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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators O'Neill, Bilyk, Wong today relating to ministerial standards.

I have to say I don't understand why anyone in this place would waste their political capital on protecting Angus Taylor, because you know what he's busy using his ministerial position to do? To shore his investments up. Instead of getting people's power bills down, what he's doing is spending his time ensuring his investment values are retained. Average wholesale power prices have increased by 158 per cent across the National Electricity Market states since the Liberals' energy crisis began in 2015. Mr Morrison says Mr Taylor has one KPI—to be the minister for lower power prices. But you know what he is? The minister for increasing the value of his own investments.

Angus Taylor failed to declare a direct financial interest in a company, but, worse, he then used his position as a minister to defend that company's interests after it was accused of breaking the law. He met with the Department of the Environment and Energy and the office of the then minister, now Treasurer, in March 2017 to discuss the listing of critically endangered grasslands while the department was investigating the alleged poisoning of the same grasslands on land he part-owned. Magically, coincidently, that meeting occurred the day after federal environment department officials met with Jam Land Pty Ltd, the company in which he has an interest. What a coincidence! And, of course, an officer of the compliance unit of the department responsible for the investigation was present, which Minister Taylor tried to dismiss airily by saying, 'Actually, we didn't talk about it.'

Following the meeting, the office of the then minister for the environment asked for advice about whether he could vary the relevant listing against the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. He asked whether he could act against the committee's advice and whether he could keep the reasons for the variation secret. Again, what a coincidence!

Earlier today, Minister Taylor made a statement in the House which underlined his complete inability to provide any evidence that he was representing anybody other than himself. In fact, as we speak he's probably still failing to answer questions on that topic. He didn't explain why he didn't register his interests. He didn't indicate whether there were any other compliance cases. And he didn't explain what he did in relation to a letter he says he obtained three years ago. Because the facts are these: Minister Taylor says, 'Nothing to see here,' and what does he point to? A letter three years prior to the meeting that he didn't do anything about, a letter six months after the meeting and a conversation he claims to have had with a bloke from Yass. That's it. But somehow, magically, some 24 hours after his company has a meeting or is met with by the federal department of the environment regarding potential contravention of federal environmental laws, the meeting is arranged. Isn't that incredible! Nothing after 2014. Nothing after the conversation with the bloke from Yass. But the day after the meeting with Jam Land Pty Ltd occurs, magically, Minister Taylor springs into action and Mr Frydenberg's office arranges a meeting.

This is the same Angus Taylor who has benefited from the watergate scandal, where the government paid $80 million for water rights from a company that Minister Taylor had set up in the Cayman Islands—he's a good bloke, this one—asking departments to meet with him about issues affecting the value of his own investment. The fact is, nothing appears to have been done by this minister who claims to represent farmers' interests. Nothing appears to have been done to represent the asserted farmers until his own interests were implicated, until his own interests were affected. That's the truth of it.

I'd encourage any senators who are not intending or are not currently supporting an inquiry into his actions, to reflect exactly on who and what they're protecting. They're not protecting everyday Australians who are being ignored by Minister Taylor as their power bills go up. They're not protecting everyday Australians who can't pick up the phone to a cabinet colleague to get problems with their investments fixed if they run afoul of the law. If the government doesn't think there's anything to hide, why don't you allow the inquiry to demonstrate that? Why are you fighting so hard to hide it? (Time expired)

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

I'm surprised that the government doesn't seek to defend its position on this. And perhaps, upon reflection, I shouldn't be. I've seen 189 senators come through this chamber in my time here. I've seen some fast and loose footwork undertaken in defence of ministers and attempts to get around the ministerial code of conduct. I've seen governments, of all persuasions, I acknowledge, faced with difficulties seek to slip and slide when it comes to these basic questions, which the public is, rightfully, concerned about.

These fundamental issues go to issues of corruption, go to the issues of fundamental accountability, go to the issues of proper public administration. I have seen governments seek to avoid their responsibilities, particularly when individual ministers have paid fast and loose with the truth. But I have not seen examples like this one, where a junior minister will approach a colleague to organise a briefing on the basis that he's claiming to act for constituents, in a neighbouring electorate, on matters where he claims he's got correspondence—three years old and on which he's done nothing about—and say, 'On technical matters, the only compliance matter that's before the department, at the moment'—namely, his own company; he claims that this is the purpose by which he is appearing to get a technical briefing. He then, when pushed on this matter, suggests that he's got further correspondence, which is dated six months after the event, in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of some senators in this chamber.

Following that meeting, the senior minister, the Minister for the Environment, undertakes to get further advice about where he could act 'secretly'—I emphasise that word because that's what appears in the documents—to weaken the federal protection standards for grasslands, which are affected by the compliance measure that's being taken against the junior minister's company. Why shouldn't there be concern expressed about any of that?

What we have here is a situation where a junior minister, Minister Taylor, says he has no association with the company, Jam Land, that he in fact partly owns. He then said, 'It's covered by my pecuniary interest statement,' except that it's not. He's met the technical requirements except the main details. He then says, 'Of course I'm going to talk to the department on other matter, except a compliance officer is present in the room.' Furthermore, further action is taken to change the regulations which would allow a review to be undertaken and used to further delay the listing of those areas that have been subject to the compliance action—all done in secret and all done at the request of the junior minister seeking this private briefing. I think there are grounds for an inquiry into that.

