Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senators Collins and Farrell today relating to the Prime Minister (Mr Morrison).

In the late noughties, Tourism Australia's 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign was in full flight. It may not have brought many new tourists to our country, but it did bring Lara Bingle, now Worthington, onto screens and social pages across Australia. But there was another career that rose from the spectacular marketing failure, and that was the career of the then managing director of Tourism Australia, Mr Scott Morrison. It would be a few years, of course, before Mr Morrison would rise to be the PM. He would have to win preselection first. For those who have forgotten, in 2007, it was actually Michael Towke who was preselected for the safe Liberal seat of Cook. That preselection contest attracted a large array of candidates, including Paul Fletcher and Mr Scott Morrison. Mr Towke easily won the preselection. He beat Mr Morrison 82 votes to eight. But, in the weeks that followed the preselection, a number of news articles questioned the legitimacy of this preselection, which ultimately saw him disendorsed. This led to Mr Morrison being preselected, and Mr Towke commenced defamation proceedings and obtained a substantial settlement. But, by that time, of course, from a political perspective, the damage was done. Mr Morrison went on to be a minister and a shadow minister before emerging from the chaos of this year as Prime Minister. An expose in this weekend's Saturday Paper has brought the conduct of Mr Morrison at Tourism Australia back into question. Why, after a decade, should Australians care? Because the events, as detailed in that expose and in the contemporaneous Auditor-General's report, raise serious questions about competence, about governance and about probity. They are raised in relation to a man that no single Australian knew could be the Prime Minister when they voted in the election in 2016.

Prime Minister Morrison has steadfastly refused to answer the question of why he is the leader instead of former Prime Minister Turnbull. But, in the absence of any explanation, voters are entitled to turn to his past to try and understand who he really is and what he brings to the job. There are serious questions of competence raised by the events, because, all the indications in the material that is available to us are that Mr Morrison struggled to perform. In answering these questions, Senator Cormann tried to point to performance as a reason for Mr Morrison's ascendancy. But, if we look back, Michelle Grattan reported at the time: 'Sources close to Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy. We wish there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous.' The Australian, likewise, reported the relevant minister as saying: 'We've moved on it. It was without question the right decision by the board.' That's what Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure. In The Australian, they went on to report, 'She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be more of a team player, capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government.' Is this the man that the Liberals want as Prime Minister—someone who couldn't work with state bodies, industry and government?

There are also serious questions about governance and probity. The Auditor-General's report suggests there were serial irregularities in the way that contracts were awarded by Tourism Australia. For instance, the Auditor-General found that while Prime Minister Morrison was its managing director, Tourism Australia requested that tenderers commence work on contracts worth $184 million before contracts were even executed and that Tourism Australia's risk mitigation was ineffective. These questions around competence, probity and governance are serious questions and they require answers from the government.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Normally, it's a pleasure to join the take note debate after question time, but more and more I become disillusioned when we get to this part of the day and focus on things that I don't think the Australian people are too terribly interested in.

Question time came after two weeks out of this place—two weeks where all of us should have been out and talking to the people who we represent in this place; the people who elect us. They are people who have concerns and who are struggling to pay their power bills. They are people who want to make sure that their kids have jobs in the communities they live in. I'm sure they would have been communicating to Labor senators who asked questions in this question time about the issues which matter to them. I'm not sure how many Australians sat there and said: 'Do you know what, Senator X, Senator Y and Senator Z? Why don't you go down to Canberra and ask some questions about the Prime Minister from some report by the ANAO from 10 years ago? Go down there and see what you can find out about it. Why don't you go and play the man, not the ball?' Those opposite adopt the usual tactic that they seem to employ more and more as they run out of ideas and as they run out of steam in the lead-up to the next federal election: 'Why don't you go and besmirch someone's character by dredging things up?'

