Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Well I invite you to tell me which other cabinet minister rings up one of their cabinet mates and says, 'You know this regulation you've got, well it's causing me a problem in relation to one of my properties. Can we please have a meeting with the department and also the compliance officer who might be engaged in the investigation and make sure it's all fixed up?' Who's done that? Senator Sinodinos wouldn't ever do that! Senator Ruston? She has a view about water licences. I can't imagine her ringing up and saying, 'I've got a problem with this water licence. I don't like that fact that the water prices have increased.' That's what he's done. It is extraordinary the lengths this government is going this week to protect a frankly very weak cabinet minister, but that's by the by. It's extraordinary, the lengths they've gone to make sure that the facts don't come out, that he doesn't have to answer questions. We saw in question time the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Birmingham, very carefully saying, 'I am advised'—just a gentle side-shuffle; leave enough room. I think we all know why. It's because they're not sure he has done the right thing. They're defending him, but they're not sure he's done the right thing, because it absolutely does not pass the pub test.

Let's remind everybody of the facts. We know these from freedom of information documents. What they reveal is a gross misuse of public office. Following representations by Minister Taylor, Minister Frydenberg's office in his then capacity arranged a meeting between Minister Taylor, Minister Frydenberg's office and members of the Department of the Environment and Energy to discuss a listing which affected Minister Taylor's private landholdings. Let's just do that again. Minister Taylor communicates with Minister Frydenberg's office and a meeting is arranged between Mr Taylor, Mr Frydenberg's advisers and the department in relation to Minister Taylor's private landholdings. How many other landowners got that kind of special treatment? Who can ring up the then minister for the environment and go, 'Oh, I've got a problem. Could I have a meeting with the department?' He only got that treatment because he was a cabinet minister. That's the truth. And that is what is corrupt. Whether or not he got a benefit, whether or not it made money or didn't make money, whether or not there were any financial implications is actually not the key point. I don't know. The point is that it is a misuse of public office as a cabinet minister to ask for treatment from a colleague in relation to a general policy proposition that is not available to everybody else. That is not about public interest but is about your own private interests. It is actually extraordinary that people who are generally decent, as much as I disagree with their politics, can possibly defend this behaviour.

Another question is the scale and level of Minister Taylor's direct interest in the matters being discussed. This goes to Jam Land Pty Ltd. I saw someone on social media talking about money for jam. Jam Land Pty Ltd was the owner of the particular company. Let's be clear: Minister Taylor has a direct interest in Jam Land. He has it via another company—I think it's called Gufee Pty Ltd—which is a one-third owner of Jam Land. There is no declaration of Jam Land on his register of interests. The government's defence of Minister Taylor is that because he declared Gufee—which is another company that owns the shares in Jam Land—then that's sufficient. The whole point of declarations—the whole point—is that they go to declaration of conflict; they go to the declaration of conflict of interest. You put your register of interest in so that you disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest. How can you disclose a potential conflict of interest if you hide the fact that you actually are, via another company, an owner in the company that has the issue in terms of the property and the environmental regulation? It's just hiding behind companies. That's the government's defence: 'Oh, he declared it because he declared the other company.' That's not a standard that the public recognise.

Now, it's been put to me, 'Well, he didn't make any money out of it.' That's not the test. I don't know if he did or he didn't. I assume there was some impact on the value of the property or the use of the property—all of those issues can be explored—but that's not the test. The test is what is appropriate for a cabinet minister. I again go back to this: when there's been an environmental regulation imposed that affects your property, who else gets to ring up a cabinet minister in charge of a portfolio and say, 'Can I have a meeting with the department to discuss it'? It's only Minister Taylor. He's the only one. Do we really think that's the standard we expect of ministers of the Crown?

I say to the Senate: if this motion is voted against today, I will give notice that I will move precisely the same motion with one change—the date that it will be required. I'll move it again, and the crossbench can vote it down again, because I actually think Australians are entitled to expect this sort of accountability from a cabinet minister. Australians are entitled to expect that this chamber demands that accountability from cabinet ministers. We all know how little regard Australians have for our profession and for the democratic process, and we all, to varying extents, have to take responsibility for that. We certainly have to take responsibility for fixing it. One of the things is: people have to be accountable. It can't be one rule for coalition cabinet ministers and another rule for everyone else.