John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

'That is right,' says the Leader of the Government—big mistake! But I will have to give you this, Eric, it is the only time you have actually engaged in the substance of the debate at all.

The facts are that Mondelez was listed as a client on the federal lobbyists register until last month, and I understand—as we have heard today—it was still listed on the Victorian lobbyists register yesterday. It was another statement about this matter, this time in question time just yesterday, that is simply not true. In Senate estimates on Wednesday, 26 February, Senator Nash indicated that Mr Furnival provided her with a letter on his engagement as her chief of staff relating to conflicts of interest between his business affairs and his role as a ministerial staffer. The minister was asked in estimates by Senator Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, to provide a copy of that letter. The minister refused to do so. But not only did the minister refuse to do so in Senate estimates, she has now refused to provide it to this chamber. She has now refused to comply with an order of the Senate to provide a copy of the letter. I would say that is a very, very contemptuous attitude from a very, very embattled minister.

It appears that the failure to declare conflict of interest became a habit. There is a standing item on the agenda of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation which requires members and supporting staff to declare any conflict of interest. Mr Furnival attended a meeting of that forum on 13 December 2013 in his official capacity with the minister. He made no declaration, and this also is a clear breach of the standing arrangements for what is a very important ministerial council. There are two key paragraphs in the statement of ministerial standards that I think are of particular relevance to Senator Nash and her conduct, and Senator Wong has mentioned these. The first of these is paragraph 3.2, which states:

… Ministers are required to ensure that official decisions made by them as Ministers are unaffected by bias or irrelevant consideration, such as considerations of private advantage or disadvantage.

The second is paragraph 4.4, which states:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

Now we have codes of conduct for staff and for ministers, and everybody in this place knows it. This is because the decisions of government must be made and must be known to be made on their merits, because decisions must be made transparently and because ministers must represent the interests of the Australian public, not serve the interests of private companies. As the Prime Minister said in the forward to his own statement of ministerial standards:

… it is vital that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence in them and in the government.

The integrity of government processes is a fundamental underpinning to our democracy and to our democratic system. If the Australian community cannot have confidence that government decisions and actions are based on policy not patronage, then we cannot have faith that the votes that are cast are part of the directing government in determining our country's direction.

Senator Nash's clear breach of the standards relating to private advantage and disadvantage has far more widespread and extensive consequences than just the removal of a food-rating website. Her failure to provide an honest and comprehensive account of her actions compounds the damage of her actions. Ministers provide answers to parliament as a crucial part of accountability. It is one of the most important ways the Australian community finds out what is done by the government—what is done in their name.

To treat questions in the parliament and in parliamentary committees with contempt, is to treat with contempt the right of Australians to know how their government acts. It undermines the basic tenet of democracy: that we cast our votes based on the assessment of the alternatives. We have been invited by the government to put the case against Senator Nash in this censure motion. Senator Wong and I have addressed these issues in substance and in detail this afternoon.

This is why Senator Nash's actions are so serious and so deserving of censure. If the Prime Minister will not take any steps to protect what I think are the principles at the heart of our democracy, by acknowledging Senator Nash's egregious failures, and if he will not take the appropriate action then I say—and I hope the majority of the Senate will join me in saying this—the Senate must do just that by passing this censure motion.