Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann, for an explanation of the minister's response to the order for the production of documents relating to former Ministers Pyne and Bishop.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government, and indeed on behalf of the Prime Minister, I tabled an explanation this morning.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

In the Statement of Ministerial Standards that Prime Minister Morrison issued in September last year, he states:

The Australian people deserve a Government that will act with integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve.

…   …   …

I expect all ministers in the Australian Government to live up to the high standards expected of them by the Australian people at all times.

Well, we've just seen exactly what those standards are. We've barely been back a month and we have ministers and former ministers flouting these rules. And it's not just the opposition or the crossbench that is raising questions about this. Let's remember what Mr Pyne's former South Australian Liberal colleague, the member for Barker, said of Mr Pyne's new role:

It's disappointing that it doesn't meet the pub test, and it doesn't, and perhaps that's something that we need to reflect on …

Yes, the member for Barker is right. That is something we need to reflect on. This doesn't pass the pub test at all. And you know there are serious concerns when the Liberal MPs in this government are turning on each other.

Less than a month out from the recent election, we've seen two situations emerge involving former cabinet ministers—Mr Christopher Pyne and Ms Julie Bishop. These situations are flagrant breaches of the ministerial standards. Clause 2.25 of the standards states:

… Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office.

There's no ambiguity here. That's fairly straightforward. It is in fact so straightforward and such plain speaking that you would expect that someone who had served as a minister of the Crown and as a member of parliament would be able to understand it: they will not lobby, advocate, have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, Public Service or Defence Force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as minister in their last 18 months in office.

You might think that the consequences would have been quick and decisive, but instead we have seen the Prime Minister accept the behaviour of Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. It is simply extraordinary that, within weeks of the end of his tenure as a cabinet minister, Mr Pyne would announce that he is commencing work which will directly contravene the ethical standards that he vowed to uphold. It is even more unbelievable that neither Mr Pyne nor Ms Bishop even bothered to tell the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, that they were taking these jobs. Today we have found out that the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, himself found out from the media about the jobs that Ms Bishop and Mr Pyne have decided to take. He found out when the media brought this situation to light. It must have been a rude shock for the Prime Minister to find out that his former colleagues had so little respect for him or his government that they would act in this manner.

How on earth can Australians believe that Mr Pyne will not use or divulge confidential information he obtained as Minister for Defence and as a member of the cabinet when he is working for one of the largest defence industry consultants in the country? It is absurd. How on earth can Australians believe that Mr Pyne and Ms Julie Bishop, who was until recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, were not already preparing for their post-politics careers while serving out their final days in their ministerial offices?

These are important matters, and I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister or even the finance minister attempted to dismiss these concerns as being something 'inside the Canberra bubble'. This is not something just 'inside the Canberra bubble', Mr Morrison. These are the ethical standards that you and your ministerial colleagues vowed to uphold. You took a sacred oath to the Australian people that you would uphold them. They have been flagrantly flouted by Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. The Prime Minister didn't even know about this. He was rudely surprised by it.

We are not only talking about ministerial standards; we are also talking about billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Palladium, the board of which Ms Bishop has joined, received a $500 million contract from the government during her tenure as foreign minister. Palladium got a $500 million contract from the government while Julie Bishop was foreign minister; she left office; and then, not waiting the required 18 months, she took a paid board position with Palladium. Ernst & Young, where Mr Pyne has gone to work, has been awarded 838 contracts, worth $377 million, by the government. Of these contracts, 138 were awarded by the Department of Defence, Mr Pyne's former department, with a total worth of $148 million. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to defence contracts. Australia right now is in the process of a major defence procurement, which Ernst & Young themselves maintain will estimate more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money over the next decade. And who did Ernst & Young hire within just weeks of the federal election? They hired the former defence minister, Christopher Pyne. Who took a job with them? It was the former defence minister, Christopher Pyne. Of that $200 billion, $50 billion is for the Future Submarine project and $35 million for the Future Frigate project.

This is not just about the ministerial standards. It is about the integrity of the major initiatives to acquire new capabilities and assets for the Defence Force. Serious and legitimate questions have to be asked about whether Mr Pyne's insider knowledge as a former minister could create an unfair advantage for his new employer. This insider knowledge could taint processes or even raise the prospect of litigation. It's situations like these that ministerial standards are precisely designed to prevent. It is why these ministerial standards exist—to avoid these very types of questions, the potential tainting of processes, the prospect of litigation and conflicts of interest. No wonder Australians are cynical about politics and politicians.

In the weeks leading up to the federal election, the public saw high-paying jobs being awarded to the government's mates. Between the budget on 2 April and the election being called on 11 April—nine whole days—the government made 49 appointments to taxpayer funded roles. Of those 49, seven went to former Liberal or National MPs and senators. I guess it pays to know people, hey? The seven appointments are of former Liberal Party president, senator and arts minister Richard Alston to the National Gallery of Australia Council; former Liberal MP Phillip Barresi to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation board; former Liberal MP Ewen Jones to the board of the National Film and Sound Archive; former Liberal MP Chris Pearce to the board of Creative Partnerships Australia; former Victorian state Nationals MP Hugh Delahunty to the Sports Australia board; former ACT Liberal MP Tony De Domenico to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation board; and former Liberal senator Karen Synon to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute board. Prior to all of this, former National Party federal director Scott Mitchell was appointed to the board of Snowy Hydro.

