those opposite were going up to him and kissing the ring—almost kissing the hand—after that particular vote, instead of saying: 'Look, you did the wrong thing. Own up and confess.' The fact that he didn't cooperate with the Bell inquiry, except through his lawyers—he had to lawyer up—is an indication there was a challenge. Power can be abused, and it was being abused with those appointments. And it should never have been abused. We need to know who's appointed to administer departments of state. It's not a hard thing; we get that. We're entitled to know who's in government and who's not in government. The public, who go to the ballot box, do the pre-poll and do the postal votes, are entitled to know as well. It's a simple process. I can't believe that we learnt all about this through the good efforts of a journalist—and I give credit to the journalist involved.

But we learnt about this because the Prime Minister decided to cooperate in the writing of a book. It's about the folly of a criminal who gets caught because they're bragging on the mobile phone. They get their mobile phone and start bragging about something. It's the stupidity of the person who's a criminal who gets caught that way. And he's decided to reveal all and get his story out. He told the journalist about it and so a book's been written about it. He thought that was the appropriate way to reveal information. When the information came out that way and was published in the media, he thought, 'Oh, I'm going to take umbrage at this.' I listened to his press conference and I listened to that speech that day, and he still doesn't get it, at all. There's no admission of responsibility; there's no bearing of that responsibility. I say this to the member for Cook: you need to bear fruit that befits repentance, to use a good biblical saying. You need to say, 'I made a mistake. I did the wrong thing and I need to improve'.

This legislation is important because of what the member for Cook did. It's sad we've got to do it, but it's a matter of necessity and I support it.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to a great matter. I take no enjoyment in speaking to this, but it is important to do so. Our job is not about doing what is easy. It's about doing what is right. It is a deep honour to be in this place, to represent the people of Australia. This privilege also comes with great responsibilities—responsibilities that I do not take lightly. The Australian people rightfully expect a standard of behaviour from their parliamentarians. They rightfully demand that their leaders do the right things. As the government we set an example. We set a standard. The member for Cook, while Prime Minister, failed to meet the standard befitting an Australian parliamentarian. While Prime Minister of Australia, the member for Cook appointed himself to administer five additional departments. The then Prime Minister failed to inform the cabinet. The then Prime Minister failed to inform the House of Representatives. The then Prime Minister failed to inform the Australian public. In fact, the Australian public only became aware of these appointments after they were revealed by the media.

This secrecy is unconscionable. It is hard to fathom that this took place in Australia, one of the guiding lights of democracy in the world. The words from the Solicitor-General are damning. The Solicitor-General found that the principles of responsible government had been 'fundamentally undermined'. The Solicitor-General also found:

… it is impossible for Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which Ministers are responsible for which departments.

Nothing can survive in darkness and we need light to prosper. The findings of the Solicitor-General made it clear that a thorough inquiry was needed. This inquiry was led by Ms Virginia Bell AC. Ms Bell confirmed the Solicitor-General's view that the principles of responsible government were 'fundamentally undermined'. Ms Bell found that the appointments were unnecessary. Ms Bell found that these appointments were made because the former Prime Minister was concerned that an incumbent minister might exercise his or her statutory powers in a manner with which Mr Morrison did not agree. This is not the spirit of democracy. This is not the Australian way, to override someone because they make a decision that you do not like.

I have three children. One day, when my children were little, four years old, they were playing in another room. They were carrying on, you know, being silly, being kids. My wife and I heard something smash, something fragile hitting the floor and breaking. I went into the next room. I saw a vase in pieces on the floor. I saw three very sheepish children looking at me. I asked my kids, 'Did someone break the vase?' All my children shook their heads and did not look into my eyes anymore. So, I got down onto their level, on one knee, and I asked again, very calmly and gently, 'Did someone break the vase?' One of my kids slowly put up their hand. I thanked them for being so honest and truthful. Then I told my kids: 'You know there is no shame in making mistakes. We all make mistakes. That is what makes us human. What is unacceptable is being dishonest about the mistake you have made.' I taught my kids that it is not acceptable to make excuses. I taught them that we must take responsibility for our actions. My children had learnt that lesson by the age of four. Imagine my disdain when the member for Cook failed to take responsibility for his underhanded actions as the then Prime Minister?

The member for Cook blamed the media. He blamed this House. He blamed this parliament. This is not acceptable. I would not accept this from my children when they broke that vase all those years ago. I won't accept it now. The member for Cook said that, if people had asked, he would have answered. This erosion of transparency is a slippery slope. It's like rain that leads to a landslide. As a police officer, I saw the consequences of the abuse of power. I saw the real risk of an insidious lack of integrity. As parliamentarians, we take an oath to represent and protect our communities. We must be trusted to govern with probity, to be responsible custodians. We must be held to account for our actions. The foundations of our democratic institutions depend on it.

