John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a ministerial statement relating to restoring integrity to government.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

In relation to the first of those ministerial statements, I will give Senator Faulkner his due. He has attempted in some way to restore some transparency into the system after a fairly inauspicious start. I might say, however, that he is in some respects the white knight that has been splattered in mud from those around him. While I will accept that the minister is genuine in his endeavours in relation to this, this is very much a self-serving statement in relation to what allegedly has been achieved in this portfolio over the last 12 months. Fortunately, all other ministers have not provided a self-serving statement such as that. Having said that, I acknowledge that the minister has attempted to achieve some goals. It is those around him, quite frankly, who have let him down. There is no point in having a white knight in relation to openness and transparency if the white knight is constantly compromised by those around him.

While his document clearly articulated what he believed were the upsides of things that had been achieved in his portfolio, I do not need to remind the minister of the lack of openness and lack of transparency in a number of ministerial offices. Of course, that starts in the Prime Minister’s own office. It finished in the office of Parliamentary Secretary McKew. I do not need to remind the minister—nor do I need to remind the Senate—about the deplorable events earlier this year, when a job was effectively given out of the Prime Minister’s office to the partner of a ministerial staffer. Others in the chamber will know that it has quite rightly been called ‘the CMAX affair’. Senator Faulkner, in a self-serving document—though I acknowledge there has been some movement forward—failed to tell the Senate that the slippage in relation to action regarding the CMAX affair was quite deplorable. The action in relation to the Parliamentary Secretary McKew matter was quite deplorable. I will be interested to see what the outcome is when the Auditor-General’s report is released.

What Senator Faulkner must go into at the end of the year is acknowledging that the standards he has ostensibly set for those around him—for other ministers, including the Prime Minister—have failed abysmally. There is no point putting out ministerial statements that are effectively of what the minister might have wanted to achieve through the year but which, in actual fact, was not delivered. I acknowledge that it was not the minister who did not deliver it; it was not delivered by other ministers, who failed the test of openness and transparency.

I take this opportunity to also refer to the matter of their pre-election promise on government advertising. Before the last election, Kevin Rudd and Labor released a document called Cleaning up government, where they boldly claimed:

Labor will end the abuse of Government advertising. All ad campaigns in excess of $250,000 will be vetted—

and I repeat the word ‘vetted’—

by the Auditor General or their designate.

But the government’s advertising guidelines, released on 2 July this year, make no such reference to the power of the Auditor-General to vet the proposed advertising. So what we saw in the pre-election document and what we saw in the final document were, of course, two entirely different things. It suited the government in the election campaign to talk about these things, but when they got into government they then changed their minds. Despite the openness and transparency that was preached prior to the election, when it came to the crunch, the rhetoric did not match the actions.

The other matter that I want to refer to and to which the minister referred earlier—I will not take up much more than another minute; I am aware of the time constraints—is Public Service ethics and an independent committee, I think; I did not catch the full comment.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ethics Advisory Service.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But when you look at the openness, transparency, independence and ethical background of the Public Service, the one person who has demeaned all of that is the Prime Minister himself by cutting out the coordination comments.

This has historically—for decades—been an opportunity for an independent Public Service to have appropriate input into cabinet submissions. Because of a leak—or under the guise of a leak—out of cabinet—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Fuelwatch.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right: as my colleague reminds me, it was on Fuelwatch. Under the guise of a cabinet leak on Fuelwatch by a minister who was appalled at the policy—which has now been pulled, and quite rightly—an institution that has served governments of all political persuasions over decades was pulled. If that is an example of the openness, transparency and accountability referred to in the minister’s document, heaven help us.

There are a number of other examples. I am mindful of the time. I will not go into those except to mention once more this notion of campaign finance reform. I am pleased that both of the bills that are relevant in the portfolio of the minister and I have now gone over until next year; but, if you, Minister, were serious about openness and transparency, these matters would never even have got into this chamber until the release of your green papers and the opportunity for the joint standing committee and this chamber to take a holistic view of the issue. It was party partisan. It was a political move. The government stands condemned for that. I will finish on this note: this ministerial statement does contain some measures the minister has implemented which I think are for the benefit of all, and I congratulate him on that. But, Minister, you cannot table a self-serving document which sums up your year’s activities without any acknowledgement at all that the standards that you set for your ministerial colleagues simply have not been met.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had not intended to speak on this matter, but I will respond to some of the points that have been made by the shadow minister. First of all, the Australian Labor Party went to the last election with a commitment to restoring a high standard of integrity to government in Australia. Australia endured over a decade of ministerial scandals and abuse of power from the Howard government, and when we took office over a year ago there was a great deal of work to do to repair the damage. One of our first steps was to bring under a single minister integrity agencies across the Commonwealth such as the ANAO, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the ombudsmen, the Public Service Commissioner, the Archives and the like. But another immediate reform was the release by the Prime Minister of his standards of ministerial ethics three days after being sworn into office.