Clearly, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate said in answer to questions on this matter, the Labor dirt unit was working overtime for the last two weeks—not coming up with policy ideas and not thinking about the best ways to combat the next election but just digging deeper and deeper, searching for any skerrick of information that might yield a bit of what they believe is dirt. That is rather than focusing on the issues that actually matter to the Australian people—Australian mums and dads and Australian families.

As was stated, this ANAO report is a decade old. And, as was stated, it's one that was undertaken when we had a Labor government in this place—the Rudd government. But I think the answers given by Senator Cormann in response to those questions around this ridiculous character besmirching that has gone on by Labor today points to a very strong contrast between the Australian Labor Party and the plan they have—or don't, more to the point, given the nature of the questions today—and the record we can point to; the priorities for us. The questions that coalition senators asked of ministers today were around jobs, economic activity and how to look after regional Australians when it comes to matters like telecommunications and regional health. Those things are important. What the Labor senators asked about, and what we're doing the take note about today, is not an issue that Australians are concerned about. This is exactly why they get tired of us here in Canberra, because it is all insider, Canberra-bubble material. It isn't relevant to the kitchen table discussions, as I'm sure my good friend and colleague Senator Watt would agree.

But one thing which has been omitted from all of the discussion around the reports at the time was the comments that were made by the then chair of the board of Tourism Australia, Mr Fischer. He heaped praise on the Prime Minister when he was leaving that role. He said that he did a great job. It's a tough job and there was a time of transformation. The industry backed him in as well, saying that he did a fantastic job in terms of how the board should be structured. Those things have been omitted from the questions today. Rather than focus on the facts of the matter, they've hung things out there—suggestions and loaded language in these questions—to try to cast the worst light possible on the Prime Minister. They've been trying to sling mud, which is, again, something that Australians don't want to see here. People expect more of us; they want us to come in here and have a proper debate about issues that matter, like reducing hospital waiting lists—and we do have the MPI a little later on today, and I'm looking forward to contributing to that.

Of course, there was the matter of food relief, which Senator McAllister asked about. I was surprised that she moved the motion to take note of answers that didn't relate to that matter but on issues, as I said before, which are not important. As has been stated in the answers provided, this group of people, the Australian Labor Party, is looking backward. It is looking 10 years into the past to dig up as much dirt as possible. It is not looking to the future. It doesn't have the answers and it certainly doesn't have the plan. We need to expect more from those who aspire to be in government than what they're delivering. (Time expired)

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given, or rather not given, by Senator Cormann to questions by senators on this side asked in relation to the fact the current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was unceremoniously sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia in 2006. Senator Cormann cannot claim he had no notice of these questions. He must have known, following the extensive reporting of this matter over the weekend, that there would be questions on this matter in the Senate today, yet he deliberately chose not to inform himself of the facts. This immediately raises the question: what is Senator Cormann afraid of? Why does he feel the need to dodge and wibble-wobble when he is asked about this matter?

We know Senator Cormann's home branch of the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a branch that I'm sure is close to your heart, Madam Deputy President, since you can observe its travails up close and personal on our great western coast. What's come to light over the weekend is that the Liberal Party has been asking children to sign extraordinary talent release forms that seek to ban people from criticising or satirising the party in public or in private for five years. These North Korean style forms also seek to ban signatories from associating with other political parties. The Western Australian Liberal Party would make Kim Jong Un proud. The question for today— and perhaps this will help Senator Cormann—seems to be: where the bloody hell are you? If you look at Sean Kelly's piece in The Monthlyhe does a more metaphorical take on this—you will see the answer is, 'Looking for Scott Morrison.' And, I have to tell you, he is a pretty difficult man to find. Is he on the bus—the SloMo express? No, he is on a VIP. Is he making a video for Twitter? No, he is sculling a beer. All the while, he is stealing food from the poor, cutting funding for Foodbank. Not since 'Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher' have we seen this level of villainy—from 'Scott no heart, Scott no clue and Scott no decency'. Margaret Thatcher, two decades later, still regrets snatching milk from schoolchildren. The Prime Minister is the moral equivalent of the person taking coins from the blanket of the homeless person in the city streets. How does he sleep at night?