Senator Hanson and One Nation, I'm told, are having some difficulty in coming to terms with this. When I went through Queensland in the last election I noticed billboards that said, 'I have the guts to say what people are thinking'. This was the pitch that One Nation put to the people of Queensland. Well, I know what the people of Australia are thinking about this type of behaviour. If One Nation had the guts to say what people are thinking, they'd vote for an inquiry to get to the bottom of these matters and uphold these ministerial standards that most governments say they are actually committed to. This is a government that says it is interested; it should demonstrate it. (Time expired)

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm new to this place and I've heard a lot of talk this afternoon about people's concern, but I can tell you that I am now wildly concerned, because it seems that there are those on the other side who think that there is only one farmer in Australia. The big sheep at Goulburn, the home of the Big Merino, surely would be an indication that there is more than one farmer in this region.

I just want to read a little bit of the statement from the minister this morning saying:

There has been strong antagonism expressed by the farming community about federal and state native vegetation regulation for some time. The concern was very serious. The revised listing requires farmers to assess whether there is 50 per cent native vegetation down to parcels of one-10th of a hectare, at highly unfavourable times of year because clover, an introduced species, must be excluded from the assessment.

…   …   …

It goes well beyond New South Wales regulations and is costly and unmanageable, as it is difficult or impossible to be sure that routine pasture improvement or weed management is compliant. Ultimately, the revised listing would halt pasture improvement and efficient weed control across the Southern Tablelands and Monaro. It has the potential to do untold damage to agricultural productivity throughout the region, undermining the livelihoods of many of the 2½ thousand people who work in agriculture in my electorate.

That's what I want to speak about: the regulation, particularly around vegetation, is making it almost impossible for farmers, particularly in Queensland, who, under the state Labor government, have been strangled by red tape and regulation, to manage the land that they're expected to manage. They have introduced regulation that is difficult to manage and the department will not respond to questions to answer what practices they are able to use.

This place should be representative of all parts of Australia. Again, I am terrifically concerned that there is only a few of us here who understand the impost and the impact of regulation on vegetation on the most important people in the country—those people who are growing food and fibre for Australians and for a good part of the world.

The recent bushfires in Queensland were a horrific example of what happens when regulation and green tape go berserk. We were very, very fortunate that no person died in those bushfires, but I can tell you that plenty of animals, plenty of old-growth trees and plenty of native forests died as a result of regulation that didn't allow normal farm management practices to happen. Australian agricultural lands have been managed for tens of thousands of years by our First Nations people and now by landholders. Those normal practices of fire management were not allowed to be used and resulted in untold damage. I think it is very important that people be able to make representations to manage regulation that is not allowing good land management practices to happen.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say as the duty senator for the seat of Hume that the people of Hume deserve so much better than what they're getting from Angus Taylor. I can tell you, from visiting that electorate many, many times and meeting with farmers myself, that the access that this minister has sought for properties that are of interest to him and his family, in terms of a direct benefit to him, is an extraordinary abuse of the position which the people of Hume have bestowed on him. The best thing you can do if you're a member of the citizenry of the great seat of Hume is find a way to be related to be Angus Taylor, because it seems to me he is able to get access to the information that he wants, access to the services that he wants and access to compliance officers at meetings that he wants, with regard to how he manages his land, and he does it in his own self-interest in a way that other farmers working that land in the seat of Hume are unable to do—because Mr Taylor expects privilege. Mr Taylor has exercised privilege in his own interest in the way in which Senator Wong and Senator Carr have outlined here.

Mr Taylor, you'd have to say, has been extremely evasive about answering the questions that we have been asking. His statement this morning is what Minister Birmingham, under the tutelage of the Leader of the Government here in the Senate, stood behind today, referring the Senate to 'Mr Taylor's statement', 'Mr Taylor's statement'. Mr Taylor's statement is not worth the paper it's written on, because we have found, day after day, that Mr Taylor is doing anything but telling the truth clearly and cleanly to the Australian people and to the people in the seat of Hume about exactly what's going on. He has been involved, in recent months, in that outrageous case of 'watergate', with $80 million involved. People were outraged then. People in the seat of Hume were outraged to find out that, for a local forum in the middle of the election period, Mr Taylor was given access to questions on local matters that would be asked, for which he had prepared speaking notes done for him by his office. The people against whom he was debating, participating in a democratic process, were not given those questions till hours after Mr Taylor and certainly didn't have the benefit of prepared answers done by staff. Mr Taylor is used to advantage, and that's why he has taken the steps that are on the record with regard to the grasslands that are owned by a family company that he jointly owns—with one-third of the shares—called Jam Land.

