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

As I have previously indicated to the chamber, all ministers are expected to conduct themselves consistent with the requirements in the Statement of Ministerial Standards. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction has disclosed his interests in compliance with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. Minister Taylor has repeatedly made clear that he has made no representations in relation to his family investment company to any federal or state ministers or to any federal or state government departmental officials.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

We've seen, finally, the issue of this toothless, useless ministerial code of conduct getting some attention. I'm pleased that yesterday this chamber agreed to establish an inquiry to look into two incidents of former ministers clearly—in my view—breaching those standards. I was disappointed that it didn't get support to actually look at how we make those standards enforceable and hold both former and current ministers to account to comply with them. But it is linked to today's issue. We've seen a series of investigations that have revealed highly inappropriate meetings between the current Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Mr Taylor, and the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, and still a minister, Mr Frydenberg, over the issue of whether or not a critically endangered grassland could have its environmental protection removed so that Minister Taylor and a company that he and his family control could conduct land clearing with impunity and not need to comply with federal environmental laws. There are clear provisions in the ministerial standards that go to not using personal information for personal use and to not having personal conflicts of interest, not using one's position as a cabinet minister to try to feather one's own nest financially.

We sought an explanation of what was revealed by the very detailed investigations by The Guardian publication. I feel entirely unsatisfied by the so-called explanation just given by Minister Cormann, who simply says that the minister has disclosed his interests. Well, that's not at question. What is at question is whether or not pressure was placed by Minister Taylor onto the then environment minister, Mr Frydenberg, in breach of the ministerial code, in breach of that rule that you are not meant to put your personal interests ahead of your job as a minister who is meant to be acting for the betterment of Australians. I think that explanation was completely shoddy. Frankly, we stand vindicated. This is exactly why we wanted the inquiry to look into this issue. I had a very low level of expectation of how much of an explanation we'd get today, and I'm sad that I haven't been disappointed in that regard. You can't just brush off noncompliance with the ministerial standards. An allegation of breach is a very serious thing that I would have thought the government would want to go to great pains to disavow if the evidence was there. Just to say that there's nothing to see here will not restore the confidence of the Australian people in the conduct of these ministers. Is it any wonder that members of the public think that politicians are just here for their own benefit and here to feather their own nest when we see constant either actual or, at the very least, perceptions of breaches of these ministerial standards?

It is long past time that these standards were given some enforceability and were complied with not just by former ministers who've now left and want to get paid for selling the knowledge that they gained as ministers—and we're going to be looking into that thanks to the inquiry yesterday—but by existing ministers who actually take these standards seriously. Maybe they would if the Prime Minister asked them to take these standards seriously. The status of this document is the Prime Minister's code of conduct for his ministers. This is really on the head of the Prime Minister, who is clearly turning a blind eye repeatedly to these constant breaches or, at the very least, snubs of these standards. We need these standards to be enforced, we need them to be complied with and we certainly need the cooling-off period extended from not just 18 months, which gets routinely ignored anyway, to a decent five-year chunk. We need independent enforcement of these standards.

We here at the Greens—and I think we have some company in this respect—think we need an independent anticorruption body. We have been pushing for that for 10 years now. It is getting boring to keep saying, 'We have been pushing for this, we need it; look at all of the examples,' but we're not going to stop, and I'm grateful that we have at least some company in that regard. Where is your proposal for an ICAC? There was much talk of this late last year. Pre-election you wanted to look like you were doing something in this space and so hastily announced a body with very weak powers that was broadly criticised by experts as totally inadequate, but we haven't even any movement on that totally inadequate proposal.

The consistent denial and failure to apply basic standards will serve only to reduce the public's confidence in this whole institution. I don't care if the public think the government are terrible; I think they're terrible. When they do have an agenda it is awful, makes people's lives harder and wrecks the planet. But I do think that people's level of confidence in the institutions of our democracy is important and that we all have an obligation beyond our party political views to try to uphold those high standards and to do what's best to comply with those rules.

