Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the Abbott Government to be accountable and transparent.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

This MPI deals with the failure of the Abbott government to be accountable and transparent. We all recall Mr Abbott's promise, amongst other things—along with 'There will be no cuts to health and education,' and we know how truthful that promise was—the promise from the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, to restore accountability and to improve transparency. That was what he said. That was one of the things in the little booklet that everybody was holding up as the plan for government.

After five months in office we know the truth. We see a government that fails to display transparency and that fails to meet basic tests of accountability. Instead of transparency this government is obsessed with secrecy. Instead of accountability, this government has misled the public. And one of the most blatant examples of that has been a minister in this place, the Assistant Minister the Health, Senator Nash.

The Assisting Minister for Health had a conflict of interest at the heart of her office. Her chief of staff had financial interests in a lobbying firm which represented clients in the food industry. Of course, this has given rise to legitimate questions about the impartiality and integrity of the minister's decision making. But instead of giving a transparent account; instead of coming into this chamber and giving a full, comprehensive and clear statement about these matters, what we have seen from this minister is stonewalling, refusal to answer questions and misleading statements to this chamber—misleading statements to this parliament.

The Prime Minister's statement of ministerial standards provides:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account—

'and comprehensive account', I repeat—

of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

The Prime Minister's statement further says:

Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the Parliament.

Well, Senator Nash has breached these standards. She has misled this Senate, not just once but several times. This is a serious failure of accountability by the Abbott government and the Prime Minister should ensure that his standards are upheld.

Let me recount the facts about the conflict of interest in Senator Nash's office. Mr Alastair Furnival was engaged as her chief of staff on 19 September 2013. Until 13 February 2014 he was a director and a 50-per-cent shareholder of Strategic Issues Management, which in turn wholly owned the lobbying business Australian Public Affairs. Clients of Australian Public Affairs include Mondelez, which owns Kraft and Cadbury; and the Australian Beverages Council, which represents soft drink and fruit juice manufacturers.

Now, the Prime Minister's Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff requires staff members to:

Divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private company or business and/or direct interest in any public company involved in the area of their Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities.

The fact is this. Senator Nash failed to ensure her chief of staff complied with this requirement in the Prime Minister's own statement of standards for ministerial staff. As the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Nash is responsible for decisions which would clearly affect the commercial interests of these clients of Australian Public Affairs. Decisions like her move to take down the health star rating system website on 6 February at the behest of the powerful Australian Food and Grocery Council have rightly been question in the Senate and by the public. At the time she made this decision, her most senior adviser had a financial interest in a lobbying firm representing confectionery and food manufacturers. To any reasonable person looking at this, it is an obvious conflict of interest; but it appears to be obvious to all except the Assistant Minister. Senator Nash's response to the public revelation of this conflict of interest has been the opposite of transparency and accountability. In particular, she has misled this chamber on a number of occasions. The first mislead was during question time on 11 February, when Senator Nash said:

There is no connection whatsoever between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.

It took Senator Nash six hours on 11 February to come into this chamber and reveal that, in fact, Mr Furnival retained a share in Australian Public Affairs, completely contrary to her earlier statement. And she has provided no believable explanation for this mislead. In fact, in estimates last week she admitted she was well aware of Mr Furnival's history as a lobbyist at the time she hired him. How is it possible that a minister could come into this chamber and boldly say there is no connection whatsoever when, at estimates last week, she said, 'I had known Alistair Furnival for a long period of time, and I was very well aware of his previous employment and his previous work history'? All of a sudden she simply forgot it—as a minister coming into this chamber and answering questions in question time. It simply does not stack up.

The second mislead is in relation to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. During question time on 13 February Senator Nash said one of the reasons the website was removed was that

…the forum took a unanimous decision to have an extensive cost-benefit analysis done that was due to report back to the forum in June this year. It was premature to have the website live until this report was completed.

The communique from the forum shows that it took no such decision—unanimous or otherwise. All it shows is that the minister informed the forum that she would direct the department to undertake an analysis; it makes no reference to the website. The decision to take down the website at a time when her chief of staff had interests in the food industry was all Senator Nash's own work. The minister sought to create in this chamber the impression it was a decision of the forum, in an attempt to justify her compromised decision. The fact is she went too far. But she has refused to correct this misleading statement.