The public have also seen this government award $423 million to a company run out of a beach shack on Kangaroo Island in a closed tender process. The public have watched as this government has awarded half a billion dollars to a tiny private foundation to look after our greatest public asset, the Great Barrier Reef—my goodness—when this tiny private foundation only had revenue of $10 million, six full-time staff and hadn't even asked for the money. Only the Liberals and the Nationals could attempt to claim that these sums of taxpayer money are not in the public interest. The public values which ministers are expected to uphold in their careers are, it seems, casually left to slide the moment they become former ministers. I turn to advice provided by the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—advice tabled by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In regard to Mr Pyne, Secretary Parkinson states:

I consider that he has put in place mechanisms to ensure … he will not impart direct or specific knowledge known to him only by virtue of his ministerial position.

Okay—except there is no detail on what these mechanisms are. Does Mr Parkinson know? Does the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, know what these mechanisms are? Did anyone ask Mr Pyne to explain what these mechanisms are? It is incumbent upon the government and the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to explain what these mechanisms are that Mr Pyne has apparently put in place, and to explain if Mr Morrison is satisfied with them. In regard to Ms Bishop, Secretary Parkinson clearly states in his advice:

Ms Bishop has not provided a full public statement on her appointment or how she proposes to deal with any conflicts with her previous role as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I just need to read that again because it is extraordinary:

Ms Bishop has not provided a full public statement on her appointment or how she proposes to deal with any conflicts with her previous role as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is almost laughable, that public position—which is not to have a public position on how, as a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, she's going to manage her conflict of interest while serving on the board of an organisation that got a $500 million contract from her government while she was Minister for Foreign Affairs. Ms Bishop has provided Secretary Parkinson with a response, saying she expects the projects she will work on will be in the United States or the United Kingdom. She's indicated that Palladium does not expect her to engage on Australian based projects. Well, isn't that interesting, because she was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, by definition, that means she dealt with places like—oh, I don't know—the United States and the United Kingdom! It is laughable that Julie Bishop's only public statement as to how she's going to manage any conflicts of interest between her previous role as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and her current role as a board member of Palladium is that she will not be working on any Australian projects.

Julie Bishop did a lot of work, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, on foreign policy, on our relationships with places like the United States and the United Kingdom, but it's all okay, according to Ms Bishop, because those are the only projects. As a board member, what is she going to do—excuse herself from every item on the Palladium board agenda unless it relates to the United States or the United Kingdom? It's a laughable proposition that she has put forward here. And let's be clear about something—an expectation, as Julie Bishop called it. Ms Bishop indicated that Palladium does not 'expect' her to engage on Australian based projects. An expectation is not a guarantee. An assurance from Mr Pyne that he has put in place mechanisms is not a guarantee, especially when there is no detail as to what those mechanisms are. This is the equivalent of someone saying: 'Trust me. I know what I'm doing.' That's what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop have essentially said: 'Trust me. I know what I'm doing.' And the Prime Minister just seems to have accepted it carte blanche. He doesn't seem to have asked any questions, made any inquiries. He didn't even know they were taking these jobs! And, having been forced by this parliament to make these inquiries, he's given them the most cursory glance. Is this how the Prime Minister intends to operate in this Australian parliament? What is the point of having ministerial standards if they are not upheld by the Prime Minister himself? If these standards are not enforced, they are essentially worthless.

This is a test of integrity for Prime Minister Morrison, and his lack of action is speaking volumes. If this is how the Prime Minister is beginning this new term of government, well, Australians will be deeply concerned about how it's all going to unfold over the next three years. It is further proof to Australians that the Morrison government, particularly the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, will always put political interests first, over the public interest. It tells Australians that Prime Minister Morrison will say and do anything, or indeed do nothing, if he thinks it suits his political agenda. And it tells Australians that, when it comes to public integrity, the Prime Minister is just another politician, another marketing man, another man inside the Canberra bubble and someone who cannot be trusted.

So let's just recap here. We have Mr Pyne, former defence minister, now going to work for one of the largest defence industry consultants in the country and looking down the barrel in the next decade at $200 billion of procurement, of taxpayer money, for our Defence Force. And he has just gone to work for them. He didn't sit around and wait for the prescribed waiting period; he just took up the job. He said he has mechanisms in place to manage his conflict of interest. We don't know what they are. It doesn't seem the Prime Minister knows what they are. We're all just supposed to take that at face value. We have Ms Bishop, who, as the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, was part of a government that gave $500 million to Palladium. She now sits on the Palladium board. She hasn't even bothered to explain how she's going to manage any potential conflicts of interest. She hasn't even provided a full public statement on her appointment.

Let's be clear about where the Prime Minister's responsibility lies. He learns about these issues via the media. He makes no inquiries until he is forced to do so by the parliament. He accepts the vague 'trust me' assurances from Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. He has no detail from Mr Pyne on how he's going to manage his ethical obligations. He has no advice at all from Ms Bishop; she simply didn't provide it. The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, now owns this process. He owns this report. He owns every action of Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop in these roles they have taken up—every conflict of interest they have and fail to manage; every contradiction between their previous words and actions and their future words and actions; every contract their organisations enter into with the government. This all now sits with the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison. He is now responsible for this.

Make no mistake: he has a divided party room. The member for Barker can see this doesn't pass the pub test. It's amazing that the Prime Minister can't see that. What is even more distressing is that the Prime Minister has simply shrugged his shoulders at what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop have done. He has just shrugged his shoulders and said: 'Yes, it's all okay. They say "trust me". I say trust them. Nothing to see here. Don't worry about all those hundreds of millions—billions—of taxpayer dollars. Don't worry about that.' This is now the Prime Minister's problem, and he owns the consequences of what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop do now. The Australian people and the Australian parliament will be watching, and we will hold this Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to account.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the minister's answer and I share the concerns of my colleague Senator Keneally in respect of this particular issue. I do note that Senator Keneally didn't raise some of the comments made by Senator Abetz, who was also concerned, but thank you very much for the summary.

