David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to join with many others in speaking in favour of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022. This bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide for greater transparency and accountability at the Commonwealth level of Australia's system of government by ensuring that the Australian people are able to access information in relation to the composition of the federal Executive Council, those who have been appointed to administer departments of state and the offices that ministers of state hold. It's difficult to believe that this was truly necessary. To me, as a long-term Canberran, this is still one of the most extraordinary parts of the record of the previous government.

The introduction of this legislation is reactive. It's being introduced because the member for Cook went behind the backs of his closest cabinet colleagues and was appointed to administer multiple portfolios during 2020 and 2021—the departments of health; finance; industry, science, energy and resources; Treasury; and home affairs—in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We now know, from revelations in the last couple of weeks, that there were further secret appointments. Such a lack of transparency is indicative of a lack of respect for the institutions of government, a lack of confidence in ministerial government and, in terms of the general public, a particular lack of respect for a public that has a right to know who is running their government and who administers particular portfolios. The Albanese Labor government was elected with a mandate to restore public trust in the institutions of government and in government itself. The cornerstone of this is the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That legislation was passed in the parliament late last year. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 follows the same core principles that underpin the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

When this power grab was discovered, it was once again up to Labor to clean up another mess from the former government. I will take this opportunity to remind the House how this government responded. On 26 August last year, the Prime Minister and Attorney-General announced the establishment of an inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments. That inquiry was led by the former High Court Justice Hon. Virginia Bell KC, with a final report being provided to the government on 25 November last year. Those opposite labelled it a political witch-hunt. What a shock! Well, we found a witch. This inquiry was not about politics. It was about working out how the former Prime Minister was able to be sworn into five key portfolios, without having to notify the Australian public or even his own cabinet. Our parliamentary democracy relies on basic government transparency as a critical means to provide checks and balances. As the Solicitor-General made clear:

… 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.

Throughout the whole of the previous parliament, I well recall the number of questions which were put to the Prime Minister but were then referred off to ministers despite the fact that, we now know, he actually had the capacity to respond directly to those questions himself, because he had that ministerial responsibility provided to him in secret.

This bill demonstrates the government's readiness to act promptly to restore the Australian people's confidence in our federal system of government and to rebuild integrity in public sector institutions, processes and officials. The measures in the bill will restore integrity and transparency to the process of appointing elected officials to high office and ensure we have a system of government where there are checks and balances. Never again will one person be able to garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament. I will always advocate for and encourage greater accountability in government. I represent a large population of current and former public servants who have strict guidelines that they have to follow, and they expect their ministers to do the same. The member for Cook's inability to hold himself to the highest level of accountability, which his former office expected of him, is deeply concerning.

When speaking with journalist Niki Savva, the former member for Kooyong said:

… I don't think there was any reason for Scott to take on the additional Treasury portfolio. The fact he did take it, and it was not made transparent to me and others, was wrong and profoundly disappointing.

It was extreme overreach.

When his then deputy declares it as 'extreme overreach', what does it say about the judgement and motives of the former Prime Minister?

The Albanese government is about transparency. The introduction of this bill shows that this government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. 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 and especially to ensure we have a system of government where one person cannot again, as I said earlier, garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the parliament.

The legislation 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 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. It will also require such a 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 revocation, 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.

Those opposite wouldn't know what accountability or integrity was, and the Australian people shared that view last May. That's why this government has continued to roll out multiple pieces of legislation to restore integrity and transparency in the federal government. That's why the Albanese government introduced long-overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which will put Australia on the path to a best-practice whistleblowing framework for the public sector. In my working life before coming here, I represented public sector workers across a whole range of Commonwealth agencies. I've had the great privilege of working with people with great integrity, who at times have needed to shine a light on public sector maladministration or corruption. The need for greater whistleblower protection and the ongoing need for integrity reform is clear to me, and it's a privilege to speak on this bill as part of the greater moves to address these issues. There is still work to be done, but already the reforms in the first year of the Albanese government have led to an improvement in our global corruption perceptions ranking, as the latest Transparency International data shows.

The Albanese government's work in restoring accountability does not stop with greater whistleblower protection or with the reforms in this bill. The passing of our National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation last year was a great step in increasing government transparency and integrity. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind those opposite what the National Anti-Corruption Commission looks like. The commission will operate independently of government, with a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission. It will have discretion to commence inquiries into serious or systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers, who will have strong protections, and there will be exemptions for journalists to protect the identity of sources. It will have the discretion to undertake investigations, of both criminal and non-criminal conduct, and to refer matters to another agency or to take no action. It will be able to refer findings that could constitute criminal conduct to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It will have the power to investigate allegations of serious or systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment. After what we've seen over recent years, and the diminishing public trust in government as a consequence, this is extremely important. We are establishing a National Anti-Corruption Commission with real power and authority. Importantly, our approach consistently meets the path of cooperation and collaboration so that all Australians are heard. The establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission begins the important work of restoring the faith of the Australian people in their parliament and government.

The Albanese government will continue to lead on matters of national integrity and transparency. This government understands that everyday Australians are losing trust in their political system and that we need a comprehensive approach that will go further than maintaining the status quo but ensures the federal government operates with the highest levels of integrity and transparency. This is not some sort of victory for the government. It's effectively a key to ensure that Australians can have faith and trust in any of their governments. I thank the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for the hard work they have done in this space in restoring confidence and trust to government in relation to the NACC, enhanced whistleblower protections and now with this legislation to ensure that the Australian people are notified when there has been a change in ministerial arrangements. I would encourage all members in this place to support this bill to take one further step to restore public confidence in government.

As I said earlier, as a Canberran it baffles me that this bill was ever necessary. If there's one part of the day that nearly all Australians are familiar with, and often judge this place on, it is question time. That is the most visible part of the day, and it is a part of the day when there is an expectation that ministers who have responsibility for portfolios will respond to questions that come from electorates all around the country, whether they be represented by the opposition or by the government. It's still extraordinary to me that, for a significant period of time, without any explanation, the Australian people were hoodwinked. Effectively, when questions were asked of the Prime Minister, where the Prime Minister had assumed responsibility for a number of portfolios, those questions were not answered. That responsibility was not acknowledged. It was, certainly, an extraordinary act of bad faith for members of the government of the day, an extraordinary lack of both trust and confidence in their capacity to do the jobs for which they were appointed. It was an extraordinary breach of faith and confidence with the Australian people, something that we should ensure never happens again in this place.

When Australians all around the country are watching or listening to question time or to other parts of the day when legislation is introduced, they should have a firm understanding of who is responsible and who is accountable for the work that goes on in this place.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AN () (): I commend the words of the member for Bean because it is quite extraordinary, and still hard to fathom, that for a very long period of time we sat on those opposition benches questioning the government and the Prime Minister—the then prime minister, the member for Cook. He knew things that he was not disclosing to the parliament. He knew things his own ministers didn't know. The very premise of this parliament, the premise that this is a place where governments can be held to account, particularly, as the member for Bean indicates, during question time, was really treated with contempt.

That is the core of this legislation, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, and the efforts that we are making to ensure that cannot happen again, that this parliament cannot be treated like fools and can't be held in contempt because of a prime minister failing to disclose actions and decisions that he's made. He failed to disclose that he was, in fact, the minister for many, many things, not just his prime ministerial role. That is the core of this piece of legislation and why it is so important to have on the record the processes that have led to this point.

This bill is about restoring the Australian people's confidence in our federal system of government and part of rebuilding the integrity in public sector institutions, in the processes that we have and in the officials. It's also a key to ensuring that there is a capacity to hold a government and a prime minister to account. The bill will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency and accountability in the administration of this parliament, in the ministries and in the Commonwealth. It implements the first of the six recommendations from the Bell inquiry, so it isn't the only thing that we will be doing. It follows the steps that we've taken already so that we finally have, in this country, a National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is as important as that National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation.

I want to walk through how we got to this point because this is historic—we have never been at this point before—and why it was so important that we censured the member for Cook on this matter. The Prime Minister has spoken about this issue, and I thank him for his leadership. But we should all be deeply saddened that a censure of a former prime minister was necessary. It is a real shame for all of us that this institution had to take that step because, had we not taken that step, we would have been saying: 'That's okay. Maybe it wasn't the best thing to do,' but we'd shrug our shoulders and he'd get away with it. It isn't something that can be overlooked. It is too dangerous a precedent to be setting by overlooking that sort of behaviour. That's why we are committed to addressing the loopholes that allowed that abuse of power to occur. I think the Australian people are absolutely entitled to know who is appointed to administer departments of this country because they make such profound decisions that have impacts on everybody's lives. I hope the Australian people recognise that that is the basis of our desire and determination to clean up this system so that what happened can't be repeated.

Let's just remind ourselves what actually happened, and we learnt some of this because of the Solicitor-General's advice. The advice from the Solicitor General was published in August last year, and that advice found that between March 2020 and May 2021 the member Cook was appointed by the Governor-General to administer five departments of state: Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury and Home Affairs. This wasn't made public. It was only revealed through reports in the media. As a former journalist I have great regard for the role the media plays in revealing things, but, seriously, this is not something that should have been left to media to find out. It is something that should have been disclosed freely to the parliament. The Solicitor-General found that the principles of responsible government were fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government. He went on to say:

… 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.

That's just a fundamental principle.

We learnt more through the Bell report. The Bell report, for me, was really, really key to understanding and allowing me to get to the real core and gravity of this. The Bell report found that the appointments were unnecessary. If either the then Minister for Health and Aged Care or the then Minister for Finance had become incapacitated and it was desired to have a senior minister exercise the health minister's expansive human biosecurity emergency powers or the finance minister's significant financial authorities, the member for Cook could have been:

… authorised to act as Minister for Health or Minister for Finance in a matter of minutes.

It could have happened in a matter of minutes, so the excuse that we were in a pandemic and things were difficult was just a fallacy. Here we have the recognition that, had someone become incapacitated—another minister—that could have been resolved in a matter of minutes.

The other appointments, including to Treasury and Home Affairs, the Bell report found are in a different category to the Health and Finance appointments. The Bell report said these appointments had 'little if any connection to the pandemic'. It went on to say:

Rather, Mr Morrison was appointed to administer these departments to give himself the capacity to exercise particular statutory powers.

We learnt all this thanks to the Bell report, and I commend the work of the Hon. Virginia Bell AC who did this work. She noted that the member for Cook also instructed the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to prepare a brief for his appointment to administer the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Apparently, he decided not to proceed with that appointment.

The scale of it is staggering. When asked to explain this, the Bell report noted it is difficult to reconcile the member for Cook's choice not to inform his ministers of the appointments 'out of his wish not to be thought to be second-guessing them, with his belief that the appointments had been notified in the Commonwealth Gazette'. We've got two opposing thoughts here: 'I didn't want to alarm them and think they didn't have my confidence,' but 'Oh, I thought they were going to be noted in the Gazette and gazetted.' That sort of language has given no-one any confidence that there was a desire for transparency and disclosure. If people haven't read the Bell report, I would encourage them to do so because it makes very clear what processes were involved and why we should be so concerned about what happened and why there is a need for this legislation.

One of the concluding statements in the Bell report is:

Given that the Parliament was not informed of any of the appointments, it was unable to hold Mr Morrison—

The member for Cook—

to account in his capacity as minister administering any of these five departments.

It reflects on the Solicitor-General's advice and conclusion, which was:

… the principles of responsible government were "fundamentally undermined" because Mr Morrison was not "responsible" to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors …

That's really what this is about. It's not about us and the parliament; it is about the responsibility we have to the people who have put us here, and that is to be transparent, to disclose things and to ensure that we are meeting their expectations around integrity.

It was surprising to know that there was an additional part to this story that was only very recently revealed. That was when we discovered that the member for Cook's secret appointments extended beyond himself. Documents released under freedom of information revealed that the approach of the previous coalition government, when it came to giving the Prime Minister, himself, additional portfolios, extended to other ministers, and multiple assistant ministers were appointed to multiple departments.

The former member for Tangney was appointed to administer the home affairs department, and the member for Capricornia was appointed to administer the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. While these appointments were gazetted, the member for Cook specifically asked that there be no swearing-in ceremony, no public event held to show what was happening, no changes to the official ministry lists. That is a total breakdown in the trust upon which our democracy depends.

It probably is best reflected on by a member of that previous government, the member for McPherson, the former Minister for Home Affairs, who was responsible for portfolios that then had appointments made to other ministers. She said:

Given what we've heard, it's not surprising that I wasn't told about it.

It's not okay to behave in the way the former Prime Minister and others have in relation to keeping information secret.

She went on to say:

At no time in those discussions did Ben Morton—

The member for Tangney—

raise with me the fact he had been appointed to administer that and been effectively appointed to administer parts of the home affairs department.

She said: 'It's extraordinary. It's very disappointing, if this information is coming to light now.' She goes on to say, 'Who knows what the reasoning was behind any of that. There was no reason to keep that hidden.'