Senator Nash's third mislead was her claim that Mr Furnival had resigned from all related companies. In estimates last week Senator Nash said that, after she had engaged Mr Furnival, he maintained a strict separation from Australian Public Affairs and 'resigned as a director from all the related companies'. That is what she said. I invited Senator Nash on a number of occasions in Senate estimates to correct the record. She said Mr Furnival had resigned as a director from all related companies. That was a statement that was not true. Mr Furnival continued to be a director until 13 February 2014—another mislead by this minister.

There was plainly a conflict of interest. It demonstrates a complete lack of judgement and understanding of her responsibilities that the minister continues to refuse to recognise it. Ministerial accountability to the parliament is fundamental to our system of government. It is fundamental that ministers take the responsibility to be truthful and accurate to this chamber; it is a weighty responsibility. The facts demonstrate that this minister has not done so. She has breached the ministerial standards. There was a conflict of interest at the heart of her office and, when it emerged, she has tried to cover it up by misleading the Senate. As the facts have come to light, she has continued to mislead the parliament and has refused to accept responsibility. She has comprehensively walked away from the principle of ministerial accountability, which is so important to our government. And she has been allowed to do so by a Prime Minister and a government which has failed to uphold its own standards. There has been a complete lack of transparency, a failure of accountability. This has been the first big test of the integrity of this government, and they have failed it comprehensively. Instead of treating this chamber with some respect, instead of coming in here and saying, 'I got it wrong; I'm going to comprehensively answer this question; I'm going to comprehensively account for my actions,' what we have continued to see week after week since this was raised is the minister refusing to account for her actions, continuing to mislead the Senate, and providing misleading answers. This is a minister who has not lived up to either the explicit statement of standards or the principles of ministerial responsibility.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that those opposite have absolutely no shame whatsoever. Today, on the day you have put up this motion, your former president, Michael Williamson, has been remanded in custody. You have put up this motion as Craig Thomson is awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of fraud and deception. Those opposite have absolutely no shame whatsoever, coming into this place today with this absolutely absurd motion. I would have thought, Senator Wong, that experience would have told you this sort of behaviour is totally inappropriate. Here you are today, bleating about this and making accusations about Senator Nash. I would remind you that you sat there for 18 months while the then Minister Carr was foreign minister. You were not concerned about his shareholdings, were you? And let's not forget that Bob Carr owned a lobbying company the whole time that he was minister, despite that being against the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. Documents in the former Prime Minister's office on this issue mysteriously disappeared after Julia Gillard was deposed.

I would remind those opposite that Bob Carr was the sole owner of a lobbying company, R J Carr Pty Ltd, for the entire 18 months that he was foreign minister. He claimed it was dormant, but this still contravened former Prime Minister Gillard's Standards of Ministerial Ethics, which required divestment. Section 2.9, dealing with shareholdings, requires:

… that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business …

R J Carr Pty Ltd was listed with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as operating from Senator Carr's electorate office, until Senator Fifield raised this in estimates. In answer to a question on notice, former Prime Minister Gillard said that then Senator Bob Carr's:

… arrangements are consistent with the standards of ministerial office.

That was a blatant lie, unless she was evasively quibbling with the word 'office,' as opposed to the Standards of Ministerial Ethics.

Senator Abetz FOI-ed the relevant documents on this matter from former Prime Minister Gillard's office. He was told that they were not official documents of the minister. However, the Information Commissioner formed the preliminary view that they were indeed official documents. Despite former Prime Minister Rudd—on replacing then Prime Minister Gillard—securing the documents, a search conducted in August 2012 found the documents were no longer held. Those opposite come in here today and make accusations, when this saga shows Labor flouted ministerial standards and resorted to covering its tracks by losing documents which should have been held.

I now turn to the issue of Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson. There is no doubt that those opposite had been running a protection racket and that has been bandied about. That is precisely what they have done in recent years. There have been any number of quotes on the record where people were asked about Mr Thomson and his activities. As those opposite know, I have spent considerable time, since August 2011, delving into these matters in a lot of detail.