I think we need to focus on paragraph 2.25 of the Statement of Ministerial Standards, which places a requirement on former ministers to not lobby. But, perhaps more particularly, there's a statement in that paragraph that says:

Ministers … will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.

Now, I'm not accusing Mr Pyne of taking documents from his former role as the Minister for Defence and perhaps passing them on to EY—I'm not suggesting that that's occurring at all—but you cannot 'unknow' what you know. Mr Pyne was the Minister for Defence Industry and then went on to become the Minister for Defence. He would have been briefed by the department on every project that is currently running and on every future project that is coming down the pipeline. He would have been briefed on operations, including where there are problems that might need industry's help to fix. He would have been briefed by commercial entities on what their solutions are to particular problems. He would have been briefed by foreign governments, foreign agencies and, indeed, our own security agencies in respect of a whole range of matters that are simply not in the public domain.

It's not possible for Mr Pyne to form advice without considering what he knows. He doesn't actually have to say to EY, 'I know this.' He simply knows what he knows when he forms his advice, and that's hugely problematic. And, as Senator Keneally said, it does raise issues of probity. It's problematic in itself because it creates an integrity issue for the minister, who I presume signed something to say that he would comply with the standards. I guess that's something we need to explore further—whether or not these are standards that just get waved around and for which there is no legal enforceable undertaking made. I think we need to get to the bottom of that because that goes to the integrity of the standards themselves.

But there's a difficulty here in that there will be other companies that will be looking and saying, 'You know what, I'm going to tender on a particular project that Mr Pyne has knowledge about.' That may give rise to litigation. That may give rise to probity issues, which aren't just a cost to companies; they are also a cost to Defence when a procurement is slowed down because there is litigation on foot. So it's quite problematic.

I have read the statement that Minister Cormann tabled today, and it's troubling not because of what's in there but because of what's not in there. Dr Parkinson spelt out the lines quoted by Mr Pyne and, indeed, EY on 27 June that talk about the role, but it's interesting that he failed to discover the statements that were hidden in The Australian Financial Review on the 26th and, indeed, in my motion in this chamber. Let me just read out what the Financial Review has recorded, which is an email from EY's defence leader Mark Stewart on 26 June. He says:

EY is ramping up its defence capability ahead of a surge in consolidation activity and the largest expansion of Australia's military capability in our peacetime history – $200 billion over 10 years out to 2026.

We've engaged Christopher Pyne to assist with this.

Large domestic defence players are looking for mergers to bulk up. Big multinational players are also shopping for acquisitions to scale their onshore delivery capability.

Christopher Pyne is also here to help lead conversations about what South Australia needs to do to meet the challenges and opportunities this huge defence investment will bring.

He was the Minister for Defence. There's no question that he's going from his defence industry portfolio to the Defence portfolio and then on to a defence company to give advice in relation to defence projects which EY will, they hope, monetise. And, of course, the response text back from former defence minister Pyne said:

I am looking forward to providing strategic advice to EY, as the firm looks to expand its footprint in the defence industry.

There can be no ambiguity here about what was being said. Mr Pyne is going to this company to assist them with defence, and we know he cannot 'unknow' what he knows. In fact, Dr Parkinson says that it's not possible for him to forget the information.

How was this missed? The head of PM&C is on $914,460 per annum, okay? He's paid well to do a very good job. I'm not suggesting any incompetence in this particular circumstance. What's happened here is that he's missed it because the terms of reference of the inquiry were designed to fix a government's political problem. So he's just doing what the circumstances require. He's done the political fix. And I'm very concerned when we have neutral public servants, who serve the public, coming in with these sorts of political fixes. How could he possibly have not seen what Mr Pyne had said himself and what EY had said themselves? How could that not have been included in the letter? It's unbelievable.

There are also other details that are missing. What were the roles for Mr Pyne—and Ms Bishop? What was the reason for the company hiring? You can only get that if you talk to EY, and that appears not to have occurred. What were the expectations of the parties in terms of what EY intend to provide Mr Pyne for remuneration for a particular activity? There would be expectations in place in respect of what is to come in exchange for that remuneration. We don't know, because it's not in the details that have been provided to us.

Mr Pyne made reference to 'rigorous processes and procedures' to prevent a breach. Now, I presume that doesn't mean rigorous processes and procedures for Mr Pyne but rather for EY. Well, we need to have a look at that. We need to have a bit of a look-see and find out what those processes are so that we can be assured, moving forward over the next 18 months, which is the time frame that certainly relates to lobbying—and I point out that, in respect of using knowledge that is not in the public domain, there is no time frame; that is perpetual until such time as the information comes into the public domain by other means. So we don't know what those processes are and we need to know what they are. If the Statement of Ministerial Standards is to have any real meaning or any real effect, we must look to the detail of how the standards are being enforced, and it's my view that they are not.

This is a test for the Prime Minister and thus far he's failing. He's allowed ministers to go to these industry players in contravention of or at great risk to the Statement of Ministerial Standards and he's done very little. He could have picked up the phone and said to Mr Pyne, who I like—I like Christopher Pyne; he's a nice chap. I always got on well with him—

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

He's a fixer!

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a fixer. Thank you, Senator Watt. But, unfortunately, he's put himself in an unenviable position. He's put the Prime Minister in the same position. So it is a test for the Prime Minister. He could have rung him and said, 'Hey, let's rethink this,' but he hasn't done that.