They are the words, direct quotes, from the member for McPherson, who, like all of us, has been treated like a fool by the former Prime Minister, the now member for Cook. It is a shameful page in the history of that government. There were multiple things for that government to be ashamed of, but this one, in particular, went to the core of what this place is about. It went to the heart of what we are here to do. This legislation will go a long way to ensuring we don't see a repeat of it.

The bill requires the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable—not months later or only when FOI documents are revealed or only when someone tells it to a journalist for a book that's going to be published. It will say 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 any notification when those positions change.

The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state, where that's appropriate, and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. Where an appointment has been revoked, it will 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 issued by the Governor-General, ensuring there are no loopholes and no ways to get around it; there is no way of sneakily putting it through.

This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. The centrepiece of this promise has been our legislation for a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the provisions in this bill add to that. They go some way to ensuring greater integrity and transparency, and we will continue to look for ways to make sure the people of Australia know that we are accountable and that governments are held to account.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. Integrity and accountability should be central to everything we do, both inside and outside this parliament. These qualities should be a constant, especially for parliamentarians like ourselves, not only because we should set and uphold those standards but because Australians demand and deserve their representatives to do so—to be honest and display integrity in every decision, every interaction and every behaviour. Our democracy demands those qualities and our democracy is worth protecting. Governments should operate in the nation's interests, governing for the people who elect us to represent them. This is how I serve my community of the electorate of Pearce. The community's interests and needs are first and foremost in my mind, as is operating with the highest level of integrity in advocating for all my constituents. I listen to my community, and what they tell me is that integrity is vitally important to them. That is why the response to the Albanese government's decision to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been so positive. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has been warmly welcomed by the people of Pearce, and rightly so. Australians want and deserve accountability and integrity, and they will get that through the important work and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Members of our community have been rightly horrified by some of the actions taken by the former government. One example was when they learnt that, between March 2020 and May 2021, the former Prime Minister and member for Cook was appointed by the Governor-General to administer five portfolios, in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The former Prime Minister had quietly helped himself to a few extra portfolio responsibilities. He'd kept his colleagues and the public out of the loop and created a secret stash of ministries on top of what he already had. This was nothing less than an extraordinary scenario. It left many people astonished when the news broke and the secret was revealed.

In addition, just last week we discovered, through freedom of information requests, that the member for Cook's secret appointments extended beyond himself. Documents have revealed the assiduous approach of the previous coalition government in appointing ministers. Multiple assistant ministers were appointed to multiple departments. For example, the former member for Tangney was also appointed to administer the Department of Home Affairs and the member for Capricornia was also appointed to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. While these appointments were gazetted, the member for Cook specifically requested that there be no swearing in ceremonies—no public events to show what he was doing—and no changes to the official ministry lists.

It is unfortunate that over the past decade the people's trust in politicians and politics has been eroded. We must change that. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill will go a long way to restoring that trust. It is important for my electorate of Pearce that I speak on this bill. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill provides for greater transparency and accountability in Commonwealth administration, something Australians want and deserve. This bill will ensure that Australians are able to access information about the composition of the federal Executive Council. It will ensure Australians know who is appointed to administer certain departments of state and the high offices that ministers hold. It will prevent a situation ever again occurring whereby a Prime Minister can appoint himself or herself to ministries in secret, just as the former Prime Minister the member for Cook did. The former Prime Minister did so while his Liberal and National Party colleagues were blissfully unaware. It was a long list of roles, in the departments of health, finance, industry, science, energy and resources, Treasury and home affairs. Bear in mind that this was in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In contrast we, the Albanese Labor government, are doing things differently, to have a positive impact on our nation, to make the lives of Australians better every day and in every way we possibly can. We are here for the Australian people, caring for and supporting families, businesses and organisations. We are creating a legacy of positive changes for our communities and our electorates. This is what drives us. I'm so honoured to be a part of this positive and lasting change. We are easing cost-of-living pressures by providing many positive changes that help families, including cheaper child care, because early childhood education is vitally important for life outcomes, and cheaper medicines, because we want to make sure people don't forgo the medication that they need because they can't afford it. For the first time in 75 years, the maximum cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has fallen. We made that happen. We are investing in social and affordable housing to tackle housing pressures. We are investing $10 billion to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund. Returns from the fund will be used to build 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings over five years. On wages, we are getting them moving again— (Quorum formed)

I will continue. On wages, we are getting them moving again, supporting and standing up for lowest-paid workers as inflation bites. One of the Albanese government's first actions was to support wage increases for Australia's lowest-paid workers, to ensure their real wages do not go backwards. The Fair Work Commission delivered a minimum pay rise of $40 per week for full-time workers, benefiting around 2.7 million workers. We are supporting gender equality under workforce participation, which is great for our economy. We are supporting families and working parents by expanding paid parental leave, which has passed the Senate. This expansion is the biggest reform to the scheme since it was introduced. Expanding paid parental leave will enhance economic security, improve gender equality and increase participation and productivity. Importantly, it will support parents to spend more time with their children and share caring responsibilities more equally. These are some of the robust policies the Albanese government is driving for Australians.

Going back: when the government referred the former Prime Minister's secret appointments to the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC, Dr Donaghue advised that the principles of responsible government were 'fundamentally undermined' by the actions of the former government, and that:

… 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.

In August 2022 our current Prime Minister and the Attorney-General announced the establishment of the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments. This was led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC. The final report by former High Court justice Bell was provided to the government in November last year.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill forms part of the government's response to the Bell inquiry. The bill will amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide for greater transparency and accountability at the Commonwealth level of Australia's system of government. In simple terms, it will achieve that by ensuring the Australian people are able to access information about who is doing what in government—simple, but absolutely necessary.

The Bell inquiry was truly an extraordinary moment in time for Australian politics. The fact that a former High Court justice was required to investigate a former Prime Minister for swearing himself into multiple secret portfolios, and the fact that the former Prime Minister did so without notifying his colleagues—there can be no better, or should I say worse, example of a reason to need this bill than this secret-portfolio affair. Although, the shocking and damaging robodebt was also a dreadful and low moment in Australian politics that left the public reeling. And what about sports rorts? That was another funding disgrace by the previous government.

There is good reason to establish an anticorruption body, as the Labor government is delivering. Democracy can be severely damaged by a lack of transparency. Politics and this place must be open, fair, decisive, responsible and caring, and above all else it must be accountable. We must—I repeat, we must—ensure transparency in our government processes. Our system of parliamentary democracy relies upon conventions and the Westminster traditions of checks and balances.

The Albanese Labor government has accepted all the recommendations of the Bell inquiry into the former Prime Minister's sneaky, secret, squirrel ministries. Our progress on this matter shows the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. At the heart of that is the establishment of the powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. The measures in the Ministers of State Amendment Bill will ensure integrity and transparency in the process of appointing elected officials to high office. Never again will one person be able to garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament.

The actions of the former Prime Minister the member for Cook have been strongly condemned not just by the Australian public but by multiple former Liberal prime ministers too. The former Prime Minister appointed himself the Minister for Finance but did not even tell his own finance minister, an extraordinary move. The former Prime Minister had zero respect for the then finance minister to not even have mentioned his bizarre appointment.

Every member of this place, including those opposite, should care about the integrity of our parliamentary process and the people who we are privileged to represent. We should be able to leave here with our heads held high, knowing that we served to the best of our ability with integrity, honesty and transparency and with heart. The Australian people deserve nothing less, and I commend this bill to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022. I must say that, like so many other speakers on this side, I contribute to this debate still completely outraged about the actions of the member for Cook. It is quite overwhelming—and that's certainly what people in my electorate constantly tell me—with the size and scale of what happened here. The member for Cook actually took it upon himself to act in this manner and appoint himself to so many portfolios. So I think our outrage and concern is certainly more than warranted, and we hear that in the community all the time. People just find it amazing that this even happened. Never would I have ever believed that here in modern Australia a prime minister would actively seek to damage and distort our democratic processes, parliamentary conventions and Westminster checks and balances. It does seem completely remarkable that somebody would do that in such a way when we need to ensure there is faith in all of these institutions. The previous Prime Minister the member for Cook certainly undermined all of those through these actions. Never would I have thought that it would actually be necessary for there to be specific legislation to ensure that ministers can't be secret ministers. I think we all share that. We never thought we would be here having to speak on legislation like this, yet here we are, having to do this.

Let's just have a look at some of the actions of the member for Cook. Between March 2020 and May 2021, we know the former Prime Minister appointed himself to administer five portfolios in addition to his duties as Prime Minister. Last year out we found out that the member for Cook had appointed himself, firstly, as the Minister for Health on 14 March 2020; as the Minister for Finance on 30 March 2020; as the Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021; as the Minister for Home Affairs on 6 May 2021; and as the Treasurer on 6 May 2021—completely remarkable. When I say that when we found out we were all shocked, it wasn't just us on the side of the House. The general public everywhere were completely shocked, and we know that MPs who were members of the former Morrison government were equally shocked. Indeed, four members of the cabinet were very shocked as well and had no knowledge of it. I think when that news broke it was a bit overwhelming, and it still is. I think the reason people were outraged is that it was so devious and undermining to do that and to keep it all a secret.

What is really ironic about the actions of the member for Cook is that he was so eager to have these multiple portfolios of responsibility yet in actual fact he refused to take responsibility for anything. I think that is one of the many hypocritical parts about this. Instead, all we had was a decade of a Liberal-National government that really was bereft of any responsibility at all. That certainly was a characteristic that we saw time and time again with the member for Cook.

As I've said before, this lack of responsibility was very apparent in my region, with the devastating floods that we had just over a year ago. We've just had the first anniversary of those floods, and there is still a very long way for so many people to go with the size and scale and impact of the floods. But that anniversary that has just passed certainly reminded us of the inaction of the member for Cook. Firstly he failed to include the people in my electorate in some of the extended disaster payments, and that was devastating to people on the ground who had been through so much. Secondly, the member for Cook and former Prime Minster failed to come and talk to people on the ground throughout the area and hear firsthand what they had been through. He failed to take responsibility, as the Prime Minister, especially during those times of natural disaster. He was nowhere to be seen during the floods that devastated my region. When we look back also at the terrible bushfires over Christmas 2019, what was the response of the member for Cook and former Prime Minister? He said he didn't hold a hose—again, failing to take responsibility.

During the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, there were many faults and flaws with the vaccine rollout and so many other issues. Again, according to the former Prime Minister, those were the job of somebody else. He would say: 'That's not my job. That's not my job.' It really is unforgivable for a prime minister to not take responsibility. Despite not taking responsibility for those issues, there was the member for Cook secretly having himself sworn in to take responsibility for all these other ministries. So many people in my region are really shocked, I think, and outraged because it is emphatically the job of the Prime Minister to maintain the public's confidence in political leaders and institutions. That is so vital to our nation. Yet here we are.

I am very proud that the Albanese Labor government is taking decisive action with this bill to protect our democracy. The bill before us today has come about due to the very swift actions of our Prime Minister and Attorney-General in establishing an inquiry. The inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments was led by former High Court Justice Virginia Bell. These actions are, of course, in stark contrast to the actions of the member for Cook. Our bill will amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide for greater transparency and accountability in Commonwealth administration, ensuring that the people who actually vote us in here—the Australian public—have visibility over the offices that ministers hold. That is so vitally important. Really, it is the cornerstone of our democracy. Specifically this bill provides that the Official Secretary to the Governor-General must publish a notifiable instrument, which will be registered on the publicly accessible Federal Register of Legislation as soon as is 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's very important to have these measures in place.

We are putting this bill forward now because it is so important to restore the confidence of the Australian people in our system of government and our institutions and to rebuild that integrity. This is a confidence Australians deserve to have. Anyone in this House can recognise how significant the actions of the member for Cook really have been. In fact, it's important to point out that three of his predecessors have come out and condemned this conduct. Former Prime Minister John Howard 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.' Former Prime Minister 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.' Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: 'This is sinister stuff. This is secret government. This is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard of in our federal government.' The very idea that a prime minister would be secretly sworn in to other ministries is incredible. I think those comments from those former prime ministers reflect the sentiment we felt at the time when we first heard about this.

Then again, there were more developments recently. We discovered that the member for Cook's secret appointments extended beyond himself. We know that multiple assistant ministers were appointed to multiple departments. Ben Morton, the former member for Tangney, was appointed to administer the home affairs department. The member for Capricornia was appointed to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was all secretive. Whilst these appointments may have been gazetted, the member for Cook specifically requested that there be no swearing-in ceremony. There was secrecy surrounding it. There was no public event to show it was happening and no changes to official ministry lists—again, just more disregard for our democracy and our democratic institutions. In relation to these most recent revelations, the member for McPherson has said:

Given what we've heard, it's not surprising that I wasn't told about it. It's not okay to behave in the way the former Prime Minister and others have in relation to keeping information secret.

…   …   …

… at no time during those discussions did Ben Morton raise with me the fact he had been appointed to administer that.