The actions of the member for Cook diminished the Australian government on the world stage, and, more importantly, in the eyes of the Australian public. We need to restore the public's faith in elected officials. This bill shows that the government is delivering on its promises to restore the Australian people's confidence in our federal system of government. I welcome the implementation of the first six recommendations from the Bell inquiry. Our democracy is precious. We must protect it together.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the last election I was humbled and honoured to win my seat of Paterson and get the vote from the majority of people for a third time. It really is an incredible honour, something that I never forget about and something that I think about often. It was a brutal campaign. I was up against a tough opponent who was cashed up. She had been on the ground for 12 months offering up more of the same. There were a lot of promises, a lot of criticisms of Albo and of me, a lot of TV ads and a sea of corflutes—not to mention many visits by the Prime Minister to either my seat or, more broadly, my region of the Hunter. What there wasn't was a commitment to a national integrity commission. There wasn't a commitment to take responsibility or change the ways of the Morrison government. There wasn't a commitment to be a better government. When I look back on that, it was such an incredible hint at what was really going on behind closed doors.

But what excited me about the campaign was that there were many new constituents. My area had become somewhat of a safe place for people who knew that they didn't want to live in close quarters in Sydney and some of our bigger cities any longer. They took the opportunity to be able to work from home to move to the regions. I thought that was a fantastic thing. I love meeting them and talking to them. Many of them were incredibly surprised at how much the regions had to offer them: the space, the air, the environment, the opportunity and the good jobs. It really was such an incredible experience for so many people. There was better housing affordability, a better lifestyle and the natural beauty. I can distinctly remember one lady who I spoke to, and she said: 'I never in a million years thought I would look out of my kitchen window and see cows. I cannot tell you what a difference that has made to my outlook on life.' Isn't it funny that it's the things we often take for granted that can make such a pivotal difference.

What worried me though was long-term residents, who were concerned about many newcomers—not the people themselves but the pressure that they put on things like roads and infrastructure. They were worried about not being able to get into the doctor, the dentist or the vet. Even the local mechanic had a big queue. The roads were more congested, and even parking was becoming an issue in some towns where, truly, it had never been a problem. The world seemed to be changing so rapidly after COVID, and those people felt the former government just wasn't keeping up.

That government at that time, of course, was changed because people had that sense that, whilst they had done a reasonable job during the pandemic, they had slid so far between the pandemic and that election. Everyone noticed that the cost of living was increasing and interest rates were rising. They were waking up to the fact that the trickle-down economy was really only working for the very wealthy. Retirees and young people alike were worried about their futures. They were sick of being told to get a job or get a better job; to stop renting and buy a house; and that climate change wasn't really a thing they should worry about. They were being told that our goals were being met at a canter. They were indirectly being told by their Prime Minister, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' They were being told that international relations broadly didn't matter unless you were swapping red caps. They were being told 'how good' everything was.

However, people simply weren't buying it. Mr Morrison had exposed himself as not the daggy dad that everyone had wanted to embrace and just a knockabout good fellow but as someone who was of a much different character. That worried people. It was as if the daggy dad, when scratched a little deeper, had a darker side. They were very worried about that, and they were worried about the lack of substance. He was also showing his incompetence, and he was starting to show his true character. Sadly, for him, Australians just didn't like what they saw.

In this business you do have to have a thick skin. You can't take things too personally. It is difficult. I will never get used to people saying to me, 'Oh, you politicians are all alike.' That's actually not the case; we are not all alike. Not everyone is in it for themselves, and we do want to make a difference. I think it upsets me because it is just so wrong. I am privileged to work with some of the most dedicated, hardworking people in this place that I have ever worked with across my working life. Emma McBride, the member for Dobell, is a wonderful example of this. As, indeed, are the member for Fremantle and the member for Bean, who joins me in the—

I'm just getting to that, Member for Fisher. We all come from different places across this country and some of the most dedicated, hardworking people come from all of the parties in this place. We come to this place to make a difference at your place, at home, and we want to represent our homes as best we can.

It is an extraordinary opportunity to get to this place. As the great philosopher himself, John Denver, said, 'Some days are diamonds, and some days are stones.' But when you get something great over the line, like turning your local little airport in Newcastle into a serious international airport, with all the jobs and opportunities it brings, that's pretty amazing.