Everyone is aware that on the Notice Paper today I am moving a motion for an inquiry into this particular paragraph of the Statement of Ministerial Standards and how they are enforced. Obviously that will be informed by some of the events that have taken place since Ms Bishop and Mr Pyne have taken up new positions. I foreshadow that we may need to call the Prime Minister to that inquiry—they are, of course, his standards. We need to find out the undertakings that he's made. There's information missing from Dr Parkinson, so we may need to call him and ask him to assist the Senate in respect of that inquiry. We almost certainly will need to invite Mr Pyne, such that his side of the story can be told and we can get to the bottom line. We'll probably have to talk to Ms Bishop as well. They're familiar with the building, so they'll know where the committee rooms are when we invite them! If this inquiry with the FPA committee gets up, EY will certainly get an invite, I'm sure, because we need to know what their thinking was and what they actually intended to achieve by employing Mr Pyne in this instance. We need to understand what their 'rigorous processes' are. So I'm very keen to look at that. Of course, we'll get some ethical experts in as well, if the inquiry goes ahead, to get a feeling of what the expectation is in the community, because clearly there are a bunch of people in this place that aren't able to gauge that very well. It is a wonder that we have a situation like this and parliamentarians feel that it's okay. I get a sense that Labor will support my motion today, so I hope that when I move it at 3.30 I get support for it.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to what we thought was going to be an explanation from Minister Cormann. In fact he just chucked a few bits of paper on the table and left the chamber. I have read those few bits of paper, and they amount to 'Nah, they didn't breach anything. Go back to sleep, everybody.'

We have had many examples, over the years, of ministers exiting this place lining up the next job—sometimes even before they have left—frequently in an industry that they had just purported to regulate, and going to work for that very industry.This has been going on for a very long time. There are a litany of examples that I'm going to delight in going through, as I have done before in this chamber. Sadly, the list has just gotten longer since the last time we checked. There is a revolving door between ex-politicians and industry lobby groups. So to have this bit of paper that says, 'No, it doesn't breach the standards,' simply shows how bloody useless the standards are. We need some actual standards with actual teeth that actually clean up this place.

While you're at it, what about that ICAC that we have been waiting for for 10 years since the Greens first proposed it, including one that would apply to politicians—to MPs in this chamber and the other chamber? The government reluctantly announced in November last year that they would concede and establish an ICAC. Where is it? They made out that it was going to be coming really quickly, yet we haven't seen hide nor hair of it. Now we have the Prime Minister brushing off these two very serious breaches of the ministerial code.

It beggars belief that you can go and work for an industry that you were just regulating and somehow not draw upon the knowledge that you learned as a minister. I've read the document. I don't buy the explanations. I don't think it's possible to somehow have what are called 'Chinese walls' in our own head. I don't think the employers of former Minister Pyne and former Minister Bishop believe that either. They know why they have hired those people. We all do. The fact that the Prime Minister has brushed this off to a senior public servant to just prove how useless the standards are doesn't assure anyone that this government is acting with any integrity.

Sadly, we have seen that it's not just the government and the former ministers from that side of the chamber that routinely exit this place and go to work for industries that they used to regulate. There are a litany of examples on both sides of the chamber. I'll go through those in a minute. They serve to illustrate why we need a prime ministerial code of conduct that actually sets some high standards rather than the pathetic standards that not even these examples apparently breach—but we need them to have teeth. What's the point of having standards if they're (a) weak and (b) not even enforced? It makes a mockery of the standards and it makes a mockery of the Prime Minister, but I guess we're getting used to that.

I think the Australian people deserve to have confidence that ministers and former ministers are not using the knowledge that they've gained in their roles to further their own private profits or feather their own nest in future employment. I don't think that's too big an ask. Frankly, that is a very basic expectation. It is astounding that it is repeatedly not met and that we are seeing example after example of former high-flyers going to work for those industries on, no doubt, very large salaries and retainers. We just debated a Newstart bill. This mob don't want to increase Newstart for people who have nothing to live on, but they're very happy to continue to turn a blind eye when some of their own go off to fancy, cushy, well-paid jobs that breach the ministerial code of conduct, or standards as they're known.

We will be supporting the move for an inquiry into former ministers Pyne and Bishop, but it's not enough just to look at these two examples. This is a deeply unsatisfactory situation that has been going on for far too long, and if we are going to start looking at it then let's do the job properly. Let's take a full look at the level of non-enforcement of these standards through all the years since they have existed, as they apply to both sides of the chamber, and let's look at how we can fix that problem. Let's look at how we can make those standards enforceable. Let's give them some teeth. Do we need an independent enforcer to apply those standards? Clearly the Prime Minister doesn't care much about enforcing his own standards. Do we need an independent body to do that job and do it properly? We'll be supporting this inquiry, but we want to see it extended so that it actually looks at the root of the problem and at some real solutions to the problem.

Of course, the best solution for fixing up a corrupt system is to have an anticorruption body. Again, we've been pushing for that. It was in 2009 when we first moved a motion for that, and we've had many private members' bills for it ever since. We did some great work with former member Cathy McGowan that I believe helped to pressure the government to finally accept that an ICAC was needed. But where is this ICAC? We have heard nothing of it since February. It has totally gone off the boil. The pressure is now back on the government. They need to clean up their own patch. The Australian people have the right to expect that corruption is not rife in this building and that the revolving door between lobbyists and ex-MPs or their senior staff is firmly closed. So we will continue to push for an ICAC.

The other thing that we will be seeking to inquire into, hopefully, if this inquiry does, in fact, get the support from this chamber, is examples of not only former ministers flouting the very weak code of conduct but existing ministers breaching the code of conduct. There's been some coverage of Minister Taylor and Minister Frydenberg having what to me doesn't sound like a very above-board discussion about a piece of land in WA that would have been affected by a critical habitat declaration and that, inconveniently for Mr Taylor, is on a property that a family relation of his has a commercial interest in. As reported, Minister Taylor asked, 'Well, is there any way we can get out of this grassland declaration?' Apparently Minister Frydenberg agreed to have it looked into by the department.

Well, sorry, you don't get to rewrite the rules to make yourself more money just because you're in the cabinet. It is just laughable that they think they can get away with this stuff. So we want to make sure that the Senate inquiry that is to look into former ministers Pyne and Bishop also looks at current ministers undertaking what seems to me to be very dodgy conduct that is, I believe, in firm breach of the ministerial standards, which say that you're not meant to use your ministerial position for private and personal gain. I look forward to getting some more evidence on the table. In fact, we're awaiting an explanation addressing that from Minister Cormann tomorrow. Hopefully we will get an actual explanation, unlike the display that we saw earlier. Clearly, there are many examples to be investigated in this frame.

I want to list a few of the others. We saw former resources minister Mr Macfarlane leave the parliament and then, within the 18-month so-called cooling-off period—in fact, it was about a year later—go to head up the Queensland Resources Council. Nothing was done about that. We moved a motion in this place which, thankfully, got support, that called on existing ministers to at least boycott meetings with former Minister Macfarlane so that they could uphold the ministerial standard, even if former Minister Macfarlane himself was no longer complying with that standard. That time has now elapsed, but that was the most recent example of someone who purported to regulate the mining industry and then went off to work for them. Is it any wonder we have never seen a coalmine or a coal seam gas proposal rejected under federal environment laws yet? You would only need to look at the donations they make to both sides of politics to answer that question as well.

Former Minister Robb took a consulting role with a Chinese land developer which had an interest in the Darwin port, even though he had been previously working on trade matters as the former trade minister. Former Labor resources minister Martin Ferguson went to become the chair of APIA, the petroleum industry representative body that wants to frack the guts out of this country, poison everybody's land and water, and drive farmers off their productive lands. The former Liberal defence minister Peter Reith joined a defence contractor, and former Labor ministers Emerson and Combet became consultants to AGL and Santos. Former Minister Conroy, who recently left this place, now works for a gambling lobbyist group, even though he was at one time communications minister. The list goes on.

The irony of today's report by public servant Martin Parkinson is that he acknowledges that there is no way of enforcing the ministerial standards once a minister has left parliament. So not only does his advice show how weak the standards are but it even acknowledges, in the final paragraph, there's nothing that the Prime Minister can do about it anyway. Well, there is. He can rewrite the code, give it some teeth, give it to an independent body to enforce and set up an ICAC. We have been waiting for 10 years. The Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction that doesn't have an anticorruption body and, clearly, we desperately need one.

The Greens will continue to advocate these matters, and it's on the Prime Minister whether or not he wants to clean up his own patch. He doesn't have much else of an agenda, except attacking vegans and giving tax cuts to the rich. That will only last five minutes. Move onto the next decent thing. How about you lift Newstart and introduce an ICAC with real teeth? I won't hold my breath, but we live in hope. We have three years more of this government and we don't know what of their agenda they will try and wreak upon us, but let's hope that an ICAC is actually on it. We will move, and I hope we will have company, to give it real teeth, to make sure it can regulate the conduct of members of parliament and actually start meeting the standards that the Australian people have of us. We're very well paid. We have an important role to perform to represent the people. We are not just here to get our next job, working for an industry group. That list of examples is really quite cringeworthy. How about you act with some integrity, enforce these standards, stop turning a blind eye when your mates go off to work for your other mates that just made a massive donation to your campaign and introduce an ICAC?

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

I also rise to make a few remarks in this debate. At the outset, the point to be made is this: ask any average person in the street in Australia and they will agree that the actions of Mr Pyne—I'll focus my remarks on Mr Pyne due to time constraints—are a clear breach of this government's ministerial standards. I remarked before that Mr Pyne used to parade around this place in his long period in parliament describing himself as a 'fixer'. He was a fixer; he would get things fixed. Well, I think there's no doubt that Mr Pyne has very much fixed himself a very good little earner for his life post politics and it's not the kind of fix that the Australian public want to see.

I've just had a look at the letter from Mr Parkinson, secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, who was asked to review this situation by the Prime Minister. I've never met Mr Parkinson, but, from everyone I've ever spoken to who has met him, he's a highly respected public servant. I have no quibble with him, but I do have to take issue with the findings of his review, because, as I say, I think they fall a long way short of what most Australians would expect of their former politicians.

So what this all concerns is the government's Statement of Ministerial Standards. The particular clause that is relevant is clause 2.25 of those standards. Essentially, that clause requires two things of former ministers of this parliament and of the government. This is the first:

… for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office.

The second restriction imposed on former ministers by clause 2.25 is this:

Ministers are also required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.

Now, I've got no reason to believe that Mr Pyne has already breached the first part of that clause, or indeed that he ever will. I take Mr Pyne at face value when he says that he will not 'lobby, advocate or have business dealings with members of the government, parliament, Public Service or Defence Force on matters with which he has had official dealings'. I would hope that Mr Pyne is not silly enough to commit such a flagrant breach of these standards by going and having those types of meetings in breach of the standard. But I don't think there can be any doubt that for a minister to take up an appointment, as Mr Pyne has done so soon after he has finished as a minister—I don't see any way Mr Pyne can arrange his affairs so that he won't end up breaching the second part of clause 2.25, which requires him to 'not take personal advantage of information' to which he has had access as a minister 'where that information is not generally available to the public'.