What these standards meant is very significant. Let’s not beat around the bush about this. It means no more fundraisers for political parties at Prime Ministerial residences, no more fundraisers at Kirribilli House, no ministers going straight from being the defence minister to working for a major defence contractor like former Minister Reith, no signing off a grant to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners a week before the election and going off to work for them as a paid consultant after the election like former Minister Wooldridge did or going direct from being the minister responsible for childcare and going to join the board of ABC Learning Centres—that probably was not a really good move on Larry Anthony’s part. We made clear that for a period of at least 18 months it is not appropriate for ministers to transition straight from working in an area to having business dealings in that area.

Along with that reform, the government believes that information about lobbyists should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider community. It is an important reform. In May of this year I tabled the Lobbying Code of Conduct, fulfilling an election commitment to adopt a code of conduct for lobbyists and establishing a Register of Lobbyists. Government advisers and senior public servants who leave their jobs cannot engage in third-party lobbying on issues they have worked on in the previous 12 months. There were very disappointing comments about ministerial staff. I know that it is just politics. I know Senator Ronaldson does not really believe it—he just feels obligated to say it. But under the previous government we saw an unacceptable situation with ministers using their staff as a firewall against accountability. The government has introduced for the first time—it was never done; none of these codes of conduct were brought in when the Howard government was in office—a code of conduct for ministerial staff. In a groundbreaking move for government, this code provided for an unequivocal statement that executive decision making is the preserve of ministers and public servants because they can be held accountable, through committees and the parliament, for what they do, not ministerial staff operating in their own right.

It was very disappointing to hear the issue of advertising raised. One of the starkest differences between the Rudd government’s commitment to transparency and accountability and that of the previous government is our action to end the abuse of government advertising for partisan political purposes. In July, I announced an introduction of our revised advertising arrangements, widely welcomed in the media, the community and by most in the parliament. It saw the processes of campaign advertising placed with agencies, with the public servants. In a major initiative, the guidelines established a requirement that no advertising campaign that cost more than a quarter of a million dollars could proceed without a report from the Auditor-General.

These advertising guidelines were designed to take politics out of government advertising. I think the opposition should acknowledge that this government has delivered in relation to these matters. They have been introduced and they are working effectively, and most people acknowledge that is the case.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they don’t!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they do, Senator. We put an end to spin in government advertising. We abolished the Ministerial Council on Government Communication. We abolished the GCU.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Faulkner listened in silence to Senator Ronaldson’s contribution and I think the same courtesy should be extended to Senator Faulkner.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder the Liberal senators laugh. That committee politicised government advertising campaigns. Now there are no staff, no ministers and no backbenchers, no-one involved in partisan politics, involved at all in our advertising guidelines and advertising processes. What the opposition should do is say, ‘Job well done on this,’ to the Rudd government. It is a way of doing business very different to what we saw under the Howard government.

Modesty prevents me speaking about our reforms in the freedom of information area and in relation to electoral reforms. I will respond to the issue that Senator Ronaldson raised about coordination comments, when he showed his absolute lack of understanding of how government in this country works. These are departmental coordination comments, Senator Ronaldson—through you, Mr Deputy President. They are not prime ministerial coordination comments; they are departmental coordination comments. Any decision for them not to proceed is a departmental decision. It happened in one department—that is true; we know that—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Those processes have been restored stronger, tougher and with a great deal more rigour than they had previously, and most senators would and should acknowledge that this is the case.

In conclusion, and I do not want take up a lot of the chamber’s time, I note that, as the only political party in this country that is older than the nation itself, the Australian Labor Party has had a great tradition of support and respect for the institutions, the conventions and the values that underpin Australian democracy. Unlike the previous government, we are not in the business of rorting the advantages of incumbency. We have made good strides in this area. Of course there is more to be done, but a ministerial statement has been tabled today that I ask people to judge objectively. I ask them to look at what has been achieved over the past year. I ask them to compare that with what occurred during the 11½ bleak years of the Howard government. We will continue to make strides in this area. We care about transparency; we have acted upon it. We care about accountability; we have acted upon it. We care about integrity; we have acted upon it. We intend to do more.

Question agreed to.