As it stands we have a very inadequate explanation by Minister Cormann for this whole debacle that has been revealed and has rolled out over several months now. We, sadly, had the chamber yesterday refuse to look into this example and we also had the chamber refuse to actually look into why the code is so useless and how it can be fixed and made more enforceable. We're not going to give up on this. If you think that you can get away with putting your own private interests and those of your family business and try to exert influence to weaken environmental laws and get away with it, you've got another think coming.

I look forward to this chamber continuing to pressure the government and Ministers Taylor and Frydenberg for an actual explanation of what on earth is going on here and how they can possibly justify a sitting minister requesting a meeting with an environment minister to ask whether or not an endangered grassland listing can be weakened or modified so that that minister's private family company can make more money off a private enterprise. I cannot believe that nobody else thinks that's outrageous and that it doesn't warrant an investigation by a Senate inquiry. We will move for that again after the completely useless explanation that we got from Minister Cormann today. He didn't address any of those issues. They are valid and important issues that should be addressed and I will urge my colleagues to rethink whether or not we look at this further because, clearly, there is something fishy going on here and the public are sick of it. We're sick of it.

Ministers shouldn't be able to put their own personal financial interests ahead of the interests of Australians and they shouldn't be able to get away with trying to do it behind closed doors and putting departmental officials in very awkward positions. The reporting is that one of the senior officials of the environment department was invited into one of these meetings. It turns out that that same person was responsible for a compliance action for enforcing an illegal clearing investigation against that same company. What kind of pernicious position is this to put that unbiased and very professional public servant in—to have them in the room when someone was trying to exert undue influence on both the responsible minister and that public servant themselves?

We're not going to take our foot off the pedal on this one, and I hope we will have a similar level of concern to what was expressed yesterday in relation to former ministers Pyne and Bishop taking jobs that looked like they were taking dodgy advantage of the knowledge they gained as ministers. I think we should still have that same level of scrutiny on existing ministers. If these standards are completely useless, just throw them out and give up on the charade of them meaning anything.

Let's make sure that all MPs are subject to appropriate standards. This shouldn't just be about scoring points from the other side, and I fear that's what yesterday was about. We actually need to make sure that these standards are complied with, whoever is in government, and that people in this place are not putting their own personal interests ahead of their interest in doing a proper job. Surely that is the very least that the Australian public can expect of all of us.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the same matter. This is becoming something of a regular occurrence, unfortunately, in the early days of this parliament: Minister Cormann coming into this chamber, being forced to explain the actions of his colleagues. Every time it's the same story. Whether it's Minister Taylor, Minister Frydenberg, former Minister Pyne or former Minister Bishop, we get the same thing: we get a carefully crafted statement that dodges real questions, provides no real answers and doesn't engage in any meaningful way with the allegations at hand, which are serious allegations. We get statements that smooth over the glaring inconsistencies in the protagonists' stories. Today we didn't even really get that. We got a glib dismissal—a handful of words from the leader of the government in this place—of the issues as a whole.

I can understand why the Prime Minister and his representative might want to protect two of his most senior ministers. It's politics and it's a political move, but I tell you what: it has real costs. Under each of its successive prime ministers, this Liberal government has overseen a lessening of the standards applicable in public life. They have a tendency to see all rules and all regulations as red tape, to be abolished if possible or evaded if not. It shows itself in their attitude towards the environment, but it also shows itself in their response to the ministerial standards. Those standards are not just there for decoration. They exist to build public trust that the actions taken by elected representatives are for the public interest and not directed towards private ends.

This episode looks like the absolute worst of what people fear about this government: insiders using a privileged position to help themselves and their families, and ministers using their considerable power for what appears to be personal gain. These are questions that ought to have been answered in the statement that was provided this morning, and they were not even engaged with.

