Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Why has the government had to establish an inquiry into secret appointments by the previous government?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McEwen for his question. The decision by the member for Cook to appoint himself to administer five additional portfolios without telling the Australian people—and, in the case of four of the portfolios, without even telling the relevant minister—fundamentally undermines the principles of responsible government that are reflected in the Australian Constitution. And, even worse, this is what the Solicitor-General concluded about this behaviour: 'An unpublicised appointment to administer a department fundamentally undermines not just the proper functioning of responsible government but also the relationship between the ministry and the Public Service.'

Few are in any doubt that the former Prime Minister—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has established an inquiry into this matter. Former High Court judge Virginia Bell has been asked to look into this matter, and consistent with the sub judice convention it is not appropriate for this matter to be canvassed in the House.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House will come to order so I can hear the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

House of Representatives Practice goes into great detail about the sub judice convention. It makes clear that it goes nowhere near an inquiry of this nature. The question was in order, as you ruled, and it's very clear there's not even an objection being made that in any way the minister was being anything other than relevant to the question he was asked.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the Attorney-General. I'm listening closely to his answer and will be taking the views of the manager into my decision going forward.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will repeat: few are in any doubt that the former Prime Minister's conduct was indefensible. The shadow minister for home affairs even called on him to leave the parliament. But there are still many questions that remain unanswered, and that is why the inquiry that the Prime Minister announced with me on 26 August is necessary. What precisely were the facts and circumstances surrounding these secret appointments? The only account we've had is a self-pitying, self-serving and self-justifying account by the member for Cook, who appears to remain pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for his own behaviour, let alone showing genuine contrition. What precisely were the implications arising from these appointments on, for example, the functioning of relevant departments and statutory bodies or on the accountability of the executive to the parliament, and what steps can the current government take to make sure that this never happens again? Distinguished jurist and former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC is very well placed to answer these and other questions, which is why she has been appointed to this inquiry. She will be supported by my department in undertaking the important work that she is going to do.

This sorry saga does speak poorly to the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former coalition government. Most Australians were well aware of the former coalition government's addiction to cover-up and secrecy, but what this particular scandal tells us is that the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former government was so insidious and so corrosive that senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, couldn't even keep each other informed about significant—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The manager has taken a point on relevance. I'd ask him to state the point of order.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again it's the sub judice convention.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order, I appreciate that the Manager of Opposition Business tried to show authority by arriving with a copy of the standing orders. The sub judice convention is not referred to in the standing orders. It's referred to in Practice. He's going through there now. I'd direct him to pages 521 and 522. The sub judice convention in particular applies, the House has previously found, when you're dealing with something in the order of a jury trial, where there is a sense that what is said in parliament could have an implication for the justice that is then shown. To think in any way that debate in this parliament over the behaviour of the former government would have an impact on a former High Court judge in that way is something that the convention goes nowhere near. Practice is clear on that, and it's an extraordinary claim to make.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the House. The Attorney-General has 16 seconds to go.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd repeat: the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former government was so insidious that senior ministers could not even keep each other informed about significant matters, even if they were concealing matters that went to the proper functioning of responsible government. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired)