Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

We've seen, finally, the issue of this toothless, useless ministerial code of conduct getting some attention. I'm pleased that yesterday this chamber agreed to establish an inquiry to look into two incidents of former ministers clearly—in my view—breaching those standards. I was disappointed that it didn't get support to actually look at how we make those standards enforceable and hold both former and current ministers to account to comply with them. But it is linked to today's issue. We've seen a series of investigations that have revealed highly inappropriate meetings between the current Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Mr Taylor, and the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, and still a minister, Mr Frydenberg, over the issue of whether or not a critically endangered grassland could have its environmental protection removed so that Minister Taylor and a company that he and his family control could conduct land clearing with impunity and not need to comply with federal environmental laws. There are clear provisions in the ministerial standards that go to not using personal information for personal use and to not having personal conflicts of interest, not using one's position as a cabinet minister to try to feather one's own nest financially.

We sought an explanation of what was revealed by the very detailed investigations by The Guardian publication. I feel entirely unsatisfied by the so-called explanation just given by Minister Cormann, who simply says that the minister has disclosed his interests. Well, that's not at question. What is at question is whether or not pressure was placed by Minister Taylor onto the then environment minister, Mr Frydenberg, in breach of the ministerial code, in breach of that rule that you are not meant to put your personal interests ahead of your job as a minister who is meant to be acting for the betterment of Australians. I think that explanation was completely shoddy. Frankly, we stand vindicated. This is exactly why we wanted the inquiry to look into this issue. I had a very low level of expectation of how much of an explanation we'd get today, and I'm sad that I haven't been disappointed in that regard. You can't just brush off noncompliance with the ministerial standards. An allegation of breach is a very serious thing that I would have thought the government would want to go to great pains to disavow if the evidence was there. Just to say that there's nothing to see here will not restore the confidence of the Australian people in the conduct of these ministers. Is it any wonder that members of the public think that politicians are just here for their own benefit and here to feather their own nest when we see constant either actual or, at the very least, perceptions of breaches of these ministerial standards?

It is long past time that these standards were given some enforceability and were complied with not just by former ministers who've now left and want to get paid for selling the knowledge that they gained as ministers—and we're going to be looking into that thanks to the inquiry yesterday—but by existing ministers who actually take these standards seriously. Maybe they would if the Prime Minister asked them to take these standards seriously. The status of this document is the Prime Minister's code of conduct for his ministers. This is really on the head of the Prime Minister, who is clearly turning a blind eye repeatedly to these constant breaches or, at the very least, snubs of these standards. We need these standards to be enforced, we need them to be complied with and we certainly need the cooling-off period extended from not just 18 months, which gets routinely ignored anyway, to a decent five-year chunk. We need independent enforcement of these standards.

We here at the Greens—and I think we have some company in this respect—think we need an independent anticorruption body. We have been pushing for that for 10 years now. It is getting boring to keep saying, 'We have been pushing for this, we need it; look at all of the examples,' but we're not going to stop, and I'm grateful that we have at least some company in that regard. Where is your proposal for an ICAC? There was much talk of this late last year. Pre-election you wanted to look like you were doing something in this space and so hastily announced a body with very weak powers that was broadly criticised by experts as totally inadequate, but we haven't even any movement on that totally inadequate proposal.

The consistent denial and failure to apply basic standards will serve only to reduce the public's confidence in this whole institution. I don't care if the public think the government are terrible; I think they're terrible. When they do have an agenda it is awful, makes people's lives harder and wrecks the planet. But I do think that people's level of confidence in the institutions of our democracy is important and that we all have an obligation beyond our party political views to try to uphold those high standards and to do what's best to comply with those rules.

As it stands we have a very inadequate explanation by Minister Cormann for this whole debacle that has been revealed and has rolled out over several months now. We, sadly, had the chamber yesterday refuse to look into this example and we also had the chamber refuse to actually look into why the code is so useless and how it can be fixed and made more enforceable. We're not going to give up on this. If you think that you can get away with putting your own private interests and those of your family business and try to exert influence to weaken environmental laws and get away with it, you've got another think coming.

I look forward to this chamber continuing to pressure the government and Ministers Taylor and Frydenberg for an actual explanation of what on earth is going on here and how they can possibly justify a sitting minister requesting a meeting with an environment minister to ask whether or not an endangered grassland listing can be weakened or modified so that that minister's private family company can make more money off a private enterprise. I cannot believe that nobody else thinks that's outrageous and that it doesn't warrant an investigation by a Senate inquiry. We will move for that again after the completely useless explanation that we got from Minister Cormann today. He didn't address any of those issues. They are valid and important issues that should be addressed and I will urge my colleagues to rethink whether or not we look at this further because, clearly, there is something fishy going on here and the public are sick of it. We're sick of it.

Ministers shouldn't be able to put their own personal financial interests ahead of the interests of Australians and they shouldn't be able to get away with trying to do it behind closed doors and putting departmental officials in very awkward positions. The reporting is that one of the senior officials of the environment department was invited into one of these meetings. It turns out that that same person was responsible for a compliance action for enforcing an illegal clearing investigation against that same company. What kind of pernicious position is this to put that unbiased and very professional public servant in—to have them in the room when someone was trying to exert undue influence on both the responsible minister and that public servant themselves?

We're not going to take our foot off the pedal on this one, and I hope we will have a similar level of concern to what was expressed yesterday in relation to former ministers Pyne and Bishop taking jobs that looked like they were taking dodgy advantage of the knowledge they gained as ministers. I think we should still have that same level of scrutiny on existing ministers. If these standards are completely useless, just throw them out and give up on the charade of them meaning anything.

Let's make sure that all MPs are subject to appropriate standards. This shouldn't just be about scoring points from the other side, and I fear that's what yesterday was about. We actually need to make sure that these standards are complied with, whoever is in government, and that people in this place are not putting their own personal interests ahead of their interest in doing a proper job. Surely that is the very least that the Australian public can expect of all of us.