It just goes on and on. So we have the former Prime Minister not only appointing himself to portfolios but also secretly appointing other people to roles and, obviously, ensuring that that's kept secret as well. The member for McPherson continues:

It's … extraordinary … it's very disappointing that this information is coming to light now.

…   …   …

Who knows what the reason was behind any of that … there was no reason to keep that hidden.

I think that reflects how we felt recently when that further information was revealed.

This bill is so important for us to restore faith in our democratic institutions and in our parliament. These are values we on this side hold very dear, and the Australian public do, and they deserve to. This bill, alongside our National Anti-Corruption Commission, will ensure that integrity can be restored. The commission will work to investigate and report on serious and systemic corruption. I was very proud to speak on this bill when it came to the House because that was a very big issue throughout the community for many, many years—they were calling for a national integrity commission. One of the major actions of our government was to introduce that. Under the previous government, they refused to do that for many, many years. They refused to have that particular commission in place that's so vitally important. We do that to restore faith in our institutions and our systems that the Australian people deserve.

All of us here in this House, each and every one of us, are immensely privileged and honoured to be standing here, representing all areas right across this great country and also to be active participants in our democracy. We are incredibly privileged to be doing that. When actions are taken, like those of the member for Cook and the former Prime Minister, it does diminish that, because we know that, with the actions that the former Prime Minister took, it was impossible for the parliament and, therefore, the public to hold ministers to account for the running of departments. Members had no knowledge of what was going on at all. It is incredibly disappointing, and, in terms of the role of our parliament, it is incredibly wrong. It's important to have this new legislation in place to restore integrity. It must have been very disheartening for members across the chamber when it all came to light. It was incredibly disheartening for us and the entire general public. It still is absolutely absurd to think that someone in the role of prime minister could take that action as the former Prime Minister did and to just trash our democracy and our institutions, all of which we hold very dear.

That's why we're committed to this legislation. It will fall to us—the Labor Party—to uphold the virtue of those institutions and the parliament, so that there is proper recourse and accountability, and we proudly do that because we believe in all those values and we fight for all those values. I certainly commend this bill to the House. It is very important. It will ensure that a person cannot ever again garner powers without that adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people, to the Australian parliament and to the House. It does reflect very. very poorly on the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, in taking those actions, and he should rightly be condemned by people in this House and the general public for that. We very proudly commend this bill, and we will work to upholding the integrity of our institutions that we hold dear. I commend the bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The actions of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, in secretly swearing himself into ministries in 2020 and 2021, without the knowledge of ministers and without the knowledge of the Australian people, is one of the darkest periods in our nation's democracy.

It's a fundamental principle of Australian democracy that the people get to choose who administers government on their behalf and that the people have the right to know who is administering government departments on their behalf. That was taken away by the actions of the member for Cook. It fell to media reports for the Australian people to find out in August last year that the former Prime Minister had sworn himself into six portfolios, including Treasury, Health, Finance and Home Affairs—quite serious and large government departments—without telling the ministers who were previously sworn in to administer those departments but, more importantly, not telling the Australian people that he had taken over responsibility for those portfolios—and during a health crisis.

The other point that's remarkable about this is that it wasn't needed. He didn't need to conceal it from the Australian people. Given that we were in a health crisis, I'm sure if he had come out and said, 'Look, I've consulted with ministers and, given that people are getting sick and there's a great risk that many ministers may be struck down with COVID, we've taken the option of swearing additional people in to administer departments in case that occurs,' most people in the Australian public would have said, 'That's quite reasonable.' Certainly we, on this side of the chamber, would have said, 'Yes, that's something reasonable to do in a pandemic,' particularly, as the minister's pointed out, for the Department of Health. So it wasn't even needed. You'd have to question the motivations of the former Prime Minister the member for Cook in doing that. Why didn't he tell the Australian people? I'm sorry, but the justification that was given in the speech delivered by the member for Cook simply wasn't good enough. Australians were rightly horrified. They were horrified that they weren't told about this important principle of knowing who was administering government, particularly during a health crisis.

When we found out, of course, the Albanese government acted appropriately and referred the issue to the Solicitor-General, who recommended that a broader inquiry be undertaken, and we appointed a former High Court judge, Justice Virginia Bell, to look into the matter. She conducted a thorough inquiry and made a number of recommendations to the government in November last year. This bill is a result of those recommendations. It's the government acting on the recommendations that were made independently by Virginia Bell.

These reforms will ensure that the Australian people are able to access information relating to the composition of the Federal Executive Council and those appointed to administer departments and offices that ministers hold. Specifically, 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 summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council and to publish notification of revocation. (Quorum formed)The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. In cases of the revocation of the notifiable instrument, it will include the name of the person, the name of the former office and the date when such membership, appointment or direction was revoked. The notifiable instrument may also comprise a copy of an instrument issued by the Governor-General.

This is part of the government restoring transparency and accountability to important decisions such as the swearing of ministers of state to administer government departments on behalf of the Australian people. It comes on the back of other reforms of this government that are aimed at improving transparency and accountability, most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which, as we all know, the Australian people put front and centre of the recent election campaign because they wished to ensure there was government action on this issue. This government will make sure that the Australian people understand who their ministers of state are and know that they are administering government on their behalf.

This episode also demonstrates why we need to begin a serious debate once again about having one of our own as our head of state. I want to make the point that the Governor-General did nothing wrong in the circumstances he was put in by the former prime minister, the member for Cook. The Governor-General acted entirely appropriately in swearing the member for Cook into those ministries. The convention is, under our system, the Westminster system, that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the government of the day, and that is what the Governor-General did. There is no fault at all with the Governor-General. The fault lies with the member for Cook.

I believe that had we had an Australian head of state, one that was appointed by the Australian people either indirectly through the parliament or directly by election then that head of state would be accountable to the Australian people. A head of state put in that situation, such as the one the member for Cook left the Governor-General with, would be obliged, in my view, to ensure that the Australian people were informed of the former prime minister being sworn into those ministries. At the moment the way the Governor-General is appointed, as we all know, is that the Governor-General is the King's or Queen's representative. They swear allegiance to the King or the Queen when they take office. Their obligation is to be the representative of the King or the Queen.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So do you.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of parliament—you're right—swear allegiance to the Crown. We should be swearing allegiance to the Australian people who elected us, but we don't have the opportunity to do that. In my view, if we had an Australian head of state that was appointed by the Australian people, either through the parliamentary process or directly elected by the Australian people, they would have an obligation to the Australian people to ensure that the fundamental principle of democracy is upheld—the right to know who is administering government on their behalf. In such a scenario, if the Prime Minister were say to the Australian head of state, 'I want you to swear me in to these ministries,' the head of state would of course be obliged to do so; however, having been appointed by the Australian people, I believe they would also be obliged to say, 'If you don't tell the Australian people, I will.'

That is another reason why, after we get through the process of looking at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which is the priority of the government this year, we need to begin a serious discussion with the Australian people about, in the future, debating whether or not we should have one of our own as our head of state, someone who is accountable to the Australian people and who represents Australia's unique culture and identity, improving the system of democracy that we have and cherish in Australia. Hopefully, some good can come of this dark period in our history when the Australian people were left none the wiser about who was administering government on their behalf, because of that dastardly act of the former Prime Minister to attempt to cover up—and that's implicit in the fact that he didn't tell anyone—the fact that he'd taken the ministries of other ministers, attempting to hide it from the Australian people.

Thankfully, we now have a government that prioritises transparency and accountability. This bill delivers on the commitment to ensure that we have transparency and accountability in our decision-making, particularly when it comes to who is administering government on behalf of the Australian people. In the future, because of this reform, the Australian people will always know who has been sworn in as a minister of state and who is administering government departments on their behalf.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary that we're standing here today discussing the need for a bill to ensure that the public is informed when a ministry is assumed. We have a proud Westminster system, which we've inherited from our British brothers and sisters. This is something that's based on conventions and principles, and our great Australian parliament is built on these conventions. The main convention that was breached by secret ministerial appointments was that of accountability. This convention means that the ministerial decision-makers in the executive government are responsible to the parliament and the parliament is responsible to voters. As Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue KC explained:

Plainly enough, 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.

Justice Bell, from the inquiry into the matter, explained:

Given that the Parliament was not informed of any of the appointments, it was unable to hold Mr Morrison to account in his capacity as minister administering any of these five departments—

Not one, not two, not three but five—

As the Solicitor-General concluded, the principles of responsible government were "fundamentally undermined" because Mr Morrison was not "responsible" to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer.

The conventions of responsible government are a fundamental pillar of our proud Australian democracy. They are required to maintain the public's faith in our political constitution. This bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is essential to restoring our faith in democracy and upholding the conventions necessary for responsible government.

One of the trends identified in the 2022 CSIRO report, Our future world: global megatrends impacting the way we live over coming decades, was that societies are increasingly demanding transparency and accountability. This underpins trust in governments, trust in science, trust in organisations. What we have seen in this decade is a decay in trust. There have been events such as 6 January 2021, the storming of the US Capitol. This occurred because of the inability of a leader to accept the limits of their power and to be accountable to the people. Then we had the 8 January 2023 storming of the Brazilian Congress, which was born out of the lack of trust in the democratic institutions in Brazil and their ability to deliver a peaceful transition of power. In my home electorate of Swan, one of my Australian-Brazilian constituents was shaken to the core by what was happening here.

Our democracy is precious. I am so proud that we are a part of a democratic nation, but it is fragile, and we need to strengthen it. This is something that's worth fighting for, and this is something that the public wants. Maintaining the trust of the people is so important to make sure that we prevent things such as violent backslides. Whilst we might not have those conditions here, we should always be working to improve the health of our democracy and to strengthen the conventions.

In speeches, sometimes we look at literary references. I think it's unfair to judge people in this place based on the way that they look. Aesthetics are based on your genetics. What I am interested in is character, because character is something that you have the ability to work on, to improve. Following literary references, what the member for Cook did as Prime Minister reminds me a little bit of the Lord of the Rings character Gollum. What Gollum wanted to do with the ring was extend his power and life beyond the realm of the ordinary. That's what Gollum was interested in. He was fascinated by this symbol. He wanted the power. He wanted to extend this power beyond his actual natural capabilities—and that's what we saw in this place. You know what? If people had known the truth, they would have been disgusted and they would have seen the true essence of what it was.

What the member for Cook did as Prime Minister, in secretly assuming five ministries, was well beyond the ordinary and was a total defiance of the conventions of our parliamentary systems. I remember in my former workplace we changed some of the reporting of a particular thing, and I looked to my boss and said, 'I want rules and I want to know how to interpret them.' My boss said to me: 'I don't want to write rules, because I want you to use principles. I want you to orientate your decisions based on the principles.' That is what the Westminster system was based on. It was based on principles. It was based on this fundamental understanding that the people who are elected to this place have principles. What did we see? We saw a government and a leader that didn't represent that. Even though we didn't know this when we were doorknocking during my election campaign in Swan—we knocked on 45,000 doors—people could smell it. People could see it. They knew it. I would talk to people, and they would have the sense of: 'You know what? I just don't trust our Prime Minister. I just don't trust it.' And that smell could be smelt from across Australia.

Not wanting to be held to account was a theme of the previous Prime Minister. I remember having a radio interview with Liam Bartlett, and I said that there are these characteristics of the member for Cook, which are that he's a liar and a bully. He said, 'But you're saying that from your side of politics.' And I was like: 'No. Let's have a look at the conservative side, and let me give you this long list of conservative people that are pretty grumpy about the character of this person.'

First of all, from a WA perspective, the former prime minister's support of Clive Palmer's case against WA's hard borders, which saved lives, was fascinating. This was pushed in question time by the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, followed by the member for Whitlam.

We also saw his minimised role in the robodebt saga. Despite being its creator, he passed the buck onto the department and his colleagues. Morrison, in December 2022, in the royal commission, said that legal advice warning that the scheme was unlawful was not raised directly with the ministers until late 2019, when the program was eventually shut down. That was when he left the country during the Black Saturday bushfires and sought to deflect criticism by saying, 'Don't hold a hose!'

When we had the vaccine rollout face delays, the member for Cook stated, 'It's not a race,' rather than acknowledge that it was a failure of his government to ensure that we had secured enough vaccines for our nation. Then, with the 'bully' and 'liar' and 'not a team player' vibes, we had the Liberal senator for New South Wales Concetta Fierravanti-Wells say Morrison is 'an autocrat' and 'a bully who has no moral compass' and 'The fish stinks from the head.' I think that's what people could smell in the heart of Swan.

The former deputy prime minister and member for New England said: 'He is a hypocrite and a liar, from my observations, and that is over a long time. I have never trusted him and I dislike how he earnestly rearranges the truth to a lie.'