Mr Pyne's own statement on this matter talks about his very long history in parliament, his long history as a minister, his knowledge of politics, his knowledge that he has acquired over that period of time. I simply do not believe it is possible to just park all that knowledge—that 'information to which they have had access as a minister', which is the wording in the standards. It defies belief that you can just park, somewhere, all of that information that you have acquired as a minister and not have that in your head as you're undertaking meetings with a future employer on matters that are relevant to your former portfolio.

I will go through what Mr Pyne has said in his own media statement. He said:

I know my responsibilities under the Code and I will abide by them.

Well, thanks very much! We know how much we can trust this government to follow through on its promises. Here we've got a former minister saying it's all okay; he knows what he's got to do and he's going to abide by that. It's an open-and-shut case. As we used to say in Queensland about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, 'Don't you worry about that.' Well, I'm sorry, but I do worry about that, and I think most Australians do as well. Mr Pyne goes on to say:

I have not taken personal advantage of information I received as a Minister in the Defence portfolio that is not otherwise publicly available.

Okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he has not done so at this point in time. He goes on to say:

The providing of occasional high-level strategic advice does not require … using any information a former Minister may have learnt as a Minister that is not generally available to the public.

This seems to be the crux of Mr Pyne's argument as to why he is not and will not be in breach of the Statement of Ministerial Standards. What he's arguing is that the role that he has taken on in his post-political career will only involve providing occasional high-level strategic advice about matters related to his former portfolio, but that that won't use any of the information that he acquired in his official capacity. He says, 'For example, in the Defence portfolio,' and lists all these public documents that are out there, like the defence white paper and the Defence industry policy statement. There are the sorts of things that are freely available to the public, so the only information that he's going to make use of in providing high-level strategic advice is already on the public record. He says:

Giving advice about those policies does not require using information that a former minister has learnt that is not generally available to the public.

My question is: if all that EY or any prospective employer of Mr Pyne is going to get out of employing Mr Pyne is that he's going to walk into their office with a whole series of public reports that anyone can download off the internet, why would they bother employing him? I don't know how much he is getting paid. It's probably a lot of money. Why not save yourself the cost of engaging Mr Pyne and print out a copy of every one of those documents he's talking about? Some of those are big documents. They might cost $10 each to print out a copy of. That would be a whole lot cheaper than engaging Mr Pyne. Are we really expected to believe that Mr Pyne has not been engaged because of what he knows that lies behind those documents? If all EY or any other prospective employer of Mr Pyne wanted to do was to take advantage of information on the public record, they'd just go and do that. They don't need Mr Pyne or anyone else in order to do that. What employers are looking for is the information behind those public documents, the kind of information that is held by a former minister such as Mr Pyne. Mr Pyne's media statement is intended to assure us. He says:

I intend to ensure that anyone I provide advice to has rigorous processes and procedures in place to ensure I am not put in a position where the ministerial code of conduct might be breached.

We don't know what any of these processes that he's going to put in place are. Again, as Senator Keneally said before, Mr Pyne's argument simply comes down to two words. They are: 'Trust me.' He's saying: 'I know the code. I'm not going to breach the code. I won't have a meeting with someone I shouldn't. I'm not going to use information that I've got. I will park that over there and never touch it, never make use of it. I will practically forget it before I take on my role.'

That is just absurd. No-one believes that. No-one believes that that's what's required under the Statement of Ministerial Standards. That's why the public have reacted so badly to yet another example of a former minister of this government going off to line their pockets in the private sector armed with information that they acquired in their official capacity.

This is obviously an issue for Mr Pyne and his failure to comply with the ministerial standards. But, beyond Mr Pyne, it's also very directly an issue for the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison. It's very disappointing that, so soon after the election when the government was returned, we see the Prime Minister fail the integrity test at the very first hurdle. We've all seen the comments from Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, since he won the election about how he was going to do politics differently. He was going to dial down the volume of politics. He has been promising us a new government. Don't look at all the rabble that we have had over the last six years, with two different Prime Ministers, a couple of different Deputy Prime Ministers and all sorts of knifings and assassinations. Don't worry about all that—everything is new under this Prime Minister.

I have to say that Mr Morrison might be promising a brand-new government, but what we're already seeing in this instance are the same old dodgy standards from this tired Liberal-National government that utterly lacks integrity. It doesn't take you long to think of examples from the last term of office where we saw ministers of this government fail the integrity test. We had Peter Dutton and the au pairs. We had numerous directors appointed by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and those directors had massive conflicts of interest and in some cases were LNP donors, members or supporters being appointed to bodies that were going to be doling out millions of dollars to projects from which they could potentially benefit themselves.

We've had all sorts of jobs-for-mates scandals, and Senator Keneally listed many of those. I don't think she got to the dozens of appointments to the AAT that have been made by this government, of former staffers, former members of parliaments, mates, people they met in the pub, people they met down the street. That seems to be the test for being appointed to the AAT by this government. We had Senator O'Sullivan, who sat in here, chairing estimates committees and asking questions of public servants about projects that he and his family businesses had direct financial stakes in. That's carried over into this term with the matters involving Mr Taylor, the energy minister, over having meetings with departmental officials regarding projects in which he and his family have personal interests as well.

In just the last three years we saw numerous examples where ministers in this government clearly had no regard for matters of integrity and couldn't separate their personal interests from their official interests. Within weeks of being re-elected, we've got another example where Mr Morrison is prepared to turn a blind eye to an absolutely clear breach of his own ministerial standards by one of his former ministers. Mr Morrison has been talking a lot. He's been out there lecturing all sorts of people about the need to restore the community's trust. He gave a speech to a business conference last year where he lectured businesses about the need for business to restore the community's trust, and that is something that needs to occur. He was out there lecturing Cricket Australia about the need to restore trust after the ball-tampering scandal and various other things that that sport was involved in. Again, he was right on that point. But what you won't see him do is lecture his own ministers or his own former ministers about the way—and the need—to restore trust in politics.

