Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I think it's very important for all of us who're shortly going to be voting on Senator Waters's motion for reference to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 to understand exactly what this motion is. It doesn't seek to support a bill or any aspect of a bill. What it seeks to do is simply to refer a bill to a committee for inquiry and report, something that we in this chamber do each and every day. It is entirely normal for this chamber to refer bills to committees for investigation so that different parties, different senators, can make a decision as to how they intend to vote. That is why Labor feels entirely comfortable voting for this motion. We are comfortable with the idea that such a bill should be referred to a committee, and it is indeed strange that the government is not willing to even refer this bill for examination. It won't be until we have an inquiry into this bill that all issues associated with it can be properly explored. It may be that the bill turns out to be a very good idea and is supported by a wide range of stakeholders. Equally, it may be that the bill is a very bad idea, or that potentially there is some good in it but amendments may be necessary. But we won't actually have the opportunity to know that until the Senate does its job and performs its usual function of investigating and considering the bill and hearing from all stakeholders as to its pros and cons.

This motion does not require the Liberal Party, the National Party or any senator in this chamber to take a position on the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill. All this motion requires is for a Senate committee to do what Senate committees do all the time, and that is to look at a piece of legislation, so the question must be asked: if the government is intending to oppose this motion, what is it so afraid of? Why are they so afraid of even having the Senate or Senate committees consider whether we should put in place legislation for a new suitability commission governing the responsibilities and conduct of ministers? What is the Liberal Party so afraid of? What is the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, so afraid of? The answer can only be that they are concerned about what such a commission would find in relation to the activities of serving government ministers, in particular the former Attorney-General and now Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Mr Porter.

As we know, the allegations of serious criminal conduct that have been made and still hang over the head of the former Attorney-General and now minister for industry, Mr Porter, are about as serious as allegations can be. Labor's position on Mr Porter has been clear for some time. In light of the seriousness of the allegations made against Mr Porter, an independent inquiry must be held to investigate these matters and to ensure that the Australian people have confidence in Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office. In contrast, what we've seen from the Prime Minister all along, throughout this scandal, is a very clear position, and that is that the Prime Minister will do anything and say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to avoid setting up any such independent inquiry. It's being continued now by government senators intending to vote against this motion, which would merely empower a Senate committee to review whether a ministerial suitability commission of inquiry is a good idea or not. Who can forget the Prime Minister's utterly absurd assertion that an inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office would undermine the rule of law? It simply would not. The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Mr Morrison eventually abandoned that line of defence and changed tack—

Senator Scarr interjecting—

I'll take that interjection from Senator Scarr. I am a lawyer, Senator Scarr, and I have a very good understanding of what the rule of law is. I know that you do as well, and I know that if you were actually able to make an independent decision, rather than being bound by your party, you would also have supported an independent inquiry into Mr Porter. Senator Scarr, in his short time in the Senate, has demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of the Senate committee system, and I commend him for that. If Senator Scarr and all of his colleagues in the Liberal Party were genuinely exercising their own independent thought, then they would be supporting this motion, which, as I say, simply proposes to refer a bill to a Senate committee for investigation. I know Senator Scarr has only just entered the chamber, and I don't make any reflection on him for that. What I was saying before Senator Scarr entered the chamber was that all this motion does is propose to refer a bill to a Senate committee for consideration—exactly the kind of thing Senator Scarr, Senator Smith, Senator Davey, Senator Hume, even you, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, and I vote to do on a regular basis.

Mr Morrison eventually abandoned his utterly ridiculous argument that an independent inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office would undermine the rule of law. He changed tack by trying to hide behind Mr Porter's private defamation action against the ABC. Mr Morrison tried to argue that the private defamation action launched by Mr Porter amounted to an independent inquiry into the allegations against him. I know that Senator Scarr realises that that is also utterly absurd. It is nonsense to argue that a private defamation action amounts to an independent inquiry into allegations, but that is the argument that the Prime Minister made. It was similarly ridiculous. A private defamation action is no substitute for a proper inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for office. But, even if it were, Mr Porter, of course, has now abandoned the case against the ABC, before any evidence was heard or any witnesses were questioned or cross-examined. That is the kind of inquiry that satisfies the Prime Minister—a private defamation action which is abandoned before it goes to trial, in the very early stages of those proceedings.

Of course, now we've seen Mr Porter take the extremely unusual step of trying to keep secret the ABC's defence. If Mr Porter has his way, we will never see the nature of the allegations, the investigations or the defence that the ABC has prepared, which no doubt details the evidentiary background it has for the allegations that were made in certain programs that the ABC aired. The Prime Minister is fast running out of excuses for why an independent investigation should not be held into the allegations against Mr Porter, and I suppose we're all wondering what the next excuse from the Prime Minister will be. Will he now hide behind the South Australian coroner and argue that that's an independent investigation into what are extremely serious allegations against his former Attorney-General and now minister for industry, Mr Porter?