Then we have former Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate and the way her dismissal was handled, which she explained as 'one of the worst acts of bullying I have ever witnessed'. The member for Cook said that she needs to go. What did she do? She kept post offices open during a pandemic. She kept banking options available to regional Australians. As a girl born and bred in the Goldfields who loved going to the post office, and sitting up on the bench and seeing the wet roly thing that you put the stamps on, I love our post offices! They are the heart of regional towns and this is something that's fundamentally important. The truth is, Christine Holgate is seen as an amazing female business leader. And what did this government do?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Castigated by your side first, mind you.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's about the outcomes and who is responsible for the outcomes. It's about the government of the day. Isn't it ironic, the member for McPherson saying that he needs to resign and leave parliament!

Former New South Wales Liberal premier Gladys Berejiklian described the member for Cook as 'a horrible, horrible person' and bemoaned that he was 'more concerned with politics than people'. Then we have French President Emmanuel Macron, who said, when asked whether the member for Cook had lied to him, 'I don't think, I know.'

He doesn't hold a hose, he doesn't order enough vaccinations and he says, 'It's not my job.' The thing that's hilarious is that during the election campaign we had these corflute signs that said, 'Not my job!' They were splattered throughout Western Australia. But the thing that's ironic is he had five extra jobs that we didn't know about. How is the Australian public to know? I think the irony of that is amusing—except for the fact that this is our democracy. This is a really special place to be.

I would remind people that when we had the censure moment in the House and the member for Cook's colleagues—what was interesting for me, as I watched in this place, is that everyone, after the censure moment, lined up to shake the hand of this man, after this really monumental moment in this parliament. There was this line of support which, to me, was the symbolism of condoning the behaviours of our previous prime minister. I want to see an improvement in our parliament, and this is the reason that we have this bill, but I think that the other side need to reflect on their behaviours and reflect on what renewal looks like. If you continue to do what you're doing and get stuck in the past, you're not going to see where the rest of Australia is going. The support was amusing, and I think it's something that we need to recognise. The seventh edition of the House of Representatives Practice says:

A censure motion, as the words imply, expresses more a disapproval or reprimand at particular actions or policies of the Government …

A former Prime Minister being censured in the House of Representatives for the first time is historically significant. There was one exception. I remember looking across the chamber during that time, and there was one member I saw who, to me, looked like she had the weight of the whole other side of the House on her shoulders.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was it?

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to say. She wanted to see a restoration of our democracy, a restoration of the true greatness of what your side could be. But I only saw that from one person. Instead, there was this lining up like it was a wedding. Guess what? It was not a wedding.

In my electorate of Swan, time and time again people have been telling me that the minimum requirement for being a member of parliament is integrity, principles. I think it's extraordinary that we have this bill where we need to actually look at this. Under the previous Liberal government, there were no actions on a national anticorruption commission. There was not a draft bill. Legislation was not introduced to the House. They were asleep at the wheel. The substance of this bill is making sure that we have a parliament that we can trust, a democracy that we can believe in and a democracy that we can have for future generations.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 is only before us because of the extraordinary steps that were taken by the former Prime Minister the member for Cook, who, between March 2020 and May 2021, was appointed by the Governor-General to administer not only his own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but an additional five portfolios of the executive. He made himself the secret Minister for Health, the secret Minister for Finance, the secret Treasurer, the secret Minister for Home Affairs and the secret Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. In almost all cases, the gazetted portfolio minister was completely unaware of their understudy. But, even as late as last week, details of this deception were still being discovered, with the GuardianAustralia reporting that the former member for Tangney Ben Morton and the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, were appointed to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Home Affairs. As the member for Swan has pointed out, the member for McPherson summed it up best in her interview with Sky News last Thursday. The member for McPherson said: 'It's not okay to behave in the way the former Prime Minister and others have in relation to keeping information secret.'

But this is only the most recent chapter in this tale of deception. On 22 August 2022 the Solicitor-General's advice was publicly released, noting that the principles of responsible government were fundamentally undermined by the actions of the member for Cook. This finding directly challenged the coalition's response to the news about the then Prime Minister's action. They argued it wasn't against the law—a desperately narrow observation and one which shows little respect for the Australian parliament and the Australian people. The Solicitor-General's finding was repeated by the Bell inquiry, which observed that the principles of responsible government were fundamentally undermined. As a brief aside, can you imagine watching an episode of Yes, Prime Minister where Jim Hacker secretly takes on five extra ministries? We would have laughed and laughed and probably thought that, even for this show, they were stretching it a bit too far. But, in reality, these actions were the quintessence of how the Morrison government operated, with a command-and-control structure which inevitably led to mess and mismanagement. So much for cabinet government!

The Liberals' mess and mismanagement is the culmination of a decade of inaction. No matter where you looked, you would find evidence of their mess and mismanagement. For example, when Labor was first elected in May 2022 there were one million backlogged visas; that's one million people who were awaiting a decision that they could come to or stay in this country, build a family here, visit their loved ones or bring much-needed skills to Australia. That's one million people the previous government was unable to help or was simply uninterested in helping. By the end of 2022 our Labor government had processed over four million visas since the election. That meant Australians were reconnected with loved ones before Christmas. And we were addressing the skills shortages the previous government left us and our economy. Despite hiring 400 staff to process applications, there is still work to be done in processing just under 600,000 visa applications.

The Albanese Labor government is also working to clear the backlog of NDIS cases that was left by the previous government, who were too preoccupied with their harsh, unfair and illegal robodebt scheme. The government has established alternate dispute resolution processes to address NDIS appeals, resulting in a drastic reduction in the number of cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The latest numbers regarding the AAT backlog show that 4,401 NDIS cases have been resolved at the AAT since 1 June 2022—a 27 per cent reduction in overall caseload since May 2022, and 70 per cent of the 4,501 legacy cases active in May 2022 have now been resolved. I have seen the impact of this in my own electorate of Cunningham, where, with the support of the minister, my office has been able to bring resolution to the logjam of cases left by the former government. These are more than just statistics; these are brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives who need support to live fulfilling and meaningful lives.

This Labor government has turned to Australia's leading disability advocates and policy experts to help turn the tide on NDIA culture—including former Australian of the Year and Paralympic legend Kurt Fearnley AO, who is now chairing the NDIA board. Only now, in 2023, because of this government's decisions, are there five people with disability on the NDIA board—the largest number in the NDIA's history. Having people with disability feeling as though they are forced to fight for a moderate support package makes no sense. I, like the minister, acknowledge there is still more work to be done.

The Liberals' mess and mismanagement also saw the Australian energy grid and energy users come under increasing pressures. Only the Albanese Labor government is making the investments that should have been made a long time ago—including in my community, where we have invested more than $1 million in a University of Wollongong study finding ways to keep Australia's grid secure through the renewable energy transformation. We are investing $10 million to establish the Energy Futures Skills Centre, located at the University of Wollongong, so we have the skilled workforce to build the grid of the future; $2.5 million for a renewable energy training centre at the Wollongong TAFE—I acknowledge my colleague the minister for skills and vocational education—which will include upgrades to equipment and teaching aids; $9 million to Hysata to develop and deliver new low-cost hydrogen in Port Kembla; and 400 community batteries to store excess energy from rooftop solar generation, like the one in Warrawong in my electorate, which is one of the lowest socio-economic areas. And we are listing the Illawarra as one of the first six proposed sites for offshore wind.

All this is in addition to the New Energy Apprenticeships Program, which will support Australians to train for the jobs of future and help power Australia's path to net zero emissions. Apprentices training in eligible occupations in the clean energy sector can now attract up to $10,000 in direct support, helping them to manage the cost of living while they train in sectors that are essential to Australia's transition to a clean energy economy.

Unlike the mess and mismanagement of the former government, this side of the chamber is getting on with the job of fixing the problems by investing in the skills that are needed for our future prosperity. The bill that is before us shows the government is delivering on its promises to the Australian people, promises that were made to restore trust and integrity to federal politics.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How're the power bills going?

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know how you can argue against trust and integrity, but anyway. These include the recent introduction of legislation for a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, one which the opposition failed to introduce. These measures will go some way to providing greater integrity and transparency around the processes of appointing elected officials to high office not only in this government but in governments of the future. This parliament has a responsibility to ensure that there is an effective system of accountability, checks and balances and strong parliamentary oversight of executive government.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throughout the world, orderly societies function on acceptance of standards of behaviour, standards of behaviour that often evolve over time—over centuries—taking into account cultural values and general principles of common decency and respect for others. Many of those standards have over time become enshrined in law. Others simply become entrenched in culture and carry on from one era to the next. In Australia's case many of our standards and our values arise from our foundation constitution. We find within that the very values and laws which so much of our society is built on. This very parliament is part of those laws and those values, and this very parliament is guided by House practice, previously modelled on the UK House of Commons practice but, since 1981, from the Australian parliamentary practice. It has been entrenched in practice since Federation in 1901—and probably prior to that in the British parliament, upon which the Westminster system of government is modelled—that all ministerial and parliamentary appointments are immediately notified to parliament. The Westminster system of government and of parliament is frequently held up as a leading model of democratic parliamentary process, embracing transparency and accountability of government. Transparency and accountability are critical to public confidence in parliament and in government.

The very reason this legislation, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is before parliament is that former prime minister Morrison, the member for Cook, trashed centuries of tradition. In doing so, he trashed that structure of society here in Australia, trashed our Constitution and, quite frankly, trashed our democracy. He did that by failing to publicly disclose that during his last term in office, between March 2020 and May 2021, he had appointed himself to five ministerial portfolios without notifying this parliament, let alone the Australian people. It was only in mid-August 2022 that this information about the former prime minister's five ministerial appointments became public knowledge—that is, 2½ years after the events began and three months after the federal election in May 2022. It was, to my knowledge, the most disrespectful treatment of parliament and the Australian people by a prime minister since Federation.

The irony of it all is that, because of the extraordinary powers held by the Prime Minister under the Westminster system, none of the former prime minister's actions were necessary. By convention, the Prime Minister can at any time override or replace a minister in a matter of minutes. Furthermore, and contrary to former prime minister Morrison's feeble response, there was no emergency which necessitated the unprecedented action which we saw him undertake. If the then Prime Minister believed he was acting in the national interest, why did he not disclose his actions to the Australian parliament, to the Australian people or even to his own party room? Surely, if there was unprecedented action required and it was in the national interest, the argument could have been well made at that time by the former Prime Minister. But he didn't.

That then raises the obvious question: just why did he appoint himself, and find it necessary to appoint himself, to all of those different ministerial portfolios? He appointed himself as Minister for Health, Minister for Finance, Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Minister for Home Affairs and Treasurer. Is it because he had lost confidence in his ministers but was too afraid to replace them because they might, in turn, turn on him and he might be voted out of office, or was he obsessed with power? I guess we'll never really know. We can make assumptions about what the reason was. Nevertheless, it really raises the question: why did he act in the way he did when the truth is that he didn't need to? Whatever the reason, the lack of transparency and the underlying dishonesty of not disclosing his actions further eroded trust and confidence in parliament and in politicians more broadly.

The legislation that we have before us now prescribes transparency, prevents a reoccurrence of the member for Cook's actions and re-establishes some trust in the parliament. The truth of the matter is that this legislation should never have been necessary, because parliamentarians—starting from the very highest office in this land, that of the Prime Minister—should have acted with honesty and integrity. Had that happened, not only would the Australian people have continued to have at least some level of confidence and trust in this parliament but we would not today be having to try to legislate for that trust rather than have it because people acted in accordance with the expectations of them.

Indeed, real trust and confidence are best assured when those in positions of authority voluntarily act honourably and with integrity. That's when you get real trust and confidence throughout the land. That wasn't the case in the last government, and perhaps it was a reflection of a failed government that for its whole term in office was riddled with acts which caused a loss of confidence in this parliament among the Australian people. This was a government that failed to enact a national anticorruption commission. In hindsight, it's quite clear that the Morrison government didn't want a national anticorruption commission because that commission would then very likely have had the power to investigate actions of the very government that established the national anticorruption commission, and that was the last thing they wanted. They could not bring in a national anticorruption commission that was not independent of government, and, once it was not independent of government, the former Prime Minister saw some problems with that body.

This was the government that pursued the illegal robodebt scheme which we're hearing so much about right now—again a matter that the Morrison government did not want exposed and inquired into. As we're seeing right now, we understand why and we understand how detrimental to the lives of so many people that illegal action was. This was a government that stacked the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal with 85 politically aligned appointments—appointments made simply to carry out the agenda of the government of the day and not make the impartial decisions that one would expect of that body. This was a government that rorted grant funds in a way that I have not seen before. There are many, many examples of that that people can talk about and analyse. The reality is that this was a government that did that each and every time funds were made available for a particular program. This was a government that paid $30 million for land valued, at best, at $3 million. Yet they've never explained why and how they came to that value. I hope there are going to be more explanations about all of that. This was a government that refused to disclose the $1 million of funding to the former Attorney-General and that also cut funding to the only other office we had in the land that might have been able to inquire into government operations, and that was the Auditor General 's office. I could go on about all of those matters that the Morrison government oversaw in its time in office.