Let's go back to his wonderful time as the CEO of Tourism Australia. There seem to have been some personality difficulties between Mr Morrison and the Minister for Tourism, rather surprising perhaps given they were both from the Liberal Party, but Mr Morrison's resistance to the plan that Ms Bailey planned to put in place is a key reason behind his messy exit. But there is more. Morrison was 'not a team player'. They're not my words; they're actually Ms Bailey's words. Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure, 'We've moved on. It was without question the right decision by the board.' She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be 'more of a team player' capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government. Of course, we have seen in recent months that Mr Morrison, when he gave that fatal hug of death to the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, still isn't much of a team player.

In The Australian on 7 September 2006, there was an article around the unanimous board decision to dismiss Mr Morrison. Referring to Ms Bailey, it said:

She said she did not dismiss Mr Morrison—it had been the unanimous decision of the board, which felt he had to go because it had lost confidence in him and could not work with him.

Ms Bailey told the committee the issue with Mr Morrison was not one of personality but—

wait for it—

performance.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 16 August 2006 said:

Ms Bailey's office declined to comment last night but the strengthening of Tourism Australia is expected to be welcomed by the travel industry after the dramatic departure of its managing director, Scott Morrison, following a unanimous decision by the board to remove him … Sources close to the Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. "There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy and we wished there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous."

There is a line between someone who acts like that and the way we have seen the Prime Minister behave recently. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is grubby politics. I really do. Here we are, Senator Kitching quoting from The Australian newspaper in 2006—12 years ago. Imagine if I picked out a quote from the former Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke that he was on the grog one night as a young fella.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you finished?

Senator Wong interjecting—

What did I do to Gillard? I didn't do anything, quoting you, Senator Wong. What did your side do to Prime Minister Gillard? That's the question you should be asking, Senator Wong. You're the ones that sacked her. As I said, we are going back to 2006 newspaper quotes. I'm not going to pick up a paper and look for a quote on Bob Hawke when he was on the grog some time as a university student. Good luck to him. I probably did the same myself except I didn't spend a long time at university. This is grubby politics. The now Prime Minister was a private citizen working before he joined politics. We have even seen attacks on his preselection. I could talk about a lot of preselections in here of those opposite, where the knives come out, the deals are done, and the factions get together and come to some sort of arrangement. We know all about them. We could go back to 2013 and the Senate positions on the paper, couldn't we, Senator Wong? Things like that.

This is just grubby politics. I'm not going to go back into the past. It's not for me to judge the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, or former leaders in this country. Question time is just a farce of throwing hand grenades. Probably the quote of question time today was Senator Cameron when he said, 'Those in the bush have never had it so good.' I find that an amazing interjection, highlighted by Senator O'Sullivan. Just yesterday I came in from Parkes in the Central West. I was talking to my friends Barry and Cheryl Green and Bull Green and his wife Therese. They're carting water, filling the dams up on their properties for sheep water because they don't have underground water in that region. And Senator Cameron says during question time, 'The bush has never had it so good.' That is an amazing statement—so out of touch. It just goes to prove that those opposite spend little time in the bush, seeing the drought, the effect on the people, the animals, the mental effect on humans. Sadly some have taken their own lives due to the stress of this drought. We find in question time comments that the bush has never seen it so good. It's simply amazing.

We were talking about the past of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and how those opposite are so squeaky clean with the past. There are things like the laws on superannuation. We can't get changes to them. We have Senator McAllister saying what happened in the preselection of Mr Morrison. Isn't that the business of the Liberal Party, just like the Labor Party does preselection? It's their business how they work their factions and agreements out and so on.