August 2011 was the first time I spoke on the record on this matter. I talked at that time about Mr Thomson's legal costs and asserted that they could be up to one-quarter of a million dollars and invited then senator Mark Arbib, who obviously knew a lot about it, to tell us all about it. He sat there time and time again, after I made this allegation, and said absolutely nothing. Why? Because those opposite knew precisely that the Labor Party was protecting Mr Thomson and paying his legal fees. Indeed, as Senator Dastyari has virtually admitted, the legal costs were about $350,000. Yet those opposite sat there and protected Mr Thomson. You have quote after quote where people, such as Ms Gillard, Dr Emerson, Mr Albanese and many other Labor figures, repeatedly showed their support for the then member for Dobell.

Let us look at those legal fees. Surely, the Labor Party must have known the weasel words that Mr Thomson was putting on the Register of Members' Interests. We know that he failed twice to disclose interests on the register of interests, including in relation to his legal fees. His correspondence to the registrar was carefully couched, only referring to a sum of money being paid. He also stated that he had an open account with Kalantzis Lawyers. The register of interests also disclosed that he had no interest in real estate and that his home was owned by his wife. The other day the Darlinghurst offices of Schapelle Corby's lawyer, Bill Kalantzis—interestingly, the same law firm as Mr Thomson's—was raided by the AFP last week amidst speculation of the $2 million paid by Channel 7. Perhaps the AFP should have looked a little bit harder; they may have found some Thomson documents.

I now return to the issue of Mr Thomson and the protection of him by those opposite. I have pursued this matter, particularly in relation to documents held by a Senate committee relevant to the Fair Work Australia report. Those opposite, when in government, protected those documents and refused their release. When I sought documents on matters relating to the jobs incubator on the Central Coast, Minister Kim Carr—who stood here today asking questions about Senator Nash—sat there and protected Mr Thomson, along with their Green alliance partners over there, who always talk about transparency and bleat about openness in government, and refused disclosure of those documents.

Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, those opposite will do everything they possibly can to ensure that those documents relevant to the Fair Work Australia report—there are eight folders—are not released, because they have something to hide. That is why those documents have not been released. The short question that I ask those opposite is: who knew what and when, and what should they have known about both Mr Williamson and Mr Thomson that they hid for so many years?

It is hypocrisy to come into this place today, on the very day that your former HSU president has been remanded in custody on a range of fraud and deception of the HSU membership and on the day that we are awaiting the sentencing of Mr Thomson, who has also been found guilty of fraud and deception. We all know the old proverb that a fish stinks from the head down. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, this is very much the case. When you have your president engaging in the sort of corrupt behaviour Mr Williamson was engaging in—as well as people who head unions like the HSU, like Mr Thomson—it shows how deep the corruption must go in the union movement and those it supports on the other side. That is why I would like to conclude my comments by saying that this is precisely the reason there is a need for a royal commission into the alleged financial irregularities associated with the affairs of the trade union movement. And that is why it is vitally important that we establish the Registered Organisations Commission to introduce some effective governance for trade unions and to help prevent such conduct occurring in the future.

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of extreme public importance—the failure of the Abbott government to be accountable and transparent. The people of this country put a huge amount of trust in the men and women of this chamber and of the other place to represent them—not to represent the concerns of foreign countries or companies but to represent the people who elected them and who pay their salaries. I understand that some secrecy needs to be involved when it comes to running the country—defence plans, for instance, are best kept under wraps to protect lives. However, successive governments have moved too far into the shadows, and phrases like 'national security', 'sovereign risk' and 'commercial-in-confidence' are often touted in answer to a question the government does not want to answer.

I understand that not everything can be divulged. But when politicians act with integrity and there is a certain continuity in how issues are handled, the public can have a bit of faith that the government is acting in their best interest behind the scenes. There are many in the public who now have no faith that the government is acting in their interest. How can they be when everything is happening behind closed doors? I support open, honest and transparent government. It is clear that some in this place do not. I stand here today reminding the government that a push for transparency and the conduct of a witch-hunt against unions can be sincere only if one has tunnel vision. For some to suggest that illegal behaviour exists only in the union movement is a fallacy. The law is the law. Prosecute the law without fear or favour. Hold those to account no matter who or what they are. That is the only way to be truly just, fair and accountable. The public deserves transparency, honesty and integrity. We must practice what we preach. Please do not bring parliament further into disrepute. Stop throwing stones at each other and learn from past mistakes. It does not absolve anyone's behaviour when they try to justify that behaviour in terms of the behaviour of someone else. We are accountable for our individual actions and failures. Pointing at the failures of others does not absolve us of our own failures.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Madigan: you have actually picked up many of the points I was going to make. But it does not hurt to reinforce them. In terms of the issues around accountability and transparency, we talk much in this place about our responsibilities and the fact that to have the faith of the public we need to ensure that governments and indeed parliaments actually operate in a way that enshrines the issues of transparency and accountability.

In the last sitting week we had a series of questions around the issues surrounding Senator Nash. It was due process in terms of questioning from this side of the House, which we continued today, about a line of events in relation to free and open exchange from the minister to the parliament about what had gone on in her office with her interactions with her staff members. That, in my opinion, as I said at the time, was the job of this parliament. In taking note of answers—which I know is the high point of our day in this place!—what absolutely confounded me was the argument put by members of the government that we had no right to question the minister and, going further, that it was some kind of personal attack on her, and that she was known as a person of integrity.

That caused me great concern in terms of the argument around questioning a minister about process. It is our job to ensure that questions are asked about the probity of decision-making processes. I do not want to pre-empt what you are going to say, Senator Smith, if you are part of this debate—you might remember some of the questions we had at estimates. Again, the arguments were that we were wasting the time of the estimates committee in continuing lines of questioning around the sequence of what occurred. That is exactly the point: we are there to ask questions. It is not an issue of whether we get the answers we like or not. It is an issue of whether the answers fully explain what occurred and, if there is any variation in the answers that come forward, that we are able to identify that so that we have a clear understanding of what happened. And, more than us having that clear understanding, it is important that the people in the wider Australian community can trust decisions being taken in this place—that they can be sure that ministers and parliamentary committees are all fulfilling the trust they have placed in us, which is following through on what the job is about and making sure the statements made in this place are accurate and, if they are not, that they are put back and corrections made so that we know what has gone on.

During the last sitting week it was said by members of the government that there was no need to do this, therefore it was not our role. I strongly object to that. When the coalition took up their order to form government this time they were very clear that they were going to uphold the highest standards of accountability and transparency. They must be held accountable for that statement. They were very quick. Senator Fierravanti-Wells in her contribution went through the kinds of statements and questions that she asked when on this side of the chamber—at length, very often—about issues happening in the then government. That was her job. What we heard today was not any defence of Senator Nash but rather throwing across the chamber, 'Well, you guys did it worse'. As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Ruston—you have heard me say this many times in this place—that is just not a good enough argument: just throwing grenades across this place, to use a full defence metaphor, is not the way to ensure that we are going to get the best practice now.

We need to know what is happening in today's government, what issues they are taking seriously and how they respond to us. As to Senator Nash's position: we will continue to ask those questions, to find out exactly what occurred in terms of any conflict of interest. In this case serious questions are being asked in the wider community about decisions around the websites and the influence in the department and the minister's office that would lead to taking actions that did not reflect what people thought was going on. That has been one of our major concerns about this issue: having that absolute trust that what it is said has occurred is in fact what has occurred.

The other area I want to touch on is that we have seen a number of advisory boards and organisations that have been ceased by the government without explanation. My understanding is that the people whose tenure was finalised found out through the media that they had lost their positions rather than through any personal contact from a minister or a minister's office explaining the situation—again, not a process that would create a great deal of trust.

I cannot take part in this debate without some discussion about Senator Cash's response to this whole issue of the activities related to what we now call 'stopping the boats'. When we were in government we were asked consistently about every possible detail that was going on with the number of refugee boats that were arriving—of course, we called them refugees, but they are not called that anymore; I can't even remember the title but people are being depersonalised to such an extent that they are not people. Nonetheless, there was a clear understanding that there was absolute knowledge in this place and in the wider community about what was going on. And there were great demands by the then opposition to ensure that all the data was accurate, that we actually knew what was happening, that we could respond to questions about what was going on.

No sooner did the government change then there was no longer the opportunity have questioning in the parliament or to find out at any time what was happening. We had to wait until the Friday briefing sessions before there could be any exchange of information about what was happening on an issue the government themselves claimed was the most important issue they were taking up at the time. We did ask regular questions in this place about what was happening and we were told by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration that we would need to wait until Friday, when the ministerial briefing would occur, because it was 'an issue of national security'. Senator Madigan, you actually referred to the way that those terms can be used to obfuscate and to stop openness and transparency in debate and in any kind of process relating to finding information.