The truth of the matter is that the Morrison government was a government in office at a time when there were many matters before this parliament that the Australian people were asking questions about. The last thing that the government wanted was to be held accountable. So it turned out that, rather than the Prime Minister of the day setting up the bodies and ensuring transparency, he did the exact opposite.

I just want to finish my comments with this perspective. As I said from the outset, we live in a structured society. We live in a country that is considered one of the most democratic in the world. Consider this. Had the Prime Minister, instead of taking on the responsibilities of five ministers, taken on the responsibility of each and every minister in the cabinet—which he could have done in exactly the same way that he took on the responsibility of those five—there was nothing stopping him from going all the way and replacing every single cabinet minister with himself. What sort of country would we have had then? Yet the system allowed him to do so and he took advantage of it for his own personal reasons. That is the seriousness of what he actually did. It would have effectively made him a dictator. It wasn't just five portfolios. That simply highlights what could have been possible under that scenario.

I say to members opposite that this legislation is before the House because we don't want to see a repeat of that. It's before the House to try and restore the confidence that the Australian people, I believe, have for almost a century had in the parliament. It's before the House because we want this parliament to operate with transparency and integrity. Quite frankly, it had done so for nearly a century, and all of those traditions and all of that confidence were lost because of the action of one single person, the former member for Cook, the Prime Minister at the time. I commend this legislation to the House.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 is an extremely important piece of legislation, but it's also an extremely important broader topic, because there are few things more important than the integrity of government and government processes and the way in which that is perceived by the broader community. So I'm going to spend a bit of time today talking about the arrangements that the former Prime Minister put in place but I'm also going to talk about the fact that these arrangements were emblematic of a broader pattern of stretching and bending rules, of acting in a way that undermined confidence in some of our key conventions and patterns of behaviour. This is something that is of first-order importance and that we, as a government elected just 10 months ago, are right in wanting to correct, because the behaviour of the previous government undermined institutions that were already suffering from challenges in public perception.

The ANU's Australian Election Study found that Australian's satisfaction with democracy in 2019 was at its lowest level since the of the 1970s. Indeed, it had fallen in a little over a decade. Fifty-nine per cent of Australians were satisfied with democracy. This is 27 percentage points below the level that it had been at in 2007. I contend—I think, with very good reason—that the behaviour of the former Prime Minister when it came to secretly appointing himself to multiple portfolios and the behaviour of the previous government in stretching the rules when it came to allocating funds were material contributors to that broad trend. It's absolutely critical that this parliament, in a cross-partisan way, embrace a different way forward.

This parliament has done so—or at least parts of this parliament have done so—in a range of ways, including by passing legislation in relation to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Passing this bill will be a further step. But it's also important that we change the culture—the culture of the way in which ministers are held accountable in this place, the culture of the way in which ministers interact with government departments and the culture with which we appropriate funds.

I want to go to the Bell report and its findings in relation to the way in which the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook, was appointed to a number of portfolios. Going to the Solicitor-General's opinion, cited in the report, I quote paragraph 29:

While I consider that Mr Morrison's appointment to administer DISER was valid—

technically valid, in a legalistic sense—

that is not to say that the absence of any notification of that appointment to the Parliament, the public, the other Ministers … was consistent with the principle of responsible government that is inherent in Ch II of the Constitution. In my opinion, it was not.

In other words, 'in my opinion' it was not consistent with the fundamental principles of responsible government.

I think it's worth referring to High Court statements on responsible government in other contexts. The High Court, in an earlier judgement, said that responsible government is a system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Westminster system, where the executive is within parliament and the executive is answerable to parliament, in many forums, including question time, Senate estimates and many other forums. That is a fundamental tenet of how ministers, the executive and the Prime Minister are held accountable to this place, but also, even more importantly, to the electorate. The High Court has also said on previous occasions that responsible government is a fundamental, central feature of the Australian constitutional system.

I want to go to another aspect of the Solicitor-General's opinion, and it is, in a sense, a more practical observation, which was made at paragraph 32:

Plainly enough, 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.

That's where this all leads to. At the most fundamental level of question time, who can know who should be asked about what if you don't even know who's holding which portfolios? If multiple ministers are holding the same portfolio, who's going to make the decision? We saw in at least one instance, the Prime Minister making a decision himself, overriding a minister. Who's to say that wasn't to occur in all sorts of other contexts, and, potentially, who's to say that that kind of overriding wasn't to occur in a way that wasn't particularly transparent? It fundamentally undermines question time in a very practical way. But, as I said before, question time is but one of the ways in which the executive is held to account. I would argue that it undermines all of those different mechanisms. Which minister should turn up to Senate estimates? It is a fundamental undermining of the core of our very system.

Let's go to some of the practices that have arisen as a part of responsible government. There is the publication of ministerial appointments in the Gazette, and ministerial lists are published in parliament. One can go to these various mechanisms and argue whether or not they're strictly required, but to me that's not the point. To me the point is all of these different aspects of accountability and transparency are a reflection of how important responsible government is, and how responsible government can only be implemented in a way that is meaningful if it's done in a way that is transparent in a practical way. That kind of behaviour on that side of the House, and I hope across this parliament as a whole, should not be permitted again.

Another aspect of this broader issue of integrity in government is the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I go to that because this was such a major topic of discussion in the previous term of government. The previous government was elected on a promise of implementing, of legislating a national anticorruption commission. We prioritised that in our first 10 months, amongst other important policy areas that needed remedying. The previous government promised to pass legislation to implement a national anticorruption commission. What we found ourselves with at the end of the last term was this ridiculous situation where a piece of legislation was in the public realm, but the government refused to bring it into this place because they claimed they didn't like the signals they were getting from the opposition.

This was one of the more bizarre instances that I've ever seen of a government clearly breaching a commitment. They had the legislation. The legislation had taken much longer to draft and there had been much less consultation than was ideal, but the government had gotten around to having a draft piece of legislation. But there was this bizarre situation where they refused to bring it into this place. I have never seen something so unusual. What the previous government tried to do was to somehow blame everybody else in the chamber for that. They didn't like the fact that we wouldn't give a commitment for its carte blanche passage, that we said we wanted to have a look at it because we said we may disagree with parts of it.

Let's go to the model the previous government, now opposition, put forward. The Centre for Public Integrity labelled it the 'weakest integrity commission in the country' after comparing it with a range of state and territory watchdogs. The former Victorian Court of Appeal judge Stephen Charles labelled it 'a fraud'. The former New South Wales Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy said the coalition's model was 'a farce' because it wouldn't be able to scrutinise and investigate corrupt conduct by politicians, ministers, their staff or two-thirds of the Public Service. We had a flawed model that wasn't even brought into this place, and that was another key element of why integrity was so seriously undermined in the previous term of government.

We have remedied that particular aspect of what had gone on in the previous three years—or one could say the previous nine years—of inaction. We have brought forward legislation and passed it, and none too soon. It's important to note that we find ourselves where we are, with a community that is sceptical of a lot of what goes on in the political realm, in part because of what the previous government did with such an important piece of infrastructure.

I want to talk about the way in which taxpayers funds were allocated in a range of contexts by the previous government. Now this is referred to as rorts, and in many instances it went above and beyond what people could consider reasonable. But at the heart of this problem is that people lose faith in the way in which government allocates funds if governments don't do it in a way that involves good faith, that involves rigour and that involves transparency. As a parliament, as an executive a government, what we need to constantly remind ourselves is that it is important that we constantly retain the trust of the people, that it is such a precious thing and such a fragile thing. In so many instances those opposite pushed the boundaries in a cynical way, in such a way it didn't pass the pub test. Again, we can get into debating legalities, we can get into debating all the different aspects of it in an administrative sense, but so much of it just seemed unreasonable and politically cynical that I believe it was also a major contributor to the public's declining faith in our most important institutions.

There was the $4.8 billion Urban Congestion Fund, in which 83 per cent of projects went to Liberal-held seats. There was, of course, the $660 million Commuter Car Park Fund, so many projects of which seemed to materialise in marginal seats at the last moment without rigorous analysis. Not one of the 47 car park sites promised by the coalition at the 2019 election was selected by the infrastructure department. These are just basic things that they were getting wrong—well, I suppose the word 'wrong' may not be the appropriate word. It depends on what your frame is. 'Inappropriate' is probably the best word there. There was, of course, the rorting of projects under the sports program. Nearly three-quarters, 73 per cent, of the projects that then sports minister Bridget McKenzie approved were not recommended by Sports Australia. Of course, there were the multicoloured spreadsheets, which, for anybody in the community with any familiarity with Excel or anything to do with the most basic IT, would set off alarm bells. This is the kind of example of government administration that makes people cynical. In both cases, we see not just a skewness in the allocation of funds but decisions being made either against or without any reference to departments.

There was the Community Development Grants Program, $1.7 billion, distributed between 2013 and 2021. Safe Labor seats received $22 a head; marginal coalition seats and safe coalition seats received $202 a head; and marginal seats received $84 a head. Again, the optics of this are terrible, and those opposite were not able to demonstrate to us at any point in the last term a process that was transparent or rigorous where these projects had been allocated according to some kind of process of working it through with experts. Of course, this was the program to fund female change rooms and pools in remote areas of the country. As was noted so often in this place—and it became almost an icon of poorly appropriated funds—the North Sydney Olympic Pool somehow managed to squeeze itself in this very low-socioeconomic regional area.

I could go on and on about this, but there are a number of major concerns. One is the sheer quantum. If you add up all these funds, we're talking billions of dollars. The second is the skewness. The third is the total lack of rigour. Of course people's alarm bells are going to ring when they're seeing Excel sheets and no reference to departments or departments being overridden.

The immediate thing we're debating here today is a very important piece of legislation to remedy a breach in practice that I believe was completely unnecessary and egregious. It's a reflection of a previous government that acted in that manner in so many other ways—in delaying the national anticorruption commission and in the way it allocated funds. This bill is very important, and it's critical that this government continues to build on integrity in government to improve the way in which government operates for the sake of all.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The introduction of this bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, reflects the Albanese government's solid commitment to restoring trust in federal government and restoring integrity to parliament. It follows a shameful decade under the Liberal government, where harmful and destructive decisions destroyed lives and damaged trust in government. If left to fester, the Liberals' past performance could fundamentally undermine our democracy. But now the grown-ups are back in charge, and we are fixing the Liberals' mess.

In my first address to the House, I spoke of the power of government to help people, to give everyone the ability to strive and succeed. I said, 'I entered politics mostly because of my beautiful daughters, Lily and Isobel,' and I declared that my greatest wish for them would be that they grow up bearing witness to a fair and just future for our country. This bill will enable that.

Specifically, it addresses the former Liberal Prime Minister the member for Cook's secret appointment to administer several ministerial portfolios, in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The ministries the former Prime Minister adopted for himself included health; finance; industry, science, energy and resources; Treasury; and home affairs. Of course, there have been some recent revelations of new areas that other ministers were appointed to administer without colleagues being aware of it. It is just astounding this happened without cabinet and the member for Cook's colleagues being aware of it and certainly without the parliament, this House or, most importantly, the Australian people being aware of it. It reflects the seriousness of these actions in undermining our system of government.

The advice of the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC, were made public on 22 August last year. It noted that the principles of responsible government were undermined by the actions of the former Prime Minister. This led to the Bell inquiry and, importantly, recommendations contained in this bill to ensure that no such secretive or damaging actions by a prime minister, or any minister, can occur again. We've accepted these recommendations, because the Albanese government knows that high standards in parliament matter—high standards that demonstrate respect for parliamentary conventions like accountability, integrity and transparent decision-making. These conventions underpin our democracy, but under the previous Liberal government rules were broken, transparency in decision-making was ignored and democracy was challenged. It is time to fix the damage done after a decade of Liberal mismanagement.

This bill requires that the Official Secretary to the Governor-General publish a notifiable instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable in the following circumstances: when 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. Further, the bill will require notification on the revocation of any of these positions to be published. These measures will ensure transparency and accountability in the appointment and revocation of ministerial portfolios by making these changes public knowledge as soon as possible. We need that public knowledge. We want to prevent a repeat of the secret appointments that occurred in the past. Without this transparency. it's impossible for the parliament to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Moreover, this bill reinforces the importance of the trust among ministers and in the Westminster system's conventions. The sad and sorry chapter of Australian history that we witnessed should never be repeated.

This bill represents a rapid response to the findings of the Bell inquiry. By requiring public disclosure of ministerial appointment changes and revocations, this bill will demonstrate a truly transparent parliament and bolster public trust in our democratic system. It has been sorely tested, and we need to ensure that the public have faith in their parliament and in their government. It is crucial that we implement every measure to maintain integrity in our institutions.

It should be noted that even the former Prime Minister's colleagues have questioned the member for Cook's actions and motivations and their capacity to undermine our democratic system. As many of my trusted colleagues have already highlighted, former prime ministers have weighed in on this matter. Former Prime Minister John Howard 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.

Similarly, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott acknowledged the unconventional nature of the situation, saying:

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

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull went even further, describing the situation as 'sinister stuff' and 'one of the most appalling things I've ever heard in our federal government'. Turnbull added:

I mean, the idea that a Prime Minister would be sworn in to other ministries secretly is incredible.

