Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm surprised that the government doesn't seek to defend its position on this. And perhaps, upon reflection, I shouldn't be. I've seen 189 senators come through this chamber in my time here. I've seen some fast and loose footwork undertaken in defence of ministers and attempts to get around the ministerial code of conduct. I've seen governments, of all persuasions, I acknowledge, faced with difficulties seek to slip and slide when it comes to these basic questions, which the public is, rightfully, concerned about.

These fundamental issues go to issues of corruption, go to the issues of fundamental accountability, go to the issues of proper public administration. I have seen governments seek to avoid their responsibilities, particularly when individual ministers have paid fast and loose with the truth. But I have not seen examples like this one, where a junior minister will approach a colleague to organise a briefing on the basis that he's claiming to act for constituents, in a neighbouring electorate, on matters where he claims he's got correspondence—three years old and on which he's done nothing about—and say, 'On technical matters, the only compliance matter that's before the department, at the moment'—namely, his own company; he claims that this is the purpose by which he is appearing to get a technical briefing. He then, when pushed on this matter, suggests that he's got further correspondence, which is dated six months after the event, in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of some senators in this chamber.

Following that meeting, the senior minister, the Minister for the Environment, undertakes to get further advice about where he could act 'secretly'—I emphasise that word because that's what appears in the documents—to weaken the federal protection standards for grasslands, which are affected by the compliance measure that's being taken against the junior minister's company. Why shouldn't there be concern expressed about any of that?

What we have here is a situation where a junior minister, Minister Taylor, says he has no association with the company, Jam Land, that he in fact partly owns. He then said, 'It's covered by my pecuniary interest statement,' except that it's not. He's met the technical requirements except the main details. He then says, 'Of course I'm going to talk to the department on other matter, except a compliance officer is present in the room.' Furthermore, further action is taken to change the regulations which would allow a review to be undertaken and used to further delay the listing of those areas that have been subject to the compliance action—all done in secret and all done at the request of the junior minister seeking this private briefing. I think there are grounds for an inquiry into that.

Senator Hanson and One Nation, I'm told, are having some difficulty in coming to terms with this. When I went through Queensland in the last election I noticed billboards that said, 'I have the guts to say what people are thinking'. This was the pitch that One Nation put to the people of Queensland. Well, I know what the people of Australia are thinking about this type of behaviour. If One Nation had the guts to say what people are thinking, they'd vote for an inquiry to get to the bottom of these matters and uphold these ministerial standards that most governments say they are actually committed to. This is a government that says it is interested; it should demonstrate it. (Time expired)