It was not just the parliament that raised its concerns about this new way of sharing information in this important area. The media themselves, who had actually been working so closely in the previous parliament when the then opposition was making its statements about this issue, received regular information at that time—but no longer. Now it is by a determination of the minister what, when and how information can be shared, in such an important area. We just get stonewalled. It is not the business of the parliament; it is not the business of the community; it is the business of the minister to determine when information can be shared.

Not only were we told it was an issue of national security; we were actually told, in the most offensive way, that by having the information we were in some way aiding the people-smuggling industry. I find that to be without any kind of defence. If we can throw allegations around without fulfilling that information sharing process, it defeats the purpose of why we are in parliament. It is the job of this parliament to ask questions. It is the job of this parliament to receive answers. It is the job of this parliament to have confidence that there is goodwill about exchanging accurate information—and, if that cannot occur for whatever reason, full explanation of why not is required rather than just the stonewalling rejection of any right of people to have their questions answered.

If we are going to be absolutely transparent and accountable there has to be clear understanding of what that means. It means that, within the parliament, we are convinced that there is a commitment that there will be information shared and that the process is treated with respect rather than just a waste of time.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in bringing this motion forward leaves me almost speechless. We spent the last three or four years dealing with perhaps the biggest expenditure by the Australian government in any field—and that, in a business enterprise: the NBN—and could we get any information at all from the ALP government about that?

They did not do a cost-benefit analysis that looked carefully at the NBN, and Senator Conroy would never give any information, and any question to him was responded to with threats and bullying, as was the way of then Labor ministers.

The Labor Party, with the support of the Greens and the then Independents, set up this dodgy committee that was supposed to be giving all the information on the NBN to everyone. Even Senator Ludlam used to complain of this committee that we could never get any information. That is just one example of the way the Labor Party ran the government without any information and without any real accountability. There were so many requests for documents in the term of the Labor government. Did the Greens or Labor worry about that then? Of course not. But suddenly there is a whole new regime and, when documents about national security matters are asked about and there is a refusal to give them, we have this mock outrage.

Let me go to that briefly—it is a matter for a wider debate in legislation coming up. The Labor Party people are complaining that no information is being given to them about certain aspects of Operation Sovereign Borders. Yet, at a committee meeting attended by ALP and Greens senators, the minister actually said that this was a matter of national security but, because they were parliamentarians and entitled to information, he would give them a private briefing. He said, 'Come and see me and the department and we will tell you what you want to know. But we do not think it is in Australia's interest that the information should be broadcast so that people-smuggling criminals know exactly what it is'. But did the Labor Party take that up? I think perhaps they did—I do not want to wrongly accuse them. But, of course, the Greens refused. They want the information on the public record. To what end? Tell me. How is that impacting upon the human rights of Australians or on the ways of the Australian government? It is stopping a problem that the previous government not only was incapable of stopping but actually positively encouraged.

That covers that point. I heard some of the previous speakers complaining that they could not ask questions at estimates. The reason they could not ask questions, I have to say—without being too offensive—is that most of them did not have the gumption to ask the questions that would give them the answers they were seeking. From Senators Wong, Carr and Conroy we would get long speeches, long political statements, without questions at the end. And all Senator Conroy could do was hurl abuse at public servants and Defence officers, who were really not in a position to defend themselves, instead of asking a question. Then we had the outrageous proposition at estimates that estimates was only for opposition senators and that government senators who wanted a bit of information and accountability from the government should not be allowed to talk. How about that?

As I keep saying to Labor senators, we are not like them. People on the government side may, equally, want to hold their own government to account. We do not just sit back and take whatever the ministers say as gospel. Most backbench senators want to put their questions to government ministers. They want accountability. They are not always just prepared to accept—as the Labor Party did—a pat on the head and to be told, 'There, there. It'll be right. Don't you worry about that.' So this proposition that only opposition senators can ask questions at estimates is another element to this whole question. The Labor Party want accountability but only accountability for Labor Party senators.