These quotes from former prime ministers demonstrate the gravity of the situation and the impact it has had on our democracy. The actions of the former Prime Minister were extraordinary and concerning, and it's deeply disappointing that we must work to prevent such abuses of power from happening in the future.

This amendment will achieve this, alongside establishment of the powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission as the centrepiece. Additionally, we have followed through on our election promise and established a royal commission into the Liberal government's illegal and callous robodebt scheme, which hounded vulnerable people for debts they did not have. It resulted in unnecessary anguish, anxiety and, in some very tragic circumstances, suicide. Passing this legislation will be a step forward, righting the wrongs of the member for Cook and ensuring that no future prime minister will repeat the actions of the former prime minister. It is a sad day when we must legislate to enforce conventions that should be fundamental to our parliamentarians who are elected to this place.

Respect for our democracy and the Australian people should be the driving force behind our actions. None of us should ever seek to undermine those conventions, nor should we attempt to manipulate the system for our own benefit. The opposition's support of this change is an important acknowledgement of that fact. While I do not take pleasure in revisiting this issue—the disregard shown by the former Prime Minister towards his role and responsibilities—it's crucial that we take steps to ensure accountability and transparency in the future.

Our government is committed to upholding these values and I am proud to support this legislation. This legislation represents an important step towards restoring the public's trust in our democracy and holding those in power accountable. Let us remember that we are here to serve the Australian people, not ourselves or our own ambitions. Let us uphold the conventions and principles of our democracy and let us ensure that no prime minister can ever undermine them again. The Australian people deserve nothing less.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 seeks to implement the first recommendation of the Report of the Inquiry into theAppointment of the Former Prime Ministerto Administer Multiple Departments by Virginia Bell AC. That first recommendation requires the publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of appointments to administer departments, directions to a minister of state to hold an office, the swearing in of an executive councillor or the revocation of any of these appointments. This is only the first of six recommendations from the Bell report, and it's worth recalling the conduct of the former Prime Minister that led to this point.

Ms Bell's report found that the member for Cook had been appointed to administer six of the 14 departments of state. None of these appointments were disclosed to the parliament or the public, and, in several cases, the minister who was responsible for the portfolio wasn't even told. Ms Bell described the member for Cook's explanations of these appointments as 'not easy to understand', which puts it charitably. She noted that the appointments were not necessary, as an acting minister could have been appointed in a matter of minutes.

The appointments to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the Department of Home Affairs and Treasury had, in the words of Ms Bell, 'little connection to the pandemic'. They were, instead, made because the member for Cook was concerned:

… that the incumbent minister might exercise his or her statutory powers in a manner with which Mr Morrison—

the member for Cook—

did not agree.

Indeed, the member for Cook's appointment to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources appears to have been made directly so that he could overturn the then minister, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt's decision to approve an offshore gas project. Just last month, the Federal Court overturned the member for Cook's decision due to questions about the member for Cook's impartiality in making the decision.

Ms Bell stated the conduct of the member for Cook had 'fundamentally undermined the principles of government'. She also said:

… the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government.

And:

… the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.

The Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue KC, stated in his advice that Mr Morrison's appointments were:

… inconsistent with the conventions and practices that form an essential part of the system of responsible government prescribed by Ch II of the Constitution. That is because it is impossible for Parliament and the public to hold Ministers accountable for the proper administration of particular departments if the identity of the Ministers who have been appointed to administer those departments is not publicised.

We see this every sitting day in question time, when the Speaker calls a minister to answer a question. And yet in question time under the former government, the former prime minister could well have popped up and said, 'Well, as it happens, I am also the Treasurer, I'm also the resources minister.' This would have been extraordinary, but it was the state of affairs that prevailed under the Liberals.

Just last week we learned that the appointments went beyond the member for Cook. Ben Morton was appointed to administer the Home Affairs Department and the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, was appointed to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. While those appointments were gazetted, the member for Cook specifically requested there be no swearing-in ceremony, no public events, no changes to official ministerial lists.

The reaction from the general public has been one of shock and outrage, but so, too, has been the reaction from fellow Liberal Party colleagues. Josh Frydenberg described these appointments as 'extreme overreach'. That's the reaction he gets from his Lodge flatmate. Another one of the former prime minister's flatmates, the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, described the appointments as 'nuts'. Those are the character references he gets from his flatmates. The member for McPherson, Karen Andrews, said, 'To be honest, I feel the Australian people were betrayed.' She has asked the member for Cook to stand down from parliament as a result of this affair.

The member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt, detailed his reactions in Niki Savva's book Bulldozed. He said that after being told in June 2021 that the member for Cook had sworn himself in as resources minister to block the PEP-11 project, the member for Hinkler considered releasing a statement unilaterally approving the project. He also considered resigning. He ultimately did neither, but only to avoid plunging the government into further crisis.

Then there is Malcolm Turnbull, a former prime minister and the member for Cook's predecessor. He has described the multiple ministries scandal as 'sinister' and:

… one of the most appalling things I have ever heard in our Federal Government.

He went on to say that the most troubling thing about the saga was 'why the rest of the system went along with it. That's a thing I find most troubling.' Mr Turnbull is right.

This bill would mitigate a similar scenario in the future by ensuring that such decisions were made public. It is a bill that we hope the opposition will support, but that is despite the fact that the opposition leader has described the Bell inquiry as 'a witch-hunt'. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition would downplay the Bell inquiry, an inquiry that was conducted by a former High Court Judge, an inquiry which went to a scandal that has rocked Australians and rocked many former Liberals. The member for Cook's actions in these secret ministries were just one of the many ways in which the Liberals damaged our democracy. We saw my own charities portfolio, harm minimisation and environmental charities, including the Grace Tame Foundation, unable to get deductible gift recipient status because the Morrison government disagreed with their political stance. We saw the gagging of organisations that wanted to speak out, from the community legal centres to overseas aid organisations to antipoverty groups. We saw the promise of a national integrity commission before the 2019 election, yet never delivered in the 2019 to 2022 term. We saw the sports rorts scandal, the land grants scandal, the stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

We saw, under the former Liberal government, cuts to a range of important government programs, ranging from the ABC to the Audit Office itself. When the Audit Office discovered substantial improprieties, such as the fact that the former government had paid 10 times too much for land for the new Sydney airport, the former government's approach was to cut $14 million from the Audit Office. We saw contracts given out to entities that were manifestly unable to handle then. We saw money going to entities, such as the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, that were clearly not capable of managing the significant government contracts to which they were being allocated. We saw the ultimate resignation of the sports minister for the sports rorts scandal and the failure of the member for Cook to take responsibility for this failure in public administration.

Australians look back at the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments and shake their heads at the way in which these governments mismanaged public finances. During the pandemic we saw almost $20 billion of taxpayer money going to firms with rising revenue. The JobKeeper payment was necessary in order to save jobs, but we didn't save jobs by giving $20 billion to firms whose revenues were going up, rather than down. Firms from Harvey Norman to AP Eagers received taxpayer money under the JobKeeper program, a waste which ultimately amounted to some $2,000 for every Australian household. No-one in this parliament denies that JobKeeper was an important program, but what Australians were so frustrated by was the mismanagement of our public finances that saw $2,000 per Australian household go to firms whose revenues were going up, rather than down.

This is an important bill which deals with one of the shocking scandals that occurred during the Liberals' time in office. It is probably one of those scandals that will serve as an example in public administration classes for years to come. When Australian students are looking at some of the worst moments of public maladministration in Australian history, they will look back at the multiple ministries scandal as an example of one of the incidents that really characterise the way the member for Cook and his colleagues saw public administration.

In conclusion, these are weighty matters, but it did seem appropriate to add a little levity to the proceedings. So I asked ChatGPT if it could provide me with a moment of light-hearted humour to encapsulate the multiple ministries scandal. It suggested the following, which I will conclude with: 'Apparently Scott Morrison was secretly sworn in as minister for time travel. It's the only way he could've been in Hawaii and Canberra at the same time.'

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A familiar feeling flooded over me preparing to speak on this debate. It was that feeling of incredulity that we had so frequently in opposition at the disfunction and the extraordinary situation that the previous Morrison government put this country into, the trashing of long-standing norms of responsible government, of good governance. Turning up to work some days you couldn't believe the kinds of things that were happening in the previous Morrison government. The multiple ministry scandal—even saying it out loud is an extraordinary thing—was probably the nadir of this. You cannot get a better encapsulation of what a megalomaniacal weirdo the member for Cook was as Prime Minister, and the damage and harm that his saviour complex did to the institutions of Westminster government in our country.

The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 demonstrates the Albanese government is delivering on its promise to restore the Australian people's confidence in our federal system of government and to rebuild integrity in public sector institutions, processes and officials. The bill will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency and accountability in Commonwealth administration. I saw a tweet this morning from the Manager of Opposition Business complaining this bill was just 'an administrative bill about Ministers' and that it wasn't worth the time of the parliament. It really shows that those opposite have learned nothing from their chaotic time in government and have learned nothing about the costs of their maladministration and chaos to Australia.

This bill is about the most fundamental responsibility of all of us in this chamber—the basic functioning of responsible government. When responsible government is trashed, the quality of government suffers. Our democracy suffers. Our national interest suffers. It is crucial the Albanese government acts to rectify the reckless trashing of these institutions by the previous government. The purpose of this bill is to implement the first of the six recommendations of the Bell inquiry. It follows the steps the government has taken to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission—the need for which became, unfortunately, obvious under the previous government.

The Prime Minister has spoken about the importance of respecting parliament and its role. I know that he takes the obligations of his office incredibly seriously. That's why the recent censure of the member for Cook for his trashing of Westminster institutions and responsible government was so important. The fact that that censure was necessary was, for me, a profoundly sad moment; it was one of the low points of my time in this chamber, that that was necessary. But ignoring the member for Cook's conduct would have left us all complicit. It would have left us all saying, 'Well, that was alright; we're okay with that.' Instead, this government is committed to addressing the loopholes that allowed this abuse of power by one individual, enabled by those around him, to occur.

The Australian people now have a government that understands the importance of transparency and accountability, and they are entitled to know who is appointed to administer the departments of their state, who comprises their executives and what offices they hold. We thought this was self-obvious. This information should be available to Australians to find out for themselves, not only when a journalist does, not only when a former prime minister takes it upon himself to brag about his trashing of Westminster institutions to journos writing a book about the dysfunction of his previous government.

Our democracy is precious. As we've seen overseas, from the assault on the Capitol building in the US to the recent events in the transition of government in Brazil, no-one around the world can take democracy for granted. All of us in this building hold our democracy in trust for the Australian public. This institution is bigger than all of us. Our conduct in this chamber needs to look to the big picture. We need to put the institution and our democratic traditions ahead of ourselves as individuals, ahead of our narrow paths and political interests. We need to leave these institutions of our democracy in better shape than that in which we received them for those who follow us. Unfortunately, the previous government did damage that will take some time to rectify in terms of public trust.

As details emerged of the member for Cook's actions, this government referred the matter to the Solicitor-General. We acted. The advice of the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC, was published on 22 August 2022, and the findings were damning. Between March 2020 and May 2021, the member for Cook was appointed by the Governor-General to administer five departments of state: Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs. This was not made public and was only revealed when the Prime Minister told on himself to journalists writing a book about him. In the words of the Solicitor-General:

The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government … 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.

It's astonishing that we even have to say that in this parliament. The findings of the Solicitor-General made clear the need for an appropriate inquiry into the member for Cook's conduct, and the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments was led by Ms Virginia Bell AC, an outstanding Australian. Ms Bell was eminently qualified for the role, having served as a justice of the High Court for 12 years, following an extensive legal career.

The purpose of the Bell inquiry was to examine, and report on, the facts and circumstances surrounding the member for Cook's appointments and the implications arising from them. Ms Bell invited interested individuals and organisations to make submissions, and many did. Contributions were made by current and former public servants, ministers and ministerial advisers, along with academics and other experts in the field of constitutional law and public administration—people with a stake in the functioning of our parliament and our democracy. At the outset of the inquiry, Ms Bell also wrote to the leaders of the minor political parties represented in the parliament, the Independent parliamentarians, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, inviting them to be heard—all stakeholders in, and trustees of, our democracy.

Ms Bell's report was provided to the government on 25 November 2022. She conducted her inquiry with professionalism and dedication. Her report is comprehensive and even-handed. It is an important contribution to the institutional strength of our democracy. Ms Bell found that the member for Cook's appointments were 'unnecessary', as acting ministers could have been appointed 'in a matter of minutes'. The facile justifications of the member for Cook for these appointments—that somehow he needed to be able to take control and save the nation himself, solely, in the face of the COVID pandemic—didn't bear any scrutiny at all. Indeed, the later three appointments to industry, science, energy and resources, home affairs and Treasury, according to Ms Bell, 'had little connection to the pandemic' and were made because of the member for Cook's concern that 'an incumbent minister might exercise his or her statutory powers in a manner with which the member for Cook didn't agree'. It was about megalomania.