There is no court that enforces the ministerial standards. It is ultimately up to the Prime Minister to decide what kind of government he wishes to lead. Mr Morrison this week has been all about the tests. He set a whole lot of tests for the Labor Party. Well, this is a pretty big test for the Prime Minister, and today he's failed it, because, in allowing his representative in this place to make the statement he made this morning, he's made it clear that he is not interested in oversight, he is not interested in accountability, he is not interested in providing transparency and he has no respect for process. The Australian people deserve a great deal more than this.

This morning was an opportunity to put some facts on the record from the government's perspective. What's been reported in the public domain and what's come out through the FOI process that's been undertaken by journalists is truly troubling. The emails revealed under the FOI process reveal a remarkable set of coincidences. Minister Taylor, it appears, sought to contact his colleague Mr Frydenberg, who in turn sought a briefing from the Department of the Environment and Energy about the decision to upgrade environmental protections for certain native grasslands in New South Wales. That briefing was sought the day after the department met with Jam Land, a company, to talk to them about compliance issues. What's asserted in the media is that this property is a Taylor family property. The media reports state that the property was owned by a company with strong ties to Minister Taylor and his family. It has been reported that his brother is one of the directors and that the minister himself holds an interest in the firm. Minister Cormann ought to have confirmed that this morning or denied it.

It has also been reported that this property was the subject of federal and state investigations into the alleged poisoning of 30 hectares of the protected grass. Minister Taylor, under the ministerial code, is required to be honest. It's a core part of your public duties in serving the public here. His explanation for seeking this briefing is unconvincing. He has claimed that he received the briefing in his capacity as the local member for Hume. But the affected grasslands are almost entirely in another electorate. The timing of this request, the timing of the briefing, the location of the property in question and its relationship to the minister is a remarkable set of coincidences, coincidences that have not been explained in any way this morning.

It raises a reasonable concern that Mr Taylor sought that meeting to exert pressure on the department or influence the conduct of its inquiry into his family property. The department was certainly on alert, and you can see it in the nervous emails exchanged between officials. They are especially concerned when there is a direct request from the minister's office that the assistant secretary responsible for compliance be in the room for what is supposed to be a policy meeting. It's a terrible position to be placed in when you're responsible for compliance, isn't it—to be in the room with two government ministers when you're in the process of attempting to undertake an even-handed and fair examination of a set of allegations about a illegal land clearing? It's a terrible position to be placed in. This morning, Minister Cormann ought to have explained whether or not, as reported, this took place and what the reason was for having a compliance officer in the room.

What about Minister Frydenberg's responsibilities? What does he do as the minister responsible for administering this act? Does he act to protect the integrity of the department? The emails obtained under FOI suggest that his office was very active in helping to set up the meetings for Minister Taylor. The FOI emails state that one of Minister Frydenberg's staff:

… started quizzing me on the changed definition, and I gave him some basic information on the thresholds that were applied in the new listing in 2016.

He is now keen for—

redacted person

and I to meet with Angus Taylor to answer questions on the technical aspects of the listing outcome.

He made the point that for farmers in Monaro this is ‘the number 1 issue’ of concern for them.

That's what the department's saying amongst themselves. They make the point that it is 'the number one issue' for 'farmers in Monaro'. That's not in Hume, the seat that Minister Taylor is supposed to represent, but it is where the Taylor family's properties are. The other documents obtained under FOI suggest that the minister then sought advice from his department about whether it was possible to secretly change the listings without consultation. What has been Minister Frydenberg's explanation of these actions? Barely anything, and there was nothing from Minister Cormann this morning.

These actions raise very serious questions that go to the ministerial standards. The importance of separating private interests from public office appears and is a theme all through the Statement of Ministerial Standards, and I'll quote certain paragraphs:

In recognition that public office is a public trust … Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest …

Section 2.1:

… it is critical that Ministers do not use public office for private purposes.

Section 2.9 goes to perception:

Ministers must bear in mind that their private interests can give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interests …

Section 2.11:

… These Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.