Then, I heard a previous speaker in this debate complaining that Senator Nash would not give them any information. I have sat in this chamber and heard Senator Nash be questioned on any number of occasions, and she has answered every question factually, moderately, sincerely and with the actual facts before her. When I happened to ask some questions at the estimates committee I could not get a chance to get in there because there were two Labor senators who, rather than asking questions, seemed to be making political statements and accusations against Senator Nash. And Senator Nash answered fully and fairly on any matter she was asked for information about. Also, the secretary of the department, in what I felt was a very professional exercise, answered things fairly and squarely, but she also was subject to abuse from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who called her a straw man. This is the sort of thing you get from the Labor Party these days. If the public servants do their job professionally and it does not suit the Labor Party, they also get abused. The secretary, who was a woman, was called a straw man by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

There was plenty of time for information. The estimates process, which has been in place for decades now, is there for senators to get information. But to get the information you actually have to ask questions. You cannot just go in there and make long political statements and abuse officials and military officers and then complain that you could not get any accountability. If the opposition and Greens senators did estimates 101 they would learn that if you ask questions at estimates you can get information, and often you can use the information to your own political advantage. But the current lot of Labor senators do not seem to understand this, because they abrogate their responsibilities and waste their time by hurling abuse and making political statements rather than asking questions.

We are an open and accountable government, unlike the previous government. I only had time to mention the NBN. Time would not permit me to go through all of the occasions when the Labor Party, in government, abrogated any responsibility for accountability and transparency. In contrast, this government do.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not normally bother with these MPI debates—and I suspect people outside the building do not normally bother with them either—but this one was too good to resist. The subject of transparency and accountability is one that is very close to my heart. This is a government that is largely following, I acknowledge, in the footsteps of the previous government and the one before that in getting the balance between transparency and privacy deliberately and profoundly wrong. I will speak of transparency first and accountability later. It is this government that has perfected the asymmetry in which the state is steadily withdrawing behind a curtain of national security—which means whatever the Attorney General says it means. I understand 'national security' to mean protection from threats of organised violence or other forms of serious harm from state or non-state actors. To most people, national security does not include spying on the Timorese government with the aim of strengthening the hand of Australian gas corporations. It does not include stoking fear of refugees fleeing war and violence in our region. National security has nothing to do with Occupy Melbourne, climate change campaigners, the trade union movement, farmers locking the gate or the publication of material in the public interest by working journalists, whether they be at TheGuardian, the ABC or the WikiLeaks organisation. National security has nothing, in fact, to do with the all-out assault on privacy undertaken by the US NSA and its partner organisations, including those here in Australia.

Senator Brandis, as the first law officer of this country, is the most dismal exponent of hiding behind fluid and ambiguous definitions of national security in order to shroud the ordinary operations of government in secrecy. One half of this agenda, demanded with numbing repetition by the same familiar faces in the Attorney General's Department, is massive transparency for ordinary people: data retention schemes and ubiquitous warrantless surveillance—to the extent that we are now seeing more than 300,000 rubber-stamped data requests every single year.

The other half of the agenda is maximum secrecy around the operation of government. Whether it is Minister Scott Morrison hiding behind the uniforms of the Royal Australian Navy or Senator Brandis's smug refusal to inform the Australian public why he insists on calling Edward Snowden a traitor, we can see an entrenched pattern of behaviour. It is about secrecy for government but transparency for everyone else.

It was the cypherpunks who first pointed out this tension between privacy and transparency, as long ago as the early 1990s, as well as the degree to which governments and corporations were deliberately and systematically engaged in tipping the balance in the direction of authoritarianism. Ordinary people have a right to privacy; governments have an obligation of transparency.

I have a copy here of 1984. It was written by George Orwell in the year 1948 and published in 1949. It is a vividly realised dystopia in which the surveillance state has become completely ubiquitous. Here is a short passage from early in this profoundly important and disturbing novel:

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. but at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

I guess we can forgive Mr Orwell for not foreseeing the advent of cameras that see in the infra-red spectrum. So now there is not necessarily any privacy even in darkness. Ordinary people have a right to privacy and governments have an obligation of transparency. I am sending a copy of this book to Senator Brandis to help fill out his brand-new $15,000 bookshelf. The book was intended as a warning, not an instruction manual. Let us hope, when it finds pride of place on his $15,000 bookcase, that he eventually gets around to reading it.