The institutions and conventions of our democracy are designed to stop any individual from taking power in this way. It is important that we all assert that this was not okay. The member for Cook has learned nothing. He didn't agree to meet with Ms Bell and communicated with her only through lawyers. He has no shame. Ms Bell described the member for Cook's explanations as 'not easy to understand'. I didn't understand them, either—particularly his assertion in this chamber in defence of himself in relation to the censure motion that, if we had just asked him, he would have told us the secret ministries that he had been appointed to.

The government has accepted all of Ms Bell's recommendations, with this bill implementing recommendation 1. The bill provides that the Official Secretary to the Governor-General must publish a notifiable instrument, which will be registered on the publicly accessible Federal Register of Legislation as soon as is reasonably practicable, advising that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the federal Executive Council under section 62 of the Constitution; appointed an officer to administer a department of state; or directed a minister of state to hold an office under section 65 of the Constitution. This bill will apply to appointments made by the Governor-General that take place following the commencement of the act.

In the time remaining to me, I want to make a few points. Dysfunction has consequences. The former Prime Minister's trashing of convention isn't just a function of Canberra bubble gossip. I do note the shadow minister for home affairs' personal hurt and chagrin at this conduct and her desire for the member for Cook to leave parliament. I agree with that, but it isn't about personal hurt feelings; it's about the hurt national interests. The member for Cook's megalomania had implications for my own portfolio and for Australia's relationship with the world. Echoing his bragging to journalists about these secret ministries, the member for Cook has recently bragged about the way he sidelined my department—the department for foreign affairs—his foreign affairs minister, Senator Marise Payne, and the then Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Frances Adamson, from the development of the AUKUS proposal until the very last moment.

We hear from the same journalist, Simon Benson in an article headlined 'Scott Morrison kept AUKUS secret from cabinet ministers and senior diplomats'. Benson says, 'Senior diplomats and cabinet ministers were kept in the dark over AUKUS.' He quotes Mr Morrison:

It was the most remarkably held project that I suspect many could ever recall … This secrecy was so essential because the second it moved outside those who only needed to know, it was a risk.

…   …   …

This wasn't 007 but it was essential to its success …

I hear the interjections from the member for New England. I wonder whether the member for New England can explain why the former member for Cook told Joe Hockey, our ambassador in the US, about AUKUS. He told George Brandis, the high commissioner to the UK, and he told two people who worked for Marise Payne and Frances Adamson about this but not their bosses? Why was it Joe Hockey and George Brandis? Why are they different to Frances Adamson and Marise Payne? What is the common denominator there?

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder!

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't wonder! I don't know! It's a very peculiar state of affairs. It's a symptom of the crazy dysfunction and personal, individual megalomaniacal nature of that member for Cook and his personal weirdness about Australia's national interest. And, really, this was a bloke worried about national security leaks! That was his justification for not telling his own foreign affairs minister. This is a bloke who gave a TikTok of the deliberations of the National Security Committee to journalists writing a book about him. The calls are coming from inside the building. The threat to the national security comes from the member for Cook, not the people he was keeping on the outside.

This had real consequences for the announcement of AUKUS in our region. Our partners in the region weren't appropriately briefed when AUKUS was announced in South-East Asia, in the Pacific. If the member for Cook had brought the department of foreign affairs in on the process, this could have been remedied. That initial announcement could have better served the national interest.

Prime Minister Albanese trusts his ministers and runs a functioning cabinet government, and the recent announcement of the Optimal Pathway for the AUKUS agreement benefited as a result. Minister Wong; the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, beside me; and the Prime Minister made more than 60 calls into our region—calls with our partners, calls with people who we wanted to understand our rationale of why we were entering into the biggest investment in our defence capability in our history. These calls, this groundwork, this diplomacy, this exercise of our foreign policy, paid dividends. It's reflected in the way that the optimal pathway announcement was received in our region by our partners.

Our democracy matters. It's our most precious national asset. Those of us in this building, and particularly in the ministry, hold it in trust for the Australian people. But it's not an abstract concept; it underpins Australia's freedom, Australia's prosperity and the way that our society operates. It only exists because of the norms and the laws and the constitutional arrangements that our country operates under. We all have an obligation in this building and in the cabinet to put this institution, our democracy, before our own individual political interests.

The previous government trashed this institution, and all of us suffer as a consequence. It's good gossip for the political mills—who left who out of the loop. Journalists like to write about these things, but there were real consequences for the Australian national interest from this, and that's what this bill is designed to remedy.

We believe in responsible government on this side of the chamber. We believe in defending our Westminster institutions. It's one of the foundations of Australia's security, freedom and prosperity. We will do what is necessary to invest and renew these institutions going forward. I implore those opposite to learn a few lessons from the dysfunction of the previous government. Don't tie yourself to the toxic legacy of the member for Cook. We can all do better than that. The sooner he is out of this building the better. But we all need to move on from this and invest in this institution for the benefit of the Australian people.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to speak on this bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, and to follow that excellent contribution from the member for Gellibrand. This is a bill that shouldn't need to be passed because what it seeks to correct should never really have been at risk. We shouldn't need to come in and legislate for basic honesty and transparency and clarity around our system of governance. We shouldn't need to legislate the expectation that the Prime Minister would be straight with the Australian people and that a government would be straight with the Australian people. You would think that, as a basic duty and obligation, anyone who has the privilege to serve in this place would start with that as No. 1 on their priority list when they come into this House.

We know that rules, conventions, norms and sensible behaviours—the sensible observance of integrity—are critical to the good function of government in a way that is very, very substantial, and we know that bad practice leads to bad outcomes. We know that weak and perverted governance leads to incompetent and dishonest government. We know that because we just spent the last several years experiencing that. The Australian community just spent the last several years seeing that up close and personal. That kind of perverted, dishonest, incompetent, unaccountable government inevitably hurts the Australian community, and it hurt the Australian community in this case.

Robodebt is what happens when you have a government that is a stranger to transparency, accountability and decency. That's what happens. Tens of thousands of the most vulnerable Australians get, at the very least, the fright of their lives—at the very least. Tens of thousands of the most vulnerable Australians get hit with debt notices that are wrong and unlawful, and the consequences in some cases, as we know, are the gravest that there can be. There are circumstances that have been disclosed to the robodebt royal commission that involve people taking their lives because the former government, the coalition government, was so awfully incompetent and unaccountable.

It wasn't just a case of ignoring the sensible requirements of transparency and accountability that we ought to be able to take for granted; it was a case, in many instances, of intentionally perverting or covering up matters that the Australian community deserved to know about. It happened with the secret multiple ministerial moonlighting of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook. It happened with the secret million-dollar donations to the legal fund of the former Attorney-General. It happened on multiple occasions. It happened with the secret legal advice—that never saw the light of day until all that catastrophic harm had occurred—that said that robodebt was wrong.

As the member for Gellibrand just said, the one thing that has been notable in the 10 months since the change of government is that, in relation to all of those awful failures, there has not been one skerrick of collective reflection and responsibility from those opposite. Is it too much to ask, when you have patently failed in your obligations and your duties to the Australian people, that you at least acknowledge that, take responsibility for it and apologise for it? Under the previous government, long gone were the days when a minister, looking squarely in the face of the kind of failure that robodebt represented, would not have any particular courage but would just do the basic decent thing and say: 'I have to take responsibility for that.' There were, frankly, multiple ministers who could have done it. They could've had a conversation amongst themselves about who was perhaps best placed to wear that opprobrium, but so far that has not happened to one degree. We've not heard the word 'sorry' once from any of the people involved.

When the parliament gave those opposite the opportunity for a bit of self-reflection, a bit of ex post facto accountability, those opposite weren't interested. The fact is that, when this House censured the member for Cook, which, frankly, was really the bare minimum that ought to have occurred in terms of recognising the gravity of the failure that has occurred and the deception of the Australian people that has occurred, those opposite voted to oppose that motion and essentially to support that conduct, and they gathered around the member for Cook afterwards, smiling and patting shoulders and shaking hands. I understand that. I've actually got nothing against people showing care for one another. The fact that someone on the other side might have taken the time afterwards to say privately to the member for Cook, 'It's a bit of a tough day when you get censured in the House of Representatives,' is okay.

Looking after one another through tough times is okay. But when you all have been tarnished by that kind of behaviour, to vote against the very sensible and, frankly, relatively mild recognition in the Australian parliament of something that should never ever have occurred—a bloke secretly swearing himself into multiple ministries, not even telling the ministers responsible. When that occurs, rather than taking the opportunity to say 'That was wrong. We recognise that was wrong. We don't want that to ever happen again,' and reflecting the sombre and serious nature of what a censure in the House of Representatives represents, you get people who couldn't rush over quickly enough to smile and laugh and clap the member for Cook on the back as if nothing had occurred, and that tells you a lot about the state of denial that those opposite are in.

As I have said, the institutions and conventions that guide the best form of our Westminster parliamentary system are not window dressing. They are not optional extras. It is not the difference between whether you wear a tie or don't wear a tie in this place. They are the guardrails for proper government. They are the guarantors of competence and integrity. They are the buffers against incompetence and consequential harm that follows. If we can't do those things better and if we can't set right some of the failure that we saw under the previous government, then democracy in Australia will be weaker for it, and the quality of government that the Australian people receive will be weaker for it. It is worth noting that the—(Quorum formed) Clearly that was too much truth for those opposite. I mean, why take responsibility and show some accountability for the frankly disgusting behaviour of the former government when you can just play silly games, when you can get up and interrupt people in the middle of saying something that is pretty important? I think the Australian people don't ever again want to see a situation where you have a secretive and deceptive Prime Minister going about arrogating power to themselves in multiple important ministries, appearing not to even remember which departments they'd been sworn into.

The truth had to be dragged out of the member for Cook; that should be recognised. The member for Cook couldn't decide or remember, apparently, exactly which secret alternative ministerial costumes he had put in the closet for his use, and he never ever acknowledged the fact that what he did was wrong or unnecessary. As the member for Gellibrand said, he tried to excuse it afterwards with a whole range of pathetic excuses, including suggesting that it was in the nation's interest and it was better for the nation's defence and security. Frankly, that is ridiculous.

The truth only came out, as we know, because the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, bragged in relative secret to the writers of a book about it, because he thought the story would somehow reflect well on him afterwards—that it would show his preparedness to do anything, in his own twisted version of high-handed, top-down government. Not only did it take weeks and weeks of multiple interviews for the member for Cook to make clear the actual details of the various ministries that he'd secretly sworn himself into, but in the last few weeks we've learned that the former member for Tangney was sworn into one of his colleagues' departments. We've also learned that the member for Cook was very proud of the way that he kept the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs completely in the dark about some of the most serious defence and security matters that were under contemplation at the time.

Australian democracy matters. All of it matters—the hardware and the software, the rules and the conventions, and certainly the behaviours and the norms. Ironically, from a coalition government whose twin ideological themes are, on the one hand, faith in the markets and, on the other hand, a desire to protect and maintain important conservative institutions, we had a complete abandonment of both of those kinds of thought. There was no interest in sensible market solutions to big issues like climate change or waste and recycling and there was a complete trashing of Australia's democratic institutions, norms and conventions. That is something that we can only hope they will reflect upon, but, from what we've seen to date, there's little evidence of that.

Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to keep saying this in here multiple times every day until something changes: it is still astounding that a government can inflict illegal and wrong debt notices on tens of thousands of the most vulnerable Australians and that those responsible can be incapable—as yet—of saying openly that it was wrong, that it was a scandalous piece of incompetence—harmful, immoral incompetence. Not one person is prepared to say that. The coalition parties, individually or together, are not capable of saying that. There's been no ministerial accountability. There's been no acknowledgement at the leadership level.

This government wants to put Australia democracy on a much healthier and higher quality foundation. We're doing that with this bill—which shouldn't really need to be passed—to simply make it crystal clear, particularly to those opposite, that Australians are entitled to expect accountability and transparency from their government. We've done it with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and we'll continue to do it through the leadership and conduct of the Albanese Labor government.

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

I'm going to use a couple of words that we haven't seen for a while, and they are 'transparency' and 'accountability'. They're words that mean a lot inside this building, but out in the rest of Australia people often don't know what 'transparency' and 'accountability' are when it comes to the Westminster system of democracy. But they are essential terms, in the same way that, in the military—as I see the member for Solomon leaving—words like 'honour' and 'loyalty' might be essential. They're words that people live their lives by. Similarly, when it comes to good government, words like 'transparency' and 'accountability' must inform all that you do in government. Government is a messy business. It is not perfect. As they say, democracy is the worst system of government, but it's better than all the rest. Democracy only works when there is transparency and accountability. Sadly, those two words, 'transparency' and 'accountability', are not words we can associate with the former Morrison government. How many times did they, through their actions, fail to be accountable and transparent? Because of my love of poetry, I might quote Elizabeth Barrett Browning: 'Let me count the ways.'