This morning would have been an opportunity for Minister Cormann to explain in this place how it is that Ministers Frydenberg and Taylor have met these standards and have complied with these obligations. Instead, we got a contemptuous statement—a handful of words.

There are outstanding questions that need to be resolved in relation to this matter. It is not good enough to come in here and simply assert that the standards have been complied with, without providing any material or relevant information about how. It is not good enough to come into this chamber and refuse to provide information about who has been involved, and what conversations took place between Minister Taylor and Minister Frydenberg. The explanation provided this morning is completely inadequate, in light of the seriousness of the issues that have been raised in the public reporting.

People deserve a fair hearing. The capacity for explanation in this place provides exactly that forum. It's a very great shame that it wasn't utilised this morning.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McAllister. Senator Kitching.

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

I rise to take note of today's statements from Senator Cormann on Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister Taylor in relation to the Statement of Ministerial Standards. The statement from Senator Cormann this morning has failed to address what has now become a systematic expose of the failure of ministers in this government to abide by the Prime Minister's own standards. We have to remember that the Statement of Ministerial Standards is signed off on by the Prime Minister of the day. He is responsible for enforcing those standards. The fact that he cannot—and this is the second day that we've had, really, non-responses on these questions—is a total disgrace. And Senator McAllister has been through some of the facts of today's instance.

But I think we should also remember that the public—the people to whom ministers in this government are responsible—would not be very reassured that their government is acting in a way that we might expect elected representatives to act. Yesterday we saw that former ministers Pyne and Bishop had failed to follow through on the Statement of Ministerial Standards. We actually also have that compounded, possibly, as we do today, by a minister really being mendacious in her statements around whether she had been associated with one of the companies for whom she is now working and receiving pay.

We saw last night that this government has no agenda in this 46th Parliament. We see, now, back-to-back non-responses. We see a government that acts with no oversight, no accountability, no transparency and no respect for parliamentary process and, really, is acting with a complete disdain for the Australian people.

The point of this is that, after last year's coup week and the fallout that followed, this government has to run a protection racket for these ministers. They can't afford to have any more instability, and they know it.

Why has there been no formal independent investigation into this? The government is lacking an agenda and lacking legislation to bring to the chambers; maybe what it could do is to actually follow through on the Prime Minister's own statement last year where he said that he would look at a federal integrity commission.

Obviously, that is legislation that this government is not going to bring forward, because of course it can't afford to. But, luckily for us, there are paper trails on all of this; so, even if Mr Taylor and Mr Frydenberg think that, over the next three years, they won't have a federal ICAC, the paper trail will still exist—because it will be a Labor government that introduces a federal integrity commission; it won't be this government, despite the lack of legislation that was obvious last night.

Let's just go through TheGuardian's article. These documents that The Guardian sought were found under FOI requests, so they are documents from the department itself. Mr Taylor, who was then the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, sought meetings with departmental officials to discuss the 2016 listing that protects the natural temperate grassland of the south-eastern highlands as a critically endangered community under federal environment law. The meetings were requested in 2017, via Mr Frydenberg's office. At the same time there were state and federal investigations underway into the alleged poisoning of about 30 hectares that contained the grass species on a property, in New South Wales' Monaro region, which was owned by Jam Land Pty Ltd. Minister Taylor and his brother, Richard Taylor, are directors in that entity. There's also quite a complicated shareholding, because they also own shares in another company called Guffy—that is, the family's investment company.

Mr Taylor denied making any representations regarding the compliance action, and said he'd received a briefing in his capacity as the member for Hume for the purpose of understanding the technical aspects of the revised listing and its impact on those affected. That includes many constituents. He did neglect to say that his family company was one of those constituents so affected and, in fact, that they had unlawfully poisoned off 30 hectares of grassland. They then sought to understand that for their constituents—that is, for themselves.