Labor in no way prejudges the allegations against Mr Porter. Not at any time, to my knowledge, has a Labor member of parliament or senator concluded that these allegations are correct. Of course, when allegations of this nature are made, what should occur is that they be properly investigated before conclusions are drawn. But that is exactly the kind of independent inquiry that the Prime Minister and his government have blocked every step of the way since these allegations were aired. Labor's position is that we simply believe that it is untenable for Mr Porter to continue to sit at the cabinet table as a minister while such serious allegations against him remain untested and unresolved. I might add that it is simply astonishing that, in an environment where any reasonable observer would think that Mr Porter should not remain in the cabinet while these allegations are unresolved, the Prime Minister has now taken the extraordinary step of actually giving Mr Porter a promotion. He has actually appointed Mr Porter as the Acting Leader of the House in the parliament. As Grace Tame, the current Australian of the Year, observed in her column today, the position of Leader of the House is a position of great power. Unfortunately, in this government's hands it has been used repeatedly to suppress debate and to suppress an examination of the truth.

That is a fairly ironic, a sadly ironic, situation for the Prime Minister and Mr Porter to find themselves in. In a situation where they have gone to great lengths to suppress any independent examination of the allegations against Mr Porter, they have now appointed him to a position in the House of Representatives—a position which no doubt gets a nice little pay rise with it as well—that has been used repeatedly by this government to suppress debate and to suppress the examination of government conduct in the House of Representatives. It shows again that this Prime Minister is utterly tone deaf when it comes to these sorts of allegations. By promoting someone like Mr Porter to this kind of position at a point in time when these sorts of allegations continue to hang over Mr Porter's head, the Prime Minister shows that he is utterly tone deaf when it comes to the cultural problems within his party about how women are treated.

It is important to note that the New South Wales police did not carry out an investigation into the allegations against Mr Porter, due to the tragic death by suicide of the woman making the allegations before she was able to make a formal statement to the police. This means that, contrary to claims made by the Prime Minister, these allegations have never been properly investigated, let alone tested in a criminal hearing before a court. There has been no completed investigation by New South Wales police and no investigation at all by the Federal Police. With the tragic death of the woman who made the allegation, it is now very unlikely that the police will ever investigate the very serious allegations she made against Mr Porter.

As Prime Minister, it is up to Mr Morrison to enforce his Statement of Ministerial Standards. Despite months of trying to avoid this responsibility, it is still not too late for Mr Morrison to take the steps required to demonstrate to the Australian people that Mr Porter is a fit and proper person to hold ministerial office. The way for this to occur is that the Prime Minister should establish the independent inquiry into the allegations against Mr Porter that Labor has been calling for months. In the absence of a police investigation and a possible criminal trial, such an independent inquiry, conducted at arm's length from the Morrison government, would provide the best means for the allegations against Mr Porter to be tested, for Mr Porter to have the opportunity to clear his name and for the Australian people to have confidence in Mr Porter's fitness to continue to hold ministerial office. Given that the Prime Minister has, up until now, refused to establish such an inquiry, the least we can do is ask the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee to inquiry into this bill—a bill that would be redundant if the Prime Minister simply did his job and acted like a leader.

In closing, I again implore government senators to reflect on the position that they're taking on this motion. This is not a debate about whether the bill should be supported or not. Frankly, Labor haven't made up their minds yet about whether they would support such a bill if it were to be put before the parliament; that is the purpose of this inquiry. To not prejudge whether a bill should be supported or not but simply to have an inquiry to help inform a position that is then taken is a common position for parties to take prior to an inquiry. I haven't been here that long myself, but I've participated in numerous Senate inquiries, the point of each of which has been to inform Labor's position as to whether we would support such a bill, and Senator Scarr, Senator Davey, Senator Hume and Senator Smith have done the same thing. Again, I commend each of those senators for at times suggesting amendments to their own government's legislation, which they have put forward on the basis of evidence that they have heard at Senate committee hearings. That is exactly what is being sought here. All that is being proposed is that this bill be referred to a Senate committee for consideration—to listen to stakeholders, to decide whether we should support it or not, to decide whether amendments should be moved or not.

But, unfortunately, this government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, is, yet again, blocking the power of the Senate and the power of the parliament to inquire into a simple piece of legislation. We know why they're doing it. It is because they are intent on maintaining this cover-up of the activities and the allegations against Mr Porter. It is a disgraceful abuse of the parliament. The government and its senators should support this motion. They should support the right of the Senate to consider this bill. If they don't do so, they are just engaging in the ongoing cover-up that this government has adopted in relation to the allegations against Mr Porter from day one.