All of us who are involved in politics know that trust in politics in Australia is at an all-time low. Cynicism about politics could not be higher in Australia, and it's exactly because of matters like that involving Mr Pyne that trust is so low. This kind of thing, where you've got a minister who takes up an appointment related to his former portfolio within weeks of leaving parliament, is exactly what Australians hate about politics. And here it is happening again under a government which has consistently failed to meet the integrity test.

Mr Morrison also likes to talk a lot about the Canberra bubble, and how all the rest of us need to get out of the Canberra bubble and realise that the things we're obsessed with aren't what the average Australian cares about. I have to say that, by saying Mr Pyne has a clean bill of health, Mr Morrison has demonstrated that he, more than anyone, is stuck in the Canberra bubble. Just leave this chamber, just leave this building, and you will find that every single Australian you speak to says that what Mr Pyne has done here is inappropriate and is in clear breach of the ministerial standards. For Mr Morrison to deny that demonstrates that he, more than anyone, is stuck in the Canberra bubble.

If you don't want to believe me, if you think that I'm just having a bit of a political attack on Mr Morrison, just listen to some of the comments that have been made by some of the current serving Liberal and National Party members of parliament regarding this matter. We've had Senator Abetz—I think he is now the father of the Senate; he's the longest serving senator, if I'm right, from either party, and he knows a bit about ministerial standards as a former minister himself—on the public record in relation to Mr Pyne saying, 'There is an issue here; I acknowledge and accept that.' So this isn't just me as a member of the opposition saying that Mr Pyne has done the wrong thing and that Mr Morrison should take action. Senator Abetz has said it. Mr Pasin, one of the Liberal members of parliament for South Australia, has said that Mr Pyne's post-politics role doesn't meet the pub test:

Ultimately this a question of personal judgment - ministers who leave this place, who have been given the great privilege of those offices within the executive, should think seriously about whether decisions they make once they leave are in the spirit of the code or not. It doesn't reflect well on the political class.

So, again, it is not just me saying there's a problem here—that Mr Pyne has failed to meet the standards and that Mr Morrison has turned a blind eye; at least two members of his own government are saying the same thing.

I suppose what this also says, when we've got government backbenchers out there making these kinds of comments, is that all the division we saw within this government over the last three years is just simmering below the surface. It doesn't take a lot to get Senator Eric Abetz out there, criticising more moderate members of the Liberal Party. He took the first opportunity he could in coming and having a swing at Mr Pyne, and Mr Pasin wasn't far behind him. So I predict that, just as we saw a lack of integrity from this government and constant division within this government in the last term, we're going to be seeing it again. And it's on full display so early in the term, in the case of Mr Pyne.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne left the parliament in May, convinced that there was no life left in this government, and even concerned that he would perhaps lose his seat. So he departed. And, as a lifelong political careerist who had never worked in any other capacity, he is the happy recipient of a parliamentary pension that is reported to be worth around $200,000 per annum.

Some have defended that extremely generous pension scheme on the basis that it was an anticorruption measure. We will see, though, that, in his case at least, it hasn't been very effective. I don't begrudge him the generosity of that pension, but we might have hoped that it might be enough. And I should not fail to point out the obvious, which is that a long way from this chamber, in the shopping centres, the mothers groups and sporting clubs of Australia, many Australians—the victims of bogus robo-debt claims, those waiting on NDIS plans to be approved and those literally starving on Newstart or on the age pension—might well think that taxpayers paying $4,000 a week for ex-politicians as sit-down money is a bit rich.

But, as we have now seen, that's not even enough for Christopher Maurice Pyne. His snout seeks out more than one trough. We have to ask, in this do-nothing response, what the basis is of his corporate arrangement. Is it a straight salary? Is there an incentive bonus scheme? Incentive bonus schemes are often very common in the large consulting firms, so we'd have to ask: what is Christopher Pyne going to avail himself of?

Where is his judgement? After all, Christopher Pyne was never one who was shy to point out other people's lack of judgement. He was quite happy being judge, jury and executioner on other colleagues. His behaviour here is of course both a matter of comedy and of legend. Where is the judgement of the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison? These are the standards of the Prime Minister. These are the standards the Prime Minister sets for his executive. But this 'move it along, nothing to see here' response is a total disgrace, and it does not bode well for this government. I take Senator Waters' point: if you are a Prime Minister with gravitas, you do not buck-pass to a public servant; you take care of business yourself.

Of course, Christopher Pyne has never had a real job, unless you count his hosting of the surprisingly excellent Pyne & Marles Sky News show, of which I was a regular viewer. The other host, I thought, was quite insightful, and most certainly tolerant! But the answer is clear enough, isn't it? Corporations are willing to pay him because they expect a return on their investment. They pay Pyne X in the hope of extracting a thousand X from his mates in the Commonwealth government. And the sad, terrible truth of this is that they might not even recognise it for what it is: corrupt. It is corrupt. It is a corrupt arrangement.

In their hillbilly, boastful enthusiasm, one of the largest accounting and consulting firms in Australia, Ernst & Young, boasted that they had appointed him in preparation for getting a bigger piece of the Defence outsourcing pie. Over the past few years there's been a boom in outsourcing out of Defence to EY's competitors, the principal beneficiary being KPMG. Senator Keneally went through some of those—the large scale of those projects and that consulting. That's why Pyne was appointed to a part-time job that, reportedly, pays more than his last full-time job, as a cabinet minister.