Following on from lobbying by Mr Taylor, Mr Frydenberg's office then sought advice on the full extent of his ministerial powers and whether he could override the scientific advice and remove the critically endangered listing. The best bit of this is not only did they seek that; they actually sought to understand whether they could keep that a secret, because they didn't want it made public that they were going to remove a native grass species from the critically endangered list. Why? Because there was something to hide—that is, because a landowner who is also a minister of the Crown in this government and a colleague of Mr Frydenberg's, who was then the minister for the environment, was actually personally affected. That is an utter disgrace. You had a minister for the environment who was actually seeking to weaken environmental protection measures. One might say that that went against the office that he held at that time. We haven't really had much of a statement from Mr Frydenberg. He has been asked many questions on this by journalists, and here today, but he hasn't really answered any of those questions.

Let's go to the ministerial standards. Section 2.1 states:

… it is critical that Ministers do not use public office for private purposes.

Section 2.11 states:

… these Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.

That is very plain language. That is very plain language for ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister to follow and for the Prime Minister to enforce. Neither has happened in this instance—neither. It is a disgrace.

What this makes people think is that the wheels in wheels that operate in this government and have operated for some time—we're seeing a total disregard for and a total thumbing of the nose at acting with integrity, which is another word that is sprinkled throughout the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards that no-one seems to follow. People want accountability and transparency from a government. Instead they've got a government whose senior ministers—some of the most senior ministers in this government—abide by their own sets of rules.

Yesterday we heard of two former ministers who left this place and went straight into the arms of corporate Australia, ready to swap ministerial knowledge for pay. What we haven't really focused on is former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who's also done that; he's gone to KKR. At some point we might ask some questions about that. But today we see another cabinet minister intervene to ensure the value of his own financial interest. It's imperative that Australians can trust their representatives not to interfere in matters that may relate to their personal financial interests, and to ensure there are no conflicts of interest.

This is not the first time questions have been asked in relation to Minister Taylor's potential conflicts of interest. He's actually got quite a history. We are seeing an extensive investigation into record-breaking amounts being paid in water buybacks from the Commonwealth involving a company Mr Taylor helped to establish, where the water was of questionable value. One has to ask: does the minister represent the constituents of Hume or does he represent his own family's interests—their property, their share portfolio? Again, what we see is a clear example of how Prime Minister Morrison cannot enforce his own ministerial standards. They are simply not worth the paper they're written on.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The empirical evidence suggests that increasing numbers of Australians lack trust in the political institutions that we look to to govern this country. The empirical evidence suggests that increasing numbers of Australians feel that the political system—and the economic system—does not serve the interests of ordinary Australians. The empirical evidence suggests that increasing numbers of Australians are deeply anxious that people in authority are not doing their job properly and are not able to reflect the public will and undertake work for the public benefit. It is examples such as this that I think raise serious questions as to why people might legitimately have concerns about the future of democracy in this country.

The questions of ethics and politics, and the questions of corruption and maladministration are really important matters that can't be dismissed in the manner in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate did when making this explanation today. To simply come in and say, 'The minister has never sought to abuse his office,' and then sit down is not an adequate response to what have been a series of public disclosures concerning the operations of the now Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, but assistant minister for cities at the time; and the now Treasurer, but minister for the environment at the time in terms of their execution of their duties. That's not to assume that everything that has been reported is correct in every respect, but there are serious allegations that need to be dealt with, and there is clearly a case for those allegations to be responded to. If the minister given the opportunity today has failed to do so, it may well be necessary for the Senate to take further action to try to get to the bottom of these allegations.

The assertion is that minister Angus Taylor, when minister for another portfolio, sought to have talks with federal Environment officials over an issue at the centre of an illegal land-clearing action brought by that department against a company which he partly owned, along with his brother that Minister Taylor, who was, as I said, assistant minister for cities at the time, sought to engage, through the minister for the environment, through a number of meetings, in direct discussions with public officials responsible for the administration of a program outside of his direct ministerial responsibilities, and those discussions involved matters where his company was the subject of allegations of illegal land-clearing. As a prima facie case, that's a pretty serious matter.