I said I would get to the subject of accountability. This government thought they would not be accountable until the 2016 general election, so they set about doing all the revolting stuff straightaway, presumably in order to spend the next year or two talking about tax cuts. But it has all come unstuck, which perhaps accounts for the deer-in-the-headlights stares of Liberal senators these last few weeks. They are going to be held accountable now, in a matter of only a few weeks, when Western Australian voters determine the final balance of numbers in this, the Australian Senate. I will do what I can to ensure that, when people go to the polls in WA, the drive towards secrecy in government—and the annihilation of privacy for everyone else—is thrown sharply into reverse.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see, Senator Ludlam, that it may be your fault if there is an extension required for the bookshelf! This matter of public importance debate goes to the heart of the problem with the Liberal-National Party government. As I have said before in this House, this is a government wedded to secrecy. They operate in the shadows and hide themselves from scrutiny by the media, the public and this parliament. I can understand, on a certain level, why this is so. It is because every time they have shown who they are and what they are doing, the public recoils. This is not the government the public were promised.

There is no greater example of the Abbott government's secrecy than Operation Sovereign Borders. This is a policy where secrecy knows no bounds, where there is no matter that cannot be considered operational and no area that cannot be deemed off limits. The truth is that we do not know for certain what is happening on or off our waters. Both sides of politics want to reduce the loss of life at sea. That is why the former government worked for years to get the support of the parliament to put in place measures that would work. The coalition government's lack of transparency over its immigration policies is, however, unprecedented. They do not even answer basic questions from the media or the public. Even the once infamous 'no comment' weekly press conferences have been canned. They do not even have those any more.

Given that, you might think there would not be much need to employ media staff, but those in the chamber will be shocked to discover that the facts are quite the opposite. The Sun-Herald revealed yesterday that Minister Morrison had 66 spin doctors slaving away—at huge cost to the Australian taxpayer—to answer nothing at all. In the last hour or so, I understand, Minister Morrison made a personal explanation about this matter. He claimed:

I can confirm that there are only 39.7 full-time equivalent staff employed in that area of my department.

I seek leave to table question on notice No. SE13/0169 from the minister's own department that shows not only that there are 66.2 ongoing public relations communication and media staff but also that there are an additional eight non-ongoing staff, an additional 5.5 staff in Operation Sovereign Borders and an additional 33 media staff in Australian Customs, all under the minister's portfolio.

Leave granted.

I note that the article shows the minister was given an opportunity to respond before it was published on Sunday. But, true to form, the minister did not respond to questions. I also seek leave to table the article by Bianca Hall, and I would encourage all senators to read it.

Leave granted.

I hope the minister gets his facts right and gives an apology to the journalist, or returns her call in future so that at least his side can be put, if it should be any different from what I have just outlined. He may need to do another personal explanation as well. In addition, it does seem—and I will stay with the number of 66, notwithstanding the number I have added—they must have gone AWOL, because under Minister Morrison they are not allowed to tell the people of Australia or the media what is happening. What is shocking is the cost being expended by the minister's department on media monitoring. There is not a cent being spared in watching what the media is reporting. They have spent a whopping $11,476 on media monitoring since the Abbott government was elected. They are not just watching the media, however; they are also spending thousands of taxpayers' dollars watching themselves.

Since coming into office, Minister Morrison's team of spin doctors has spent over $9,000 just on recording the Sky news and ABC 24 televised conferences—not that you find out much there. I would encourage the minister to buy his department a set-top box and maybe a recorder or two. It would certainly be cheaper than the nine grand he is spending on media. I would also like to encourage them to keep away from the shadows—come out into the light and explain your circumstances. This is a government that promised to end waste, and yet they have a minister leading an army of spinners who answer nothing and charge an arm and a leg for what ABC iView can do for free. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Greens come to the Senate and quote 1984 we know that there is a political party in this country that is prone to delusional tactics greater than that of the Labor opposition. When we reflect on George Orwell's 1984, the quote that I think is most apt for where we find ourselves in Australian politics and particularly the position of the Australian Greens is the one that suggests that leaders in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world for their followers. I do not think a more apt quote would suit the Australian Greens and the way they conduct themselves in Australian politics. It is very interesting. Senator Ludwig has a boldness and predictability about him on the outcome of the 5 April Senate election that is totally unwarranted. When Western Australians think about their state and prosperity, it is Labor and the Greens, tied hand-in-glove, using a handbrake on our economy. But that is a speech for another time.