Normally, it would be my duty to stand here in this place and assert that such corrupt behaviour was the collective responsibility of an admittedly quite thoroughly dodgy government. There have been other egregious examples of government decision-makers finding themselves in highly lucrative post-decision-making sinecures after their terms expired. Andrew Robb is probably the most outrageous of these examples. In his case, it went to such an extent that a former security agency chief had to be appointed to the FIRB. But let's be fair about Pyne: there's no-one on our side of politics who loathes him quite like most of the Liberal Party room, who have had to endure his prissy, sanctimonious, smart alec, backstabbing, constantly treacherous, hateful and despicable ways. Think of the furore that eventuated from his comments at the casino in Sydney, his boastful speech to moderates of the Liberal Party, and think of the consequences that they unleashed.

John Howard made many mistakes in his term of office, but he judged Pyne quite correctly. John Howard judged him to be 'unworthy of promotion'. We now see just how unworthy. They are a remarkable contrast in conduct post office. Mr Howard retired gracefully, occasionally helping his side of politics and writing a sedate but popularly received memoir that settled few scores, and he certainly didn't sell himself to corporate Australia or to foreign interests. Pyne, within weeks of the election, has his snout in multiple troughs. It's a disgrace. It is little wonder Christopher Pyne's former colleagues Mr Pasin; Senator Abetz; and Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, practically threw him under the bus on a very entertaining segment of morning television. It is little wonder that his former colleagues say that his appointment to EY does not pass the pub test.

It is little wonder his former colleagues are so gun-shy about introducing a national integrity commission. They will spend the next three years trying to avoid it, because they know that former members like Christopher Pyne, who've always believed in little else beyond self-entitlement, would be dragged in as witnesses and be caught in lies and corrupt schemes. Pyne, Robb and countless others could star in a Liberal version of Orange Is the New Blackof course, it might have to be 'orange is the new Liberal blue'! We won't have an integrity commission worthy of the name from this government. They've seen the damage that it can do to governing parties who've lost their way. But I don't think any of those other parties have really got the best of Christopher Pyne, or the worst, because what Christopher Pyne is thinking of engaging in is large-scale defrauding of the Commonwealth. But time will tell.

I'll end by asking why Christopher Pyne, on his social media, is posting photographs of himself walking the corridors of Parliament House. What is he doing here? Who is he meeting? And he gets no benefit of the doubt, because he appears to have no ethical standards whatsoever and no care for his own party, which is drunk on hubris, and this nonresponse is just another piece of proof of their hubristic nature. Above all else, the good of this country depends on government ministers and bureaucrats being trusted to make decisions free of favour and free of obligation or coercion from sleazy lobbyists, like Christopher Pyne, who know their secrets and weaknesses and are willing to exploit them in a series of side hustles. I believe this will emerge as the biggest scandal of this already plagued Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to comment on the most grave and angry concerns about the recent postministerial employment of Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop in the private sector, which, in my view, represent clear breaches of the ministerial standards, as anyone could see. Mr Pyne was Minister for Defence Industry from July 2016 until August 2018, and Minister for Defence from August 2018 until April 2019. He is now employed with the firm Ernst & Young, a firm that has received Department of Defence contracts worth more than $148 million over just the last four years. Ernst & Young has stated publicly that it is aiming for further Defence business opportunities.

The government would have us believe that this is not a breach of ministerial standards, which essentially state, at paragraph 2.25, Post-ministerial employment:

… for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister …

For that same period they must not 'take personal advantage of information' which they have accessed through their previous position which was otherwise not available to the public. Mr Pyne is not able to unlearn what he has been exposed to in his ministerial position.

The Australian public are not stupid. Australians do not think that this action is okay. This action is an insult to the Australian people, who are being asked to condone conduct that is clearly enriching Mr Pyne based on information that came to him during his time as minister. It is disrespectful to the electors of this country and a breach of the trust that was placed in him by both the electors and his colleagues. This is the 'Sixty Billion Dollar Man'. The $60 billion job creation scheme created just one job: Christopher Pyne's, when he was re-elected in the 2016 election. That $60 billion lasted just three years.

If this is allowed to be swept under the carpet, it makes a mockery of all the rules that this Senate has considered essential for the good and fair conduct of past ministers. Perhaps Mr Pyne—to reflect on his joke in his valedictory speech, when he was leaving parliament—wants to avoid squeezing his own lemons for his drinks in future. But it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of Australian voters and Australian taxpayers.

Now let's turn to Ms Bishop. She served as Minister for Foreign Affairs from September 2013 until August 2018. She is now working as a board member for Palladium, a global investment and consultancy group that was awarded more than $500 million in Australian government contracts during the period when Ms Bishop was Minister for Foreign Affairs—half a billion dollars. This conjures up in my mind the name 'Hillary' and the images that go with that.

It is clear that each of these people has in fact gained financially from what they gleaned from their ministerial roles, and this is not good enough. It speaks to the standards, sadly, of the government, the Prime Minister and the Liberal-Labor duopoly. From the pubs of Thursday Island to the pubs of Tugun, Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop fail the pub test. This is not what Australian taxpayers expect from their ex-politicians. Parliament is not for the members of parliament. We are servants to the people, and we should be serving in parliament and after parliament in accordance with parliamentary procedures and what the people expect.

Ms Bishop's and Mr Pyne's actions are not acceptable, and the Australian public need to know that One Nation will stand up against these abuses of office. From Cairns to Cunnamulla and from Bamaga to Burleigh, One Nation wants to restore honest and competent government to Australia for the benefit of all Australians.

Question agreed to.