I looked back at the standards, and when a minister myself I always regarded the standards as an important document. I always understood that this was potentially a career-ending document if you did not take it seriously. These questions of ethical standards reflect proper public expectations that members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate, when sworn in as ministers, should uphold.

The statements in various forms since the code has been established have insisted on the simple point that ministers are entrusted with considerable privilege and wide discretionary powers and that the very basic principles of integrity, fairness, accountability and responsibility, and the requirement to act in the public interest are the essence of your undertaking as a minister. The standards have always asserted—yes, it's true—that the privilege of serving as a minister involves considerable personal sacrifices in terms of both your personal time and your requirements to undertake your official duties and some considerable loss of your personal privacy. There is no doubt you are subject to a higher level of public scrutiny while you're in executive office—so you should be!

But there was also a written assumption that you should not allow your private life to encroach upon your exercise of public duty and that you don't use your public office for private purposes. That's what the public interest provisions of the job require. There are some provisions of these standards that you take on that are actually lifelong. Some I hear speak of requirements that last only a few months after you've got out of the job. Some of your obligations are actually lifelong. But what certainly is beyond dispute is that while you're in the job you don't engage with public servants about private commercial interests, which essentially is the allegation.

It's been proposed that the minister's company was the subject of this inquiry. He said he was not there to discuss his company; he was there to discuss this as a member of parliament, as electoral matters, despite the fact that the grasslands concerned were actually in another electorate. If you believed his explanation, I would suggest that you are probably so gullible as to believe the Prime Minister's explanation that he had nothing to do with the removal of Malcolm Turnbull—that he didn't manage to find the five votes necessary to get rid of the former Prime Minister. Surely you're not that gullible!

He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, I suppose, but it does lead me to the view that the department's Assistant Secretary for the Protected Species and Communities Branch, Mr Geoff Richardson, and a member of his staff, who were engaged in these matters and had clear responsibilities in terms of compliance matters, shouldn't have been put in a position where they were, even in the minister's words, 'Just seeking technical information'—technical information as a minister? I can assure you that you don't just seek technical information from public servants, particularly about your own private interests. Attempts were made to seek advice on how to change the regulations in this matter and to do so secretly. You have to ask yourself: why is it necessary to conduct these types of inquiries secretly? It's not a matter of national security.

It does suggest to me that two federal ministers were flouting the rules and setting the standards of behaviour for ministers in this way. You know the old story about the standard you walk past being the standard you accept. It strikes me that the two ministers are now behaving in a manner which suggests that they acted a bit like thieves in the night. This is not appropriate on a prima facie basis for Mr Taylor, who is now the energy minister, or Mr Frydenberg, who is now the Treasurer, because, if they're accepting that sort of behaviour in those, relatively speaking, more junior positions, what behaviour do they accept now in these more senior positions? As I indicated last night, does it mean you stand over the governor of the Reserve Bank and try to humiliate him and undermine the integrity of the Reserve Bank and think that that's okay? What else does that mean for water rights, electricity or any of the other matters that come under the great responsibilities as a minister of the Commonwealth of Australia? These are profound questions. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is, and has been for some time, a crisis of confidence. That crisis of confidence exists within our community—the people we represent here in this place. What they are losing confidence in—and, in many cases, have lost confidence in—is the capacity of those of us that sit in this place to take decisions in the public interest and not in our own self-interest. This is very serious because it threatens the social contract that underpins things like the rule of law and, ultimately, the very fabric of our democracy. It is episodes like those we are discussing today that threaten that social contract. They continually erode the community's confidence in the way we behave in this place. Let's be very clear about this: the allegations are against sitting ministers—people that are paid to make decisions in the public interest and who ought to be expressly prevented from using their ministerial powers to make decisions based on their own self-interest.