I do want to reference the member for—I'm struggling with Mr Michael McCormack's seat. Isn't it terrible that I can't think of it!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Riverina.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course! The member for Riverina! All I could think was 'Wagga'. I want to pick up on that. I do want to specifically mention the member for Riverina when I talk about the Newcastle Airport because, in achieving the Newcastle Airport becoming an international airport, I do have to a debt of gratitude to the member for Riverina because he was most helpful. And that underlines what I said a moment ago: there are good people in this place, from all sides, who come here to make a real difference. We can work together, and we do work together, to make things better. I do cite that important example of making the Newcastle Airport an international airport, and I thank the member for Riverina for helping me do that in my previous term, when I was in opposition and he was in government. It is pretty amazing when you can get those things across the line.

However, there are a few in this place—and thankfully only a few—who take the opportunity to enhance themselves before their community and forget the role we are here to perform as elected representatives. The backroom manoeuvring, the shady number deals, the promises of promotion become the focus of these Machiavellian imposters. Sadly, we did see our former Prime Minister move his way into his party by killing off his local opponent in a preselection in one of the most unethical ways that many people said they'd ever seen. We saw him make his way to the ministry, wreaking havoc through human services and terrorising the immigration sector. He made his way into the powerful role of Treasurer. And we all remember the member for Cook putting his arm around the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, and stating that he was 'ambitious for him'. We all know how that turned out.

We also know that no one man can find himself in the Prime Minister's office without the support of his colleagues. Some of the faithful servants of the previous Prime Minister remain in this place. The former member for Tangney was not so fortunate to remain in this place. He paid the ultimate price. The people of Tangney had had enough. The problem for the member for Cook is that the former member of Tangney will continue to be one of his closest allies. Some of the people that remain in this House must still have some mistrust. Sadly, when you appoint yourself to multiple roles under the cover of darkness that is what really causes distrust.

Sadly, the Morrison government was all about the lights, the clicks, the stunts. It is novel, but, let me tell you, this place isn't a game. Whilst we all occasionally ham it up for the cameras, and we all take social media to the next level, this is a serious business and it should be treated as such. The lives of Australians deserve the same gravitas that we like to think we give ourselves in this place. Each and every one of us makes decisions, creates policies, votes on legislation and takes on responsibilities that affect the lives of the Australian people. That is what we are here for and it is what we should be doing. Good government is what is expected by the Australian people, and when the government is failing them all the social media in the world means nought when your people are hurting.

It is often said that governments lose elections and oppositions do not win. That certainly has credibility. The last election came down to trust, and the people made it clear that they could no longer trust Mr Morrison. He had lied to them once too often, promised a future that only served a few and was embarrassing our nation across the world. When the President of France confirmed that the former Prime Minister lied to him, and that he knew it, there was no doubt that Australia was no longer a country that could be relied upon. There was no trust. That is a terrible indictment on us.

The now elected Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, I'm pleased to say, is the opposite. No matter how busy his schedule, he is back home in Grayndler as much as he can be. He knows what's happening in his patch, and he is always working for it. He has a strong sense of loyalty and is a man of his word. He's articulate. He's not a code-hopper; he's backed the same team all his life. He never forgets why he is here and why we are all here. He is a man of integrity, and his leadership team—the Deputy Minister, Richard Marles, and the Senate team, led by Penny Wong and Don Farrell—are people of integrity. Our Treasurer is an experienced economist, with the credentials to back it up. The Attorney-General—well, let's just say: national integrity commission, done!

As I stated before, this is a tough business. They say, 'If you want a friend in politics, get a dog.' This hasn't been my experience in the Labor caucus. I've forged real friendships based on mutual interest and respect, and I know my leader is always honest with me. I don't know how you do this job when you can't trust your boss to be frank with you. The remaining members of the coalition that now sit opposite me could not trust their boss. Rumours of bullying and deception travelled these corridors on a daily basis. The country was not being governed; it was barely being managed, to be frank with you. The icing on the cake, the finding of the Solicitor-General, made it clear that an inquiry into the member for Cook's conduct was overdue. Let me repeat that—an inquiry into the former Prime Minister's conduct. It was an extraordinary time.

The advice of the Solicitor-General was damning. Between March 2020 and May 2021, the member was Cook was appointed by the Governor-General to administer no less than five departments: Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs. These are your big-ticket items here in parliament, and the actual ministers appointed had no idea—not a clue. His cabinet had no idea. It turns out the former member for Tangney knew; he got the secret prize of Home Affairs. Who else that remains in this place knew that the leader of the coalition was misleading his cabinet, misleading his party room and, most importantly, misleading the Australian people? He said that it was because of the extraordinary times and that the pandemic created the obstacles where, indeed, this was justified. I say to you: there are no circumstances that justify deception. They were indeed extraordinary times, and if indeed it was so necessary for him to take on those additional roles the people of Australia would have understood. He should have been straight with us. He should have been straight with his own people. Sadly, that was not the case.

Debate adjourned.