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

Senator Cormann defends himself and argues against this motion on the basis it is unprecedented. He makes that argument as if it is in his favour. It is not. He's right; the sanctions that are proposed against him as Leader of the Government in the Senate are unprecedented. But they are necessary because of the unprecedented behaviour of this government. That senators from across this chamber with a wide range of perspectives agree that such unprecedented action is necessary should be cause for reflection. When your behaviour—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

I listened to you in silence for the most part; give me at least a couple of minutes. When your behaviour provokes an unprecedented response, it might be cause to consider your own behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, have a look in the mirror.

Senator Cormann argues that cabinet is the cornerstone of our democracy. He's right. That is why it ought not be used to perpetrate a political rort. That is why cabinet confidentiality ought not be used to perpetrate a political rort and a cover-up. Who are the ones trashing our democracy these days? There is a principle of cabinet confidentiality. There is also a principle of ministerial accountability to the parliament. Every day in this place we see the ways in which those opposite disregard that. We saw that today with Minister Reynolds.

It is entirely explicable why the government have such an attitude, though. Frankly, they're arrogant. They've been on a victory lap. They think they own the joint. They think that the last election was the last word on accountability. They think they're unbeatable and that, no matter how badly they govern or abuse their office, they can get away with it. That's what they think, and it is reflected in their behaviour.

I would remind government ministers that unchecked power never ends well. When Mr Howard won control of the Senate in 2004, it was the beginning of the end of the Howard era. Just as the Howard government did then, Mr Morrison and most of his ministers think they're above it all. They think they don't have to answer questions. They think they don't have to be accountable. We're seeing it in so much that they do. We see it in Mr Morrison's interviews, where he consistently refuses to answer questions that he doesn't like from the media: 'That's just in the bubble.' We see it in question time—refusal to answer, obfuscation and disregard for the parliament. We see it in Senate estimates, with complete contempt in taking unprecedented numbers of questions on notice—over 100 questions in one hearing alone. We see it in the government's misuse of the Public Service. They treat it as an extension of their ministerial offices, encouraging officers to take questions on notice and ensuring that public servants are not expected to come prepared or with material. We see it in their refusal to provide legal advice that confirms the government acted within the law. We see it in their complete contempt for the independent Auditor-General's report into the sports rorts scandal. We see it in their appointment of the Prime Minister's mate Mr Gaetjens to run PM&C. We see it in that mate being asked to write a report that whitewashes the government's wrongdoing in the sports rorts scandal, and we see it in the government refusing to make that report public.

Senator Cormann pretends that, somehow, the delivery of this report to the Senate would reveal cabinet deliberations. He knows this is an abysmal failure of accountability and a complete distortion of the principles of cabinet confidentiality. Odgers' Australian Senate Practice makes it clear that it has to be established that disclosure of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations. The government can't simply make that claim, because the document was walked through a cabinet room or has the word 'cabinet' on it. The fact is that the Gaetjens report, like the use of cabinet confidentiality, is simply another step in this cover-up.

Let us remember this: all of these contortions are necessary. Putting into cabinet a document that they have to keep secret, legal advice from Mr Porter that they have to keep secret—they're all necessary because they have to refute the report of an independent statutory officer. That's what all this contortion is about. It's refuting a report of an independent parliamentary officer who both has said that the money ought not have been allocated in the way that it was misadministered and also questioned the legal basis of the power of the minister to do these things. So, in order to dismiss the independent statutory officer's report—the independent authority—they go through this contortion of putting documents into a cabinet process so they can then hide them. But, regardless of whether this motion gets up, there's a bigger question here for Senator Cormann, and I say this to him: is this really the hill you want your credibility to die on—all your years in this place, all your efforts to bring integrity to this place, going up in smoke to protect a man who would never do the same? I hope Senator Cormann acts in this place to protect his legacy and reputation rather than the unsalvageable reputation of the ad man that purports to lead this country. I say to Senator Cormann: I hope he uses his leadership in this place to ensure a change of behaviour, a change that ensures the Senate is not forced to try and take this unprecedented step again.