It's important that people realise that yesterday the government and Labor voted down the Greens' amendment to broaden the Pyne inquiry into the breach of ministerial standards to include Minister Taylor and Minister Frydenberg. That was the collective position held by the major parties in this place, and I am yet to hear a reason from the Labor Party for why they would do that. Remember, this is a Labor Party that seems hell-bent on collapsing and agreeing with pretty much every arch conservative proposal put forward by this shocking government. I've said it before, and I will say it again: if Labor's not going to do its job as an opposition, the Greens will step up and do that job for them. Only a few weeks ago, we saw Labor collapse and support the dismantling of the progressive tax system in Australia. We've seen today that Labor is going to collapse on legislation that sets up Peter Dutton as judge and jury when judging whether Australian citizens, including children as young as 14, ought to be allowed back into the country under certain circumstances. We've also seen Labor consistently refuse to take a position on raising Newstart after they went to the election with a wishy-washy policy for a review into Newstart. I invite people to contrast that with the Greens' policy, which is for a $75 increase, which is what the sector is calling for.

Yesterday, when the government and Labor voted down the amendment to broaden the Pyne inquiry into a breach of ministerial standards to include Minister Taylor and Mr Frydenberg, we saw a protection racket. This is a major party protection racket that's part of the cosy deals that are made every single parliament between whichever of the majors find themselves in government and whichever of the majors find themselves in opposition. Let me explain why this protection racket is so important, even to whichever of the major parties sits in opposition—currently, the Australian Labor Party. It is so important because they don't want the dodgy deals their ministers made last time they were in government exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight. That's why this is so important to both of the major parties. The government protect their ministers from inquiries into their shoddy dealings, and Labor are protecting their former ministers, because they know that they have former ministers who have walked in to cushy jobs post their political careers, lobbying and representing significant industry sectors in this country. That's what this stitch-up is all about: a mutual protection racket designed to enable ongoing shonky dealings. Of course, the outcome is that the community loses yet more confidence in all of us in this place.

That is simply not good enough, and the Greens will stand up and point this out at every available opportunity. It's not good enough that we do not have a federal anticorruption authority with true independence from government and with real teeth to address these kinds of issues. It's time that we had one in this country. It's well past time that we have an anticorruption authority.

We also need a significant review of ministerial standards, and that needs to be done independent of the Prime Minister. It is in any Prime Minister's political interests that his or her ministers are not found to be in breach of ministerial standards. Given the shonky behaviours that we've seen from ministers from both parties over a long period of time, the easiest way to reach that aim of not having any ministers in breach is to simply ensure that the ministerial standards set such a low bar that even a dodgy minister can clear it. That's the situation that we find ourselves in today, and that is the true shame of this debate.

We had the government come in to start this debate and make a response to the Senate—a response which my colleague Senator Waters described as 'completely inadequate'. It didn't even attempt to address some of the significant questions that have been raised about ministerial standards. It didn't even try to address those things. That is the shame here, and it is why we are seeing this critical and ongoing erosion of trust. If people don't think there's a trust deficit in this country in relation to those of us who sit in this chamber, those of us who sit in the other place and, in particular, those of us that have the honour and, importantly, the responsibility of being appointed ministers of the Crown, they simply need to go out into our communities, into the streets, into the backyard barbecues and into the pubs and clubs and have a few conversations with real Australians, because I'm here to tell you that trust in politics and trust in our democracy is at an all-time low.

We have a collective responsibility to start what will be a long and difficult road to restore that trust. We could do that if we were collectively prepared to take the actions that need to be taken to begin to rebuild community confidence in politics, in our democracy and in this parliament. But there's a lack of political will to do it. The reason for that is the major party stitch-up, the major party protection racket, that is agreed between whoever happens to be in government and whoever happens to be in opposition, because the government of the day want to protect their ministers from exposure over their dodgy dealings and the opposition of the day want to protect their former ministers from the same. It's not good enough. This parliament deserves better. More importantly, the Australian people deserve better.

Question agreed to.