Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion forthwith:

That the House:

(1) notes:

  (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government;

  (b) the Prime Minister said on 8 July that "Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct";

  (c) at least three Ministers have disclosed that they own shares, when the ownership of shares is specifically barred under the Ministerial Code;

  (d) the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to the House that she was in breach of the Ministerial Code;

  (e) the Assistant Minister for Health holds managed funds which have significant shareholdings in health care and private health insurance companies;

  (f) the Attorney-General invests in funds which have significant holdings in businesses which he is responsible for regulating, and;

  (g) the Prime Minister and other Ministers when asked about these matters have repeatedly dismissed the questions and claimed that 'there is nothing to see here'; and

(2) and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to either:

  (a) live up to his rhetoric and take steps to actively enforce his Ministerial Code, including seeking formal advice from the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to each of the Ministers reported to hold shares or to hold managed funds which hold shares in circumstances which give rise to a conflict of interest; or

  (b) admit that this Prime Minister is in fact failing to enforce his Ministerial Code and in turn is failing this critical test of whether his government is demonstrating the higher standards of integrity and accountability that he has claimed to uphold.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent me from moving the following motion—

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

I just ask the leader to move it.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm seeking leave.

Government members interjecting—

I have, actually. I seek leave—

Government members interjecting—

Leave is not granted; I understand that.

Government members interjecting—

Yes, which I've just done.

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

Are you requesting that standing orders be suspended?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Government members interjecting—

They can laugh and jest, but—

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

I just suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he needs to move that the standing orders be suspended.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1) notes:

  (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government—

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

At this point the Leader of the Opposition is moving a motion the House denied him leave to move.

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

Yes, and he will need to move a suspension of standing orders.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, as you said in your own words, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—

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

That's correct.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you pointed out before.

Government members interjecting—

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

Members on my right will cease interjecting.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—

That the House:

(1) notes:

  (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government;

  (b) the Prime Minister said on 8 July that "Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct";

  (c) at least three Ministers have disclosed that they own shares, when the ownership of shares is specifically barred under the Ministerial Code;

  (d) the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to the House that she was in breach of the Ministerial Code;

  (e) the Assistant Minister for Health holds managed funds which have significant shareholdings in health care and private health insurance companies;

  (f) the Attorney-General invests in funds which have significant holdings in businesses which he is responsible for regulating, and;

  (g) the Prime Minister and other Ministers when asked about these matters have repeatedly dismissed the questions and claimed that 'there is nothing to see here'; and

(2) and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to either:

  (a) live up to his rhetoric and take steps to actively enforce his Ministerial Code, including seeking formal advice from the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to each of the Ministers reported to hold shares or to hold managed funds which hold shares in circumstances which give rise to a conflict of interest; or

  (b) admit that this Prime Minister is in fact failing to enforce his Ministerial Code and in turn is failing this critical test of whether his government is demonstrating the higher standards of integrity and accountability that he has claimed to uphold.

This is a very serious issue that is before the House, absolutely it is, because the Prime Minister has claimed to the Australian public that he is going to usher in a new era where there is greater accountability, where ministers will be held to a higher standard, and it's absolutely clear in the changes made by this Prime Minister in relation to the Code of Conductfor Ministers, released in June 2022 by this government, as has been detailed in the House today at 3.11—specifically, 3.11(i) and (ii)—and 3.12. Part 3.12 wasn't referred to today, of course, but it's worth reading it into the record:

If a Minister becomes aware that a fund or trust has invested in a company that might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest, the Minister should inform the Prime Minister immediately and liquidate the investment in the fund or trust if required to do so.

None of that has happened.

We've got a situation where earlier this week a minister claimed to this House that some sort of self-assessment process had been undertaken by her, during which—surprisingly!—she cleared herself of any wrongdoing. She later claimed that, in fact, she had breached the Code of Conduct for Ministers, for which she knows, as we now do, there is no consequence. How is it that this Prime Minister is pretending to uphold some different code or some different standard when there is absolutely no consequence for a breach of the code? Could it be any clearer? Have a look at the Assistant Minister for Health in terms of those shareholdings. Could they be shareholdings in the education sector? Could they be shareholdings in a building company? No. As it turns out, the assistant minister has an interest in shares relating specifically to her own portfolio: health and private health insurance funds. You could ask, 'Is there a consequence for such conduct?' Under this Prime Minister there is no consequence. Again, that minister has conducted her own assessment and, would you believe it, she's cleared herself of any wrongdoing. What a robust process of a higher standard being maintained by this government!