As far as Mr Morrison goes and his job at Tourism Australia, I was happy to speak with the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, a few weeks ago at Sydney Airport. He is a good man. He is having a few battles of his own personally. I wish him well with those struggles he's having now with some health issues. He has been a great leader of the National Party and a great Deputy Prime Minister. He is a very decent and honest man. He backed Scott Morrison in that position as managing director, and so did the industry. Here we are today playing politics again in question time and taking note, really to achieve nothing but to try and smear the Prime Minister, who is out there amongst the people working hard, communicating with them. Then we get the thing about the food grants and support; there has been no cut in that. There's an extra $4.5 million, but that wasn't discussed, of course—just one political point taken about that. Really, what is question time about? What is taking note about? It's about political points and simply wasting time.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to talk about why this issue is important. Unlike Senator Williams over there, I can't just dismiss this because it was a period of time ago. This is an important and substantial story. This is the last substantial job that the current Prime Minister did before he entered parliament, so it's absolutely legitimate that he is held accountable for the role that he played in that.

The other aspect of this is that his appointment to that job was highly political. The last job he did before he was appointed as the Managing Director of Tourism Australia was State Director of the New South Wales Liberal Party. He had that role when they won re-election in 2004, and former Prime Minister Howard is on the record saying how grateful he was for the role that the current Prime Minister played during that 2004 campaign.

How was he appointed to be the Managing Director of Tourism Australia? The key recruitment agency that conducted the search was Korn Ferry. On this side of the chamber, we know that when the conservatives, when the LNP, want to get their preferred outcome in terms of recruitment, that's who they go to. We saw that evidence during Senate estimates when we were talking about the recent troubles at the ABC. And who have the government appointed to head the recruitment for the new board positions? None other than Korn Ferry. So we know that they have form. When they want their preferred outcome, this is who they go to.

These issues are substantial, they are important, and it is important that the current Prime Minister answer the questions that have been raised as part of the reporting. These aren't allegations by the Labor Party. This is as a result of a National Audit Office report. They are substantial allegations and they were reached independently of us as the opposition and, indeed, independently of the Public Service. They also go to the judgement of the Prime Minister, his record before he got into parliament and his capacity. It also goes to transparency, because taxpayer funds were involved in that organisation that he was responsible for. What payout did he receive that had confidentiality agreements around it? This is public money at the end of the day we're talking about.

So there are a number of aspects of this that go to his record now and also his record previously. How can we not use this to question his judgement as a result? In the short time he has been Prime Minister we have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to question his judgement. We saw that in the week before the Wentworth by-election when there was a series of rolling blunders by this Prime Minister, including what was nothing short of a diplomatic incident with regard to the relationship with Indonesia. In the last week of the by-election campaign, the Prime Minister floated the idea of moving the embassy in Israel, which put at risk the signing of a free trade agreement with our important neighbours in Indonesia.

It is, therefore, easy for us to conclude that we need to look at his decision-making, and to look at, when the current Prime Minister has been in positions of authority, how he has used that. When you look at his role at Tourism Australia, it was a very short-lived affair. It was a unanimous board decision—this is the same board that appointed him to that role 18 months earlier—to remove him, and this included a former National Party deputy leader as part of that, and there was a really obvious falling-out relationship with the minister at the time. The length of time he was in that role also leads us to conclude that there were judgement issues at play.

I think when you look at the LNP, they obviously—and we saw this in question time today—have problems detailing and explaining dismissals. We saw that with the former Prime Minister. They still can't tell us why Prime Minister Turnbull was dismissed, and it seems like we can't find out why the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was dismissed from Tourism Australia. So there are some fundamental issues that need to be highlighted within the public domain.

In question time today, the Senate leader, Senator Cormann, didn't take that opportunity to explain these decisions. So we will absolutely continue to highlight why it is so important for us to question the government and question the Prime Minister on this role at Tourism Australia and get to the bottom of why these decisions were made. We know he went from being the New South Wales state Liberal director straight to the position of managing director of Tourism Australia and then 18 months later he was out of that role. The Australian people deserve answers and the ANAO report is a good place for us to start. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.