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

At the request of Senator Waters, I move:

That the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2021.

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

[by video link] I rise to debate whether the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021, my private member's bill to set up a commission of inquiry into whether Mr Christian Porter is fit to remain a minister of the Crown given the rape allegations against him, should be referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. Bills normally go through this process, but not this bill. Anyone listening might remember that back in June I kept trying to progress this bill, which seeks a pathway to justice for Kate Thornton and to uphold standards for our parliament's ministry. On multiple occasions the government blocked me from having the bill being read a second time, which is unprecedented. I kept trying, and the warnings from the Senate President kept escalating. So today I am again trying to speak for my bill, which has been properly introduced, to follow the normal process of being subject to a Senate inquiry, which will then make a recommendation as to whether or not the bill should be supported.

We'll see if the government, with their backers in One Nation, will again vote to stop this. Let's face it, this is not the first time the government have shut down efforts to investigate their actions or their members. This government can't manage a vaccine rollout but they sure can manage a protection racket.

This bill would do one thing: it would establish an independent process to determine whether Mr Christian Porter is a fit and proper person to hold a ministerial position, to sit at that head table when decisions are made in this country, to have a say on this government's position on sexual harassment reforms, to have a say on responses to the Foster review or the Human Rights Commission's review into the safety of parliamentary workplaces and to have a say on whether we should have a code of conduct for politicians.

Mr Porter has been the subject of very serious allegations—allegations of rape. He has strenuously denied those allegations and sued the national broadcaster for reporting on them. Those proceedings were discontinued, and Mr Porter fought hard to have the evidence that was submitted to the court kept hidden from the public. The evidence that was revealed through that case raises serious questions about Minister Porter's suitability.

You would think that a prime minister wouldn't want such questions hanging over the head of any of his ministers. You would think that an innocent person would welcome an investigation to clear their name. Yet the Prime Minister seems completely disinterested in getting answers to these questions. He hasn't read the dossier of allegations sent to him many months ago. He obviously hasn't had a chat with his wife, Jenny, about what the moral thing to do is, either. Instead, the Prime Minister has repeatedly tried to move on from this issue. He evidently thought a belated ministerial reshuffle would fix it. Imagine underestimating the women of Australia so much that you think that moving an alleged rapist sideways into a different ministry would address the concerns that at least half the population has about sexual assault. The Prime Minister's response reeks of male privilege, and it fundamentally misjudges the anger and the injustice that women feel about continued rape, sexual assault, harassment, discrimination and just plain sexism.

If the Prime Minister can ignore that in Parliament House then it says to women everywhere that their experiences are not valid, not important and not to be believed. The Prime Minister doesn't believe that Minister Porter raped Kate Thornton. He asked Minister Porter, who denied it, and that's enough for the Prime Minister—he just takes his mate's word for it. He didn't read the dossier of allegations. He didn't ask for or order any form of independent inquiry. He didn't even consider whether Minister Porter might have been in breach of the Prime Minister's own ministerial standards. Instead, he appointed Mr Porter to a fresh ministry, and this week he promoted him. Minister Porter is now the Acting Leader of the House—his old job—just like harassers everywhere, who stay in their jobs while survivors are the ones who leave their jobs, are pushed out or, worse, as in Kate's case, are so let down by the justice system that they give up.

There is no justice for women survivors anywhere while rape allegations are allowed to persist against a Commonwealth minister of the Crown without any avenue for those allegations to be resolved, and that is the case here. With the defamation case documents not being released and with Kate having, tragically, ended her life there are no avenues remaining to inquire into the accusations. The Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales police have confirmed that no further investigation is possible. The only avenue is for the Prime Minister to call an inquiry. And since he won't—or hasn't yet—that's what this bill would do. It would set up an independent inquiry into whether Minister Porter is fit to remain a minister given the unresolved rape allegations against him.

The Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards requires ministers to 'act at all times to the highest possible standards of probity'. Those standards are not worth the paper that they're written on, because there are multiple incidents where the Prime Minister is not enforcing them. The Prime Minister failed to take action to inquire into the allegations and to inquire into whether Minister Porter is deserving of a ministerial position. The Prime Minister has declared Mr Porter an innocent man based on his assurances alone. Despite tens of thousands of women and their allies rallying in March demanding, amongst other things, an independent inquiry, this week the Prime Minister promoted Mr Porter back to the position of Leader of the House—acting, at least. Women do not trust this Prime Minister, and nor should they. The Prime Minister doesn't believe women. He is sending us back to the 1950s and is in dangerous denial about the epidemic of sexual assault and violence against women.

In an opinion piece in the newspapers today the courageous Grace Tame, Australian of the Year, gave voice to the disgust felt by women around the country. She said:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has just overseen Christian Porter’s assuming of the role of acting leader of the House of Representatives. Amid a burgeoning, pre-eminent mass awakening to the endemic issue of sexual abuse, this decision marks a proverbial slap in the face of our entire nation.

She went on to say:

Outside of Parliament, positions of public trust are governed by codes of conduct that stipulate one must be a “fit and proper” person in order to occupy them, such as in the case of doctors who are bound by the Hippocratic oath. Furthermore, their adequacy—in terms of both knowledge and ethics—is repeatedly challenged and updated through mandated continuing professional development.

In Parliament, however, no such requirements exist. It is the Prime Minister who sets the standards and maintains them by appointing cabinet ministers at his or her discretion.

Given the seriousness of the allegations against Porter, the bare minimum test of his fitness to hold ministerial office would be an independent inquiry. How damning it is that the government refused to allow for one.

If the Prime Minister’s recent rhetoric about wanting to support assault survivors and protect women’s safety was indeed true, he would surely go to any lengths possible to ensure there was not an accused rapist amongst his own staff. Clearly, it has been nothing but lip service. His actions speak volumes that drown out his every word.

And now, not only has Porter been permitted to remain in office, he’s been temporarily elevated. His are circumstances steeped in the protective privileges of a patriarchal Parliament.

There is no way this decision was accidental. It is a transparently deliberate, definitive statement that reeks of abuse of power and a blatant disregard of the people.

As Ms Tame says so powerfully, without an independent and rigorous inquiry, serious and unresolved allegations hang over the head of a sitting minister; and they damage the confidence of the Australian people in government and, more importantly, in this institution of government, the parliament.

This bill is not seeking a predetermined outcome. It is not a witch-hunt—as the folk in One Nation, who regularly defend and vote with the government, have characterised it. It does not ignore Mr Porter's strenuous denial of the allegation. Instead it recognises that an independent, credible examination of Mr Porter's suitability is necessary to restore public faith in the accountability and integrity of parliament and the functioning of Australia's democracy. Referring the bill to the Finance and Public Administration Committee will allow any concerns about the independence, the operation or the confidentiality of the commission of inquiry to be discussed and, if necessary, address amendments to the bill.

This year has repeatedly challenged the government to take women's safety seriously, to listen to survivors. Ms Tame, in her opinion piece, reflected on what Mr Porter resuming his role as Leader of the House this week says to survivors and what message it sends to perpetrators. She said in conclusion:

My heart breaks at the thought of survivors still living in silence, looking to our leaders for hope.

We need to provide some hope that this parliament will take women's safety seriously, that it will not just sweep serious accusations under the carpet, that it will ensure allegations are tested and that those wielding power in this country are deserving of that privilege. I urge the Senate to refer this bill to the committee for consideration.

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

I think it's very important for all of us who're shortly going to be voting on Senator Waters's motion for reference to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 to understand exactly what this motion is. It doesn't seek to support a bill or any aspect of a bill. What it seeks to do is simply to refer a bill to a committee for inquiry and report, something that we in this chamber do each and every day. It is entirely normal for this chamber to refer bills to committees for investigation so that different parties, different senators, can make a decision as to how they intend to vote. That is why Labor feels entirely comfortable voting for this motion. We are comfortable with the idea that such a bill should be referred to a committee, and it is indeed strange that the government is not willing to even refer this bill for examination. It won't be until we have an inquiry into this bill that all issues associated with it can be properly explored. It may be that the bill turns out to be a very good idea and is supported by a wide range of stakeholders. Equally, it may be that the bill is a very bad idea, or that potentially there is some good in it but amendments may be necessary. But we won't actually have the opportunity to know that until the Senate does its job and performs its usual function of investigating and considering the bill and hearing from all stakeholders as to its pros and cons.