Then we come to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, as we have seen over the years through his own statements—I mean, let's rely on his own words and conduct here—without doubt, by his own admission, would be the smartest person in the world! There's no question about that. He would be the smartest person not just in this parliament and not just across the country—listen to him: he is the most learned person in this place and, in fact, across the world! When you go through his listings, they've been very successful. Congratulations! That's a wonderful thing and to be celebrated. And he has properly disclosed them, as he points out. It is inconceivable, given the Attorney-General's background; given his knowledge of the industry; given his connections, particularly to companies that are involved in the litigation process and that fund litigations; and given his network across Melbourne, across members of the bar, across the legal fraternity in New South Wales and across the country. He's been Attorney-General; he's occupied that office before.

Despite his significant investment in a company that he knows a great deal of detail about, he's telling this House that, somehow, he's surprised by the revelations which we have laid out. The connection can't be any clearer. I haven't got before me the exact figures of the shareholding that the Attorney-General has declared, but let me put it in simple terms: the shareholding owned by the Attorney-General has effectively doubled in value since the Labor Party came to power. Is that directed to decisions being made by the Attorney-General? Well, I'll let people draw their own conclusions. But what I do know is that, when the Attorney-General made a decision, and when that decision was announced, made in his capacity as Attorney-General with a direct impact on the company involved, the company listed and provided advice to the Australian Stock Exchange, as is their obligation. They were very, very happy with the decision made. As it turns out, so too were the shareholders.

Does this result in any consequence under the Prime Minister, who is saying to the Australian public that he is leading a new way, that he's coming in here for a kinder, gentler, friendlier parliament, where transparency will reign? Is there any consequence for the Attorney-General when he surely, with all of the knowledge he possesses, with his superior intellect, with his capacity above any other human being—has this detail escaped him up until this very moment? Is that a credible account of his position? Is it a credible account of his own interest, his own investments? I'll let people draw their own conclusions. There are many on the other side of this chamber who I know hold a very similar view to us in relation to this Attorney-General.

It doesn't pass the pub test. It doesn't pass any test whatsoever, and it's incumbent on this Prime Minister to uphold his standards. If he were to do that, he would demand that this Attorney-General dispose of his interests, exhaust the conflict of interest which is clear to all to see and uphold the high standard that he has claimed to the Australian public he adheres to. So far, not only has the Attorney-General failed this test; two other ministers, that we know of, have equally failed the test, and there may be more.

We haven't come to our favourite friend, the member for Maribyrnong. We may do. I think the Prime Minister will probably deal with him in the next reshuffle. Let's see what the Prime Minister has in store for him. You are his favourite, Bill, I know that much. He may deal with you himself.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll refer to him as the minister, the member for Maribyrnong, the soon-to-be-former minister—whatever he prefers. The fact is that this Prime Minister has failed the test, and the Attorney-General has a serious case to answer here. He hasn't so far, and it can't escape people that he has clearly tested at least the boundaries, but, in our judgement, he's in clear breach of this hopeless code. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Labor has no integrity on integrity. Ministers have breached the ministerial code left, right and centre. Three ministers are selling shares at a rate that would make Gordon Gekko proud! This is from a government that spent nine years on this side of the House lecturing us on integrity. Every question time they lectured us on integrity.

The new Prime Minister promised that there would be a new era of government, a new era of integrity, a new era of transparency, and what did he show us? He produced a ministerial code that, in just over 100 days, has been breached by three ministers, three ministers who've had to sell their shares. The Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to breaching the code. The Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care has invested in shares in areas that are regulated by her portfolio. And today we have revelations that the Attorney-General's superannuation fund invests in funds that invest in a prominent litigation fund, a litigation fund that is benefiting from a decision of this government, a Friday afternoon special decision of this government, made to appease and support one of the Labor Party's big donors.

The Labor Party have three big donors: big unions, big super and big class-action funders. They have made their first priorities in government to do things to benefit these three organisations, whether it be the nobbling of the ABCC, whether it be the changes to make superannuation funds less transparent or whether it be to make litigation funds less transparent and less of benefit to those people who are the victims, who brought these actions forward in the first place. Labor has no integrity on integrity.

Let's hear what the Prime Minister has been saying about the importance of his code. He said:

As Prime Minister, I expect my Ministers to demonstrate that they are complying with these high standards of conduct, and in doing so, living up to the expectations of the Australian public.