What I think is extraordinary is the scale of the snow job which Mr Taylor has determined he has the capacity to do on the entire Australian population, and this Senate and the House of Representatives. Just last Thursday, Labor were so concerned about this attempt at a layer cake of deception we have seen from Mr Taylor that we tried to get up a Senate inquiry. The way in which Mr Taylor and the government avoided that getting a positive vote here in the Senate last Thursday was to provide some documentation to some members of the crossbench. Sadly, they didn't act quite deceptively enough, and the reality is the dates on those letters reveal that a letter on which they relied to get crossbench support, to hide this from the public and to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate inquiry, was dated seven months after the date on which this incident occurred. So, Mr Taylor is relying now on a letter dated well after the event in which he sought to intervene, in his own personal interests, and he's also relying on comments from members of an adjoining seat, the seat of Eden-Monaro, and from a commentary that he says is a conversation he had with a farmer in Yass.

Now, there are many good farmers in Yass, but not all of them have access to the offices of Mr Frydenberg. There are many good farmers in Yass, and Goulburn, who want to do the right thing, who are doing the right thing, who are farming properly and who deserve far better representation than this minister, who could not get exercised about anything with regard to these particular grasslands and the management of those grasslands until he received notification that it was going to affect him personally. Now, that is a lazy member. That is a deceptive member. That is a member who deserves the scrutiny of this Senate. And this afternoon, when a motion is presented to provide that scrutiny, the crossbench in this place should support it, because Mr Taylor does not deserve the support of the colleagues who are standing up for him—(Time expired)

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, in taking note of relevant responses today, may I say that we've had a clear statement in this place from Minister Birmingham regarding Minister Taylor's requirements within the statement of ministerial standards, and I thank the honourable senator for his contribution. But let me be clear: what we have here today is just another parliamentary tactic by the Labor Party to distract from the fact that this government is delivering on our agenda. And why do they want to distract us? Because the Labor Party is in absolute disarray because they lost the election and almost two months later can't work out where it all went wrong.

And why did Australians reject Labor's policy platform on 18 May? Was it option A—their pledge to wage class warfare? Was it option B—their plan to introduce higher taxes on hardworking Australians? Was it option C—a reckless spending agenda? Or was it in fact option D—all of the above? Certainly during the election campaign and since then, through my conversations with hardworking Tasmanians in my own state, it has been abundantly clear to me that Labor's policy platform—a platform to tax, a platform to punish, a platform to curb the ways in which everyday Australians live their lives—is not one that appeals. Australians didn't like what they saw from Labor on 18 May, and they still don't like what they see, although at least in the lead-up to election day it looked like Labor actually stood for something—something that was resoundingly rejected by voters, but still something. Now they stand for nothing except for playing political games in this parliament, continually asking the same questions, even though they know the answer, and petulantly opposing our government's mandate. Today's question regarding Minister Taylor is just one of these examples.

One thing is for certain, and that is that until Labor manages to form some sort of agenda I have very low expectations of that occurring. This Labor opposition will continue to play games in parliament. In contrast, the Morrison coalition government is focused on getting on with the job and doing what's right by the Australian people, keeping our promises and getting on with our job of governing. We don't need to revert to parliamentary tactics and time-wasting exercises—

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

Senator McCarthy on a point of order.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just would like to bring your attention to relevance. The issue isn't about the election; it's actually about Mr Taylor.

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

I have been listening very carefully, and it is a broad-ranging discussion, but I do believe that Senator Chandler has referred back to the questions asked by Labor senators of Senator Birmingham.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I restate: in taking note of the responses today, I can't help but reflect on how this chamber's time would be better spent asking and answering questions about this government's plan to make life better for everyday Australians. As I said, that is what mature, grown-up governments do, and we're getting on with the job. We've delivered tax relief for 10 million working Australians, and we've backed in our farmers with our drought relief fund. We're dealing with foreign terrorist fighters who are trying to come back to our country, with our tough new temporary exclusion orders to keep Australians secure. We're helping our hardworking families and our farmers by progressing legislation to outlaw the activists who are invading our farms. We've given more power and greater flexibility to the courts to deregister law-breaking unions and take action against certain militant parts of unions on their officials.

On every issue, at every turn, Labor has tried to oppose and block our agenda and play these political games, and they've been rightly called out—in fact, pilloried—for trying to play these games with pieces of legislation that not only were supported by voters at the election but are commonsense, practical policies to make life better for everyday Australians. What we are seeing from them today is just a continuation of this counterproductive behaviour. These games, these time wasting, unnecessary parliamentary tactics, are not what Australians voted for. Everyday Australians voted for a grown-up government that gets the job done. Everyday Australians resoundingly endorsed a government that keeps our economy strong and our future secure. That is what Australians voted for and that is what this coalition government is setting out to do.

In stark contrast, now we have a situation where Labor, clearly, doesn't want to talk about policies anymore, so instead they are going to play the man. Why would Labor stop giving Australians a tax cut? Why would Labor oppose locking in funding for our drought-affected communities? Why would Labor oppose legislation which seeks to ensure unions and union officials act within the law? Those are the questions that have Australians wondering what on earth Labor have been doing since the election. Whose side are they on? Whose side is Labor on? Are they are on the side of hardworking Australians who deserve tax relief and who deserve to have their next generations employable and appropriately trained for the jobs of the future? Whose side is the Labor Party on, because it is clearly not the side of everyday Australians?

Question agreed to.