This motion does not require the Liberal Party, the National Party or any senator in this chamber to take a position on the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill. All this motion requires is for a Senate committee to do what Senate committees do all the time, and that is to look at a piece of legislation, so the question must be asked: if the government is intending to oppose this motion, what is it so afraid of? Why are they so afraid of even having the Senate or Senate committees consider whether we should put in place legislation for a new suitability commission governing the responsibilities and conduct of ministers? What is the Liberal Party so afraid of? What is the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, so afraid of? The answer can only be that they are concerned about what such a commission would find in relation to the activities of serving government ministers, in particular the former Attorney-General and now Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Mr Porter.

As we know, the allegations of serious criminal conduct that have been made and still hang over the head of the former Attorney-General and now minister for industry, Mr Porter, are about as serious as allegations can be. Labor's position on Mr Porter has been clear for some time. In light of the seriousness of the allegations made against Mr Porter, an independent inquiry must be held to investigate these matters and to ensure that the Australian people have confidence in Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office. In contrast, what we've seen from the Prime Minister all along, throughout this scandal, is a very clear position, and that is that the Prime Minister will do anything and say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to avoid setting up any such independent inquiry. It's being continued now by government senators intending to vote against this motion, which would merely empower a Senate committee to review whether a ministerial suitability commission of inquiry is a good idea or not. Who can forget the Prime Minister's utterly absurd assertion that an inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office would undermine the rule of law? It simply would not. The suggestion is utterly ridiculous. Mr Morrison eventually abandoned that line of defence and changed tack—

Senator Scarr interjecting—

I'll take that interjection from Senator Scarr. I am a lawyer, Senator Scarr, and I have a very good understanding of what the rule of law is. I know that you do as well, and I know that if you were actually able to make an independent decision, rather than being bound by your party, you would also have supported an independent inquiry into Mr Porter. Senator Scarr, in his short time in the Senate, has demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of the Senate committee system, and I commend him for that. If Senator Scarr and all of his colleagues in the Liberal Party were genuinely exercising their own independent thought, then they would be supporting this motion, which, as I say, simply proposes to refer a bill to a Senate committee for investigation. I know Senator Scarr has only just entered the chamber, and I don't make any reflection on him for that. What I was saying before Senator Scarr entered the chamber was that all this motion does is propose to refer a bill to a Senate committee for consideration—exactly the kind of thing Senator Scarr, Senator Smith, Senator Davey, Senator Hume, even you, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, and I vote to do on a regular basis.

Mr Morrison eventually abandoned his utterly ridiculous argument that an independent inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for ministerial office would undermine the rule of law. He changed tack by trying to hide behind Mr Porter's private defamation action against the ABC. Mr Morrison tried to argue that the private defamation action launched by Mr Porter amounted to an independent inquiry into the allegations against him. I know that Senator Scarr realises that that is also utterly absurd. It is nonsense to argue that a private defamation action amounts to an independent inquiry into allegations, but that is the argument that the Prime Minister made. It was similarly ridiculous. A private defamation action is no substitute for a proper inquiry into Mr Porter's fitness for office. But, even if it were, Mr Porter, of course, has now abandoned the case against the ABC, before any evidence was heard or any witnesses were questioned or cross-examined. That is the kind of inquiry that satisfies the Prime Minister—a private defamation action which is abandoned before it goes to trial, in the very early stages of those proceedings.

Of course, now we've seen Mr Porter take the extremely unusual step of trying to keep secret the ABC's defence. If Mr Porter has his way, we will never see the nature of the allegations, the investigations or the defence that the ABC has prepared, which no doubt details the evidentiary background it has for the allegations that were made in certain programs that the ABC aired. The Prime Minister is fast running out of excuses for why an independent investigation should not be held into the allegations against Mr Porter, and I suppose we're all wondering what the next excuse from the Prime Minister will be. Will he now hide behind the South Australian coroner and argue that that's an independent investigation into what are extremely serious allegations against his former Attorney-General and now minister for industry, Mr Porter?