On the day his code was released, the Prime Minister told Sunrise: 'I want politics to be cleaned up. We've got strict adherence to the code of conduct.' But what's the Prime Minister actually done? What have we seen? We've seen three ministers breach this code of conduct in just over 100 days. This is the transparent Labor Party! This is the new politics that the Labor Party promised they would deliver when they came to government. That was only two months ago, and what have we seen? You can breach the code with impunity. There is absolutely no consequence for breaching this code. And what happens when you get caught? The Prime Minister will look after you, the Labor Party will look after you; there's no real standard that any minister is being held to at all. With the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, we found out they don't even have to read the code. The code is there and it can be breached with absolute impunity again and again.

That's why the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved is so important. It's why it deserves to be debated properly in this House. It deserves to be debated because you cannot have the situation where a ministerial code has been put forward by a new Prime Minister who has promised new transparency in government and who, instead, has demonstrated that there isn't any real transparency because there is no consequence for breaching his ministerial code, a code that is designed to lift transparency.

Mr Speaker, you have the Attorney-General here talking about the code and the fact there were several elements to the code that were worth looking at. It's worth looking at paragraph 3.11 again, and it says:

In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, this Code requires that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where:

(i) the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and—

and this is the important bit—

(ii) the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister's public duty.

What did we see here? We saw a minister with a serious conflict of interest investing in a fund that benefited from a decision that had been made by this new government. Mr Speaker, this motion deserves to be supported, and we should have the full motion brought forward. (Time expired)

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

The question is that the motion be disagreed to. I give the call to 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

Okay, wake up everyone please. You can imagine in Tactics at the beginning of the week: they decided, 'We're going to have our first big suspension motion, and we're going to build up to it,' because after you lose office the suspension motion is your big moment, your crescendo, where you start to define what you're about. And the issue they picked to define what their opposition is about is that ministers aren't selling down shares quickly enough.

Let's just consider the shadow ministry that they are offering on this issue. If this standard were applied to them, the Leader of the Opposition would be in breach, the Leader of the Nationals would be in breach, the shadow Treasurer would be in breach, the Manager of Opposition Business would be in breach, the shadow home affairs minister would be in breach, the former Deputy Prime Minister would be in breach—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're in government!

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

I just heard them saying, 'Oh, but you're in government.' So you've only just bought all these shares, have you? This has only just happened? This is all brand new?

My favourite one of the examples: the shadow minister for climate change doesn't just have shares; he's got them in Rio Tinto and Newcrest. No conflicts there! No conflicts there at all!

But the motion that we have, the whole concept of the resolution we're to suspend standing orders for—and, let's not forget, the whole concept of a suspension in the middle of question time—is that this is so important it's worth knocking off all the other questions that were going to be asked. That's what they're asking for. That's what this resolution is for.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did it every week!

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

The member for Petrie will cease interjecting.

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

We never did it on anything as silly as this one. What they are going for here is on the concept: 'Well, the big thing we need to have happen is to seek advice from the Secretary to PM&C.' Remember the Gaetjens reports? Remember how many times we were told by those opposite, the answer to every question: 'Phil Gaetjens is looking into it.' I remember hearing about the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember seeing the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember a single one of those reports ever seeing the light of day.

But it wasn't only on shares that those opposite had issues of integrity. Remember when respected Speaker Tony Smith was in that chair and was asked about a former Leader of the House who had set up a trust fund, and the impact of that trust fund to pay for his personal expenses, his personal bills, was being used on the declaration. All the questions they have asked this week have been based on going through the declaration, where ministers have been transparent. That's where all of this information has come from—because ministers have been transparent.

What did the former Leader of the House's declaration tell you? There was a trust fund and you weren't allowed to know where the money was coming from. That was referred to the privileges committee in a reference that was made and then the Speaker had to consider whether or not it would be given precedence to even be looked at. For as long as I have been here and for as long as the Prime Minister has been here, when precedence is given the House then votes in favour of it. But, breaking that precedent, in a complete cover-up to forever conceal the financial interests of one of their own, they came in here to vote that reference down. And who do you think was the Leader of the House who called the division? Who do you think was the Leader of the House who said, 'We should never have a right to know where the money is coming from'? Who might be that person who stood right here and argued that the government would not be supporting the reference—and the culture of secrecy wouldn't just continue but that every single one of them would vote against the recommendation of the Speaker and make sure that the information was forever suppressed? Any ideas on who? I know you