Remember the member for Hume hiding the rises in electricity prices till after the election? Remember the colour-coded spreadsheets of sports rorts? Remember the park-and-rides for train stations that didn't actually exist? That was a Victorian special, I think—more pork than a piggery. Unbelievable. Remember robodebt? How shocking has the testimony at the royal commission been—400,000 Australians, some of them our most vulnerable Australians, robbed by a government. Remember the coalition government failing to order enough PPE at the start of the pandemic, then ordering PPE from overseas instead of backing in our local manufacturing businesses? Remember them not ordering enough vaccines? Remember them picking fights with premiers instead of working together through one of Australia's most difficult hours, through the pandemic? Remember the French submarine fiasco, where we built a big shed for the French? Remember the PM going on holidays during a bushfire disaster, and then there being lies told about that holiday, a holiday that no-one would begrudge any Prime Minister? And just last week we found out that Ben Morton, the former member for Tangney, was appointed by the Governor-General to administer the Department of Home Affairs, and it seems that the current member for Capricornia was included in the secrecy as well. Of course, this was never made public. Even the then Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, said she knew nothing about it, although I acknowledge that she did call it out later, to her never-ending credit. Sadly, I couldn't say the same of the rest of her former cabinet colleagues. They're like cardboard in the rain: they've completely lost their structural integrity.

This leads us to what this bill before the chamber, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is all about—ensuring that we do not see the shameful exploitation of the rules that allow a Prime Minister to secretly appoint themselves as a minister of the Crown. We're doing this because the former Prime Minister the member for Cook appointed himself to five extra portfolios. We have had other prime ministers briefly have a couple of portfolios. I know that we saw it with Whitlam and others, when they were fresh into government, but this was not one of those circumstances. We'd already had the Abbott-Turnbull conga line progression through to Morrison, the member for Cook, not an MP who I would say is blessed with lots of vision. I've seen disused service stations with more vision than the member for Cook. But he thought he needed more power. He made five self-appointments that he told no-one in his own government about, although at least two National MPs knew, after he swooped in and scuttled PEP-11. But it seems they didn't bother to tell anyone, because they were more focused on squeezing some extra stuff out of the deal for the Nationals—not the Australian people. They were just looking after themselves—reprehensible. It's almost as bad as their position on the Voice. How out of touch with the bush are these people in the Nationals?

The other four ministers whom the member for Cook rode roughshod over—including his supposed best mate, the then Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg—had no idea about this set of arrangements. The fourth estate didn't know, and the Australian people didn't know. That's why this parliament needs to fix it so that it can never happen again. We need to take action to protect our valuable, precious democratic conventions. It's a very sorry day to be in parliament and have to protect our democracy in such a way in 2023. We have to ensure that the Australian public are able to access information related to the composition of the federal Executive Council. It's bizarre that we're doing it, I know, for those listening—that we have to protect our democracy. This is how bizarre the circumstances that befall us because of the actions of the member for Cook are. Those appointed to administer certain departments of state and the high offices that ministers of state hold should all be public.

It's with some reflection that I think of the actions that have been taken since. I will detail them. We had the Solicitor-General's advice that what had occurred was incorrect—no surprises there. We had Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Attorney-General establish an inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC, a very well-respected legal mind. Those opposite moaned that this was nothing more than a witch-hunt or a political pointscoring exercise. Maybe that's why they're taking quorum calls throughout the day. I'm not sure. I wanted to know: how was this allowed to happen, who was involved and, most importantly, how can we stop it happening again? As I said when I started this speech, transparency and accountability were not the hallmarks of the Morrison LNP government, but they will be the hallmarks of every Labor government. If the member for Cook hadn't casually told reporters who were writing a book about him what he had done, we might well still be in the dark today. This is why the investigation was required and essential. The final report was provided to government on 25 November 2022, which now leads to where we are today.

The Labor government accepted all of Ms Bell's recommendations, and the introduction of this bill is one part of meeting that commitment—debating and voting for legislation to ensure that such behaviour could never happen again. Democracy is too precious. We cannot allow our system of government, parliament and cabinet to be undermined like this ever again. We cannot have another situation where our prime minister secretly desires to be the health minister, the finance minister, the industry, science, energy and resources minister, the Treasurer and the home affairs minister.

It's little wonder that trust in our democracy is at an all-time low. That is sad for most of us in this place—and I mean on both sides of the chamber—who take our role in this democratic institution very seriously and professionally. I'm proud to be a parliamentarian, and I take my duty seriously. Most of us in this place, irrespective of where we sit in the chamber, are here because we believe in the power of democracy, of representation, of this parliament and of governments to change the lives of Australians for the better. That is why most people want to be in parliament and want to work for those changes on behalf of their constituents. I've been here since 2007, and I would say all but one, two or three of the people I've met in that time—MPs and senators—have been motivated by the same thing: to help their constituents or the people they represent—if, indeed, that is what senators do. The fact that a Prime Minister of this country had such disregard for those principles was shocking.

That is why it was the right thing for this parliament to censure the former Prime Minister. I noted, as earlier speakers have noted, that there was then a queue of blokes lining up to pat him on the back. Support is one thing, but brazenly pushing away any skerrick of responsibility was not the right gesture, I would suggest. The parliament and we here as representatives of the people in our communities had to stand up and say this was a serious breach of trust and must never happen again. It was a sad sight to see all of that backslapping and the congratulations after the member for Cook spoke against the censure. It just shows that they still can't see how damaging the actions of the former PM were and that they were as badly deceived by the member for Cook as the Australian people were.

I know that this would never happen under our Prime Minister and our government, but who's to say that a future conservative government might not think, 'Hey, let's do it again'? So the parliament was right to censure the former Prime Minister, because this must never happen. It must not happen again, because the people who are elected to this place to represent their communities, and even more so the people who are appointed to ministries and to be prime minister of this country, need to be publicly recognised. They should have at their heart a respect for democracy and for the conventions of our system that enable ministers, governments and members to be held accountable.

Specifically, this bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practical in the following circumstances: when the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council, or when the Governor-General has appointed an officer to administer a department of state or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require notification of the revocation of any of these positions to be published.

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 issued by the Governor-General. These are the necessary steps to provide trust and accountability to the people of Australia. They need to know who ministers are. We cannot have a situation where secrecy is at the heart of appointments.

The introduction of this bill shows that the Albanese government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. The measures in the bill will help restore integrity and transparency in the process of appointing elected officials to high office and ensure that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances. Never let anyone have too much power. Never again will one person be able to garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability, both to the Australian people and, more importantly, to the Australian parliament, where their representatives sit.

Lastly, as the centrepiece of returning accountability and transparency to politics at the federal level is the establishment of the powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's something that Labor took to the last election, something that will make sure we take another step towards restoring accountability in the Australian democratic system. I commend the legislation to the chamber.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After it was revealed that the former Prime Minister secretly appointed himself to five additional ministries, these matters were referred to the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. He advised this, and it's worth quoting this statement: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' It's a simple statement. It's clear, concise and simple. Three former Liberal prime ministers of Australia condemned the former Prime Minister for his conduct. (Quorum formed)

That simple statement by Dr Stephen Donaghue KC was followed by condemnation of the former Prime Minister's conduct by no fewer than three former Liberal prime ministers of Australia.

The former Prime Minister refuses—still—to acknowledge how his actions have diminished and impacted our democracy. This is really the fundamental point, here, because some people might ask, 'Why does this matter?' His actions do matter. They matter not only because he was prime minister at the time but also because integrity matters, because transparency matters and because trust in our democratic institutions matter.

At a time not just in Australia but also globally when there is a 'trust deficit' in democracy—when democracies are under fire, under attack, both from external sources and internally, where there's disruption, disinformation and distrust of democratic governance—his actions absolutely matter. His actions have added to the diminishment of trust in our democratic system. From the position of highest office in this country, that of prime minister, that is the last thing you should be doing. You have an obligation and a responsibility not only to your fellow Australians but also to the very core of our democracy—its value. He took actions that diminished that value in the eyes of Australians.

Many Australians see the struggle for democracy around the world. There are many brave people—this is not just a principle—who are protesting in the streets for their freedom, for democracy, and they are dying for those principles. We often take these matters for granted. We talk about them in the abstract.

I draw a comparison: a holder of the highest office and their responsibility and obligation, and the trashing of that integrity, that trust in democracy, through their actions versus a person on the streets of Myanmar, a 20-something protester who is willing to face real bullets to stand up for democracy. Just think about that for a moment. There are tens of thousands of people standing and fighting for their freedom, and for this democracy that we sometimes take for granted. They're fighting for their fundamental rights, and they're doing so in the face of abhorrent repression.

Atrocities have occurred, for example, on the streets of Myanmar. In Iran, there's a revolution for democracy driven by women, led by women—led by young women and girls in high school—who have bravely stood up against a theocratic regime and said, 'Enough!' They're willing to lose their lives for those principles. The people of Myanmar continue to experience the use of force against them—aerial bombing, the burning down of civilian homes and all manner of grave human rights violations that the military junta continue to persist in utilising against the democracy movement. These people believe in democracy. They are willing to die for it.

Crimes against humanity continue against many peoples around the world. Those protesters know what we, at least, know intellectually—that democracy, the freedom that comes with it, is worth fighting for and worth dying for. Thousands have been killed for that principle.

In that context, Australia is one of the world's oldest continuous and successful democracies, and as representatives of that democratic system the least we can do is stand up in solidarity with those people who do not live in a democracy, have had it taken away from them or are fighting for it. It's important that we feel compelled to hear their voices of protest. We can't shut our ears or our eyes to what is happening, and we can't take for granted the hard-fought efforts of previous generations of Australians to fight for the democracy that we benefit from today. Let's be really blunt about this: the actions of the former prime minister in that context are retrograde. They are, effectively, in the eyes of Australians, a complete diminishment of the value of our democracy by the highest office holder in the land.

I mentioned the previous generations of Australians, and we often talk about many previous generations who fought, frankly, against Nazis, and fascism in World War 2, in which 40,000 Australians died. They were fighting to protect and defend Australia. They were also fighting for a better world, a world that was not overcome by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, like the Nazis and what they represented. That's real courage and commitment to what we see potentially in our day-to-day lives. We don't think about democracy that much; it's more of an abstract principle when we talk about it. But it is very tangible and very real when you don't have it. You can touch it, when you don't have it, and you can see what you're missing, feel what you're missing.

We have to ensure that the people of Australia can trust us as government officials in government and in parliament because we do have an obligation and a responsibility by virtue of the offices that we hold. By virtue of the fact that we are elected representatives to this place, we have a greater responsibility to the national interest with respect to standing up and defending our democracy, not trashing it, not diminishing it, not putting in doubt the integrity of the institutions that Australians rely on. We cannot be complacent in that respect—in fact, in the current climate that we face, with all the attempts to interfere in our system of government and in our democracy and all the attempts at disruption and disinformation, we actually have a responsibility to strengthen these institutions. We have a responsibility to protect our rule of law, to protect our democracy and to restore our international reputation for having robust democratic institutions that ensure the people of Australia can again have trust in our democratic processes.

In this place we do a lot of politics, and sometimes it is quite partisan. But there is also substance and evidence to back up what I'm saying. In 2021 Australia received its worst ever corruption score, a global measurement generated by Transparency International. This score is associated with a lack of integrity. As I said, integrity is the cornerstone of any strong democratic system of government, and it's very closely connected to trust. Integrity reassures the Australian people that their government is working in everyone's best interests. For too long there was no Commonwealth agency devoted to integrity issues or to investigating possible corrupt conduct at the federal level. This gave too many freedoms and enabled the former prime minister to abuse the trust of the Australian people. The decline that we have seen, that lack of integrity and lack of trust that emanated from it, has probably been the most disturbing aspect of that debacle. Those actions weakened, undermined and completely diminished integrity in politics. Most of us here know how hard it is, when we talk to our constituents, to find a constituent that still trusts a politician. There's a lot of cynicism about politics and politicians. Well, those actions of the former Prime Minister really added fuel to that fire, didn't they? It's hard enough to gain the trust of the people we represent without the highest officeholder in the land trashing the integrity of politics.

In 10 short months, I think it's clear to say, and important to note, that the Albanese Labor government is changing this. We've passed legislation in this place to create a powerful, independent and transparent national anticorruption commission—something those opposite refused to do when they were in government; they sat on it. We value transparency, accountability and promptly acting to rebuild integrity in public sector institutions, processes and officials. We need this transparency because our system of parliamentary democracy relies upon such conventions. It relies upon the Westminster system and the traditions of checks and balances, and that is what transparency and accountability are about at the highest levels of government—rebuilding trust, something the Morrison government did not champion.

In conclusion, we should never take our democracy for granted. We should never take trust in our institutions for granted. There are people who are fighting and dying around the world for those principles, for democracy—something that we enjoy here in Australia. The former Prime Minister's actions diminished integrity and trust in our system. That's why we are taking action.

Debate adjourned.