Labor in no way prejudges the allegations against Mr Porter. Not at any time, to my knowledge, has a Labor member of parliament or senator concluded that these allegations are correct. Of course, when allegations of this nature are made, what should occur is that they be properly investigated before conclusions are drawn. But that is exactly the kind of independent inquiry that the Prime Minister and his government have blocked every step of the way since these allegations were aired. Labor's position is that we simply believe that it is untenable for Mr Porter to continue to sit at the cabinet table as a minister while such serious allegations against him remain untested and unresolved. I might add that it is simply astonishing that, in an environment where any reasonable observer would think that Mr Porter should not remain in the cabinet while these allegations are unresolved, the Prime Minister has now taken the extraordinary step of actually giving Mr Porter a promotion. He has actually appointed Mr Porter as the Acting Leader of the House in the parliament. As Grace Tame, the current Australian of the Year, observed in her column today, the position of Leader of the House is a position of great power. Unfortunately, in this government's hands it has been used repeatedly to suppress debate and to suppress an examination of the truth.

That is a fairly ironic, a sadly ironic, situation for the Prime Minister and Mr Porter to find themselves in. In a situation where they have gone to great lengths to suppress any independent examination of the allegations against Mr Porter, they have now appointed him to a position in the House of Representatives—a position which no doubt gets a nice little pay rise with it as well—that has been used repeatedly by this government to suppress debate and to suppress the examination of government conduct in the House of Representatives. It shows again that this Prime Minister is utterly tone deaf when it comes to these sorts of allegations. By promoting someone like Mr Porter to this kind of position at a point in time when these sorts of allegations continue to hang over Mr Porter's head, the Prime Minister shows that he is utterly tone deaf when it comes to the cultural problems within his party about how women are treated.

It is important to note that the New South Wales police did not carry out an investigation into the allegations against Mr Porter, due to the tragic death by suicide of the woman making the allegations before she was able to make a formal statement to the police. This means that, contrary to claims made by the Prime Minister, these allegations have never been properly investigated, let alone tested in a criminal hearing before a court. There has been no completed investigation by New South Wales police and no investigation at all by the Federal Police. With the tragic death of the woman who made the allegation, it is now very unlikely that the police will ever investigate the very serious allegations she made against Mr Porter.

As Prime Minister, it is up to Mr Morrison to enforce his Statement of Ministerial Standards. Despite months of trying to avoid this responsibility, it is still not too late for Mr Morrison to take the steps required to demonstrate to the Australian people that Mr Porter is a fit and proper person to hold ministerial office. The way for this to occur is that the Prime Minister should establish the independent inquiry into the allegations against Mr Porter that Labor has been calling for months. In the absence of a police investigation and a possible criminal trial, such an independent inquiry, conducted at arm's length from the Morrison government, would provide the best means for the allegations against Mr Porter to be tested, for Mr Porter to have the opportunity to clear his name and for the Australian people to have confidence in Mr Porter's fitness to continue to hold ministerial office. Given that the Prime Minister has, up until now, refused to establish such an inquiry, the least we can do is ask the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee to inquiry into this bill—a bill that would be redundant if the Prime Minister simply did his job and acted like a leader.

In closing, I again implore government senators to reflect on the position that they're taking on this motion. This is not a debate about whether the bill should be supported or not. Frankly, Labor haven't made up their minds yet about whether they would support such a bill if it were to be put before the parliament; that is the purpose of this inquiry. To not prejudge whether a bill should be supported or not but simply to have an inquiry to help inform a position that is then taken is a common position for parties to take prior to an inquiry. I haven't been here that long myself, but I've participated in numerous Senate inquiries, the point of each of which has been to inform Labor's position as to whether we would support such a bill, and Senator Scarr, Senator Davey, Senator Hume and Senator Smith have done the same thing. Again, I commend each of those senators for at times suggesting amendments to their own government's legislation, which they have put forward on the basis of evidence that they have heard at Senate committee hearings. That is exactly what is being sought here. All that is being proposed is that this bill be referred to a Senate committee for consideration—to listen to stakeholders, to decide whether we should support it or not, to decide whether amendments should be moved or not.

But, unfortunately, this government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, is, yet again, blocking the power of the Senate and the power of the parliament to inquire into a simple piece of legislation. We know why they're doing it. It is because they are intent on maintaining this cover-up of the activities and the allegations against Mr Porter. It is a disgraceful abuse of the parliament. The government and its senators should support this motion. They should support the right of the Senate to consider this bill. If they don't do so, they are just engaging in the ongoing cover-up that this government has adopted in relation to the allegations against Mr Porter from day one.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.