If the opposition had been successful over the last few weeks in prosecuting the case against Senator Fiona Nash we would not be doing this today. Instead, we might be having a discussion about real issues, in terms of transparency and accountability, like a royal commission into union thuggery. But, no, we senators have decided that we will use this precious time to have a discussion about a failed fishing expedition that has gone on for weeks. Some of us in this place witnessed that fishing expedition—not for one hour on Monday, not for half a day on Monday but for a lot of time on Monday—at the Finance and other public estimates hearings, when other ministers were quizzed about the issue. We saw it again on Tuesday and Wednesday. That was a waste of the Senate's time. Senator Moore is absolutely correct. Everyone, particularly opposition parties, has a responsibility to inquire and seek answers—but there comes a point when the same questions, if they are not delivering you the answer you want or expect, should be abandoned. That is what we did not have last week and that is not what we have had today.

I want to reflect on the very measured contribution of Senator Madigan. He made two important points. One was that people in glass houses should not throw stones—and I will come to that in a moment—and the other, and I think the most important one, was about consistency. There is a lot in the contribution of opposition senators that I want to respond to. Senator Ludwig said that the government is being secretive on border protection. Actually, the government is following the professional advice of a general. As well-meaning as people's concerns might be around border protection, it is the attitude of generals on operational issues, like border protection, that matter the most. Just for the record, it might be valuable to go back to 23 September of last year to hear what Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell had to say:

Sure. While I have not, as a norm, and would not offer comment as to advice I provide to government ministers of the day, a range of officials and I have discussed this question and we are very appreciative of the opportunity to provide regular periodic briefings to the media, the reason being that there is an absolute respect for the need for the Australian people to be aware of what is occurring.

And this is the most important point:

But, there's also a balance that is struck operationally to ensure the protection of the conduct of current and anticipated activity operationally which might otherwise message to people smugglers how we intend to conduct our business. And so, for that reason, a periodic and appropriate routine to media briefings is something I very much support.

There is no doubt that the Australian community wants issues of illegal immigration managed sensitively. There is absolutely a role for transparency and public discourse, but operational matters, when they come to saving people's lives, need to be respected.

I would just like to go now briefly with the limited time that is available to me to the issue of consistency. Labor coming into the chamber today to talk about transparency and accountability is a bit like Hugh Hefner talking about marital fidelity. It does not ring true. If you do not believe me, go back through the records and inquire to yourself about the CMAX Communications issue where an adviser to the former Minister for Defence in 2008 was alleged to have had some conflict of interest. Go back and have a look also at an adviser to former parliamentary secretary Maxine McKew who had worked for Allen Consulting and had had an interest in the company. Look no further than David Epstein, the former Prime Minister's chief of staff and his wife's—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's go to Mike Kaiser and his appointment to the National Broadband Network. I would like to bring the discussion back—

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

Go outside and say it. I will say what I said about Nash outside—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, you are disgraceful.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong and Senator Smith, please direct your comments through the chair.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the second time in less than four days that a female Labor senator has invited me to take it outside. There is a pattern of behaviour here. I would like to go back to the substance of my—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Perhaps Senator Smith did not hear the interjection. I invited him to go outside and say the defamatory accusations he is making of people inside this chamber under cover of parliamentary privilege. That is what I am inviting him to do. If he is making an assertion about something else, it is incorrect.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong, you now have that on Hansard. Please direct your comments through the chair. It is untidy to debate across the chamber.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the screeching, it may have been hard for me to hear what was being said—that is quite accurate. So I just want to go back to the substance of the issue and talk about the former foreign minister, Bob Carr. There might be a skerrick of truth in this. Former Senator Bob Carr, was the sole owner of a lobbying company, RJ Carr Pty Ltd, for the entire 18 months he was the foreign minister. There is now quiet and silence. There might be a skerrick of truth in this. He claimed it was dormant, but this contravened Prime Minister Gillard's standards of ministerial ethics, which required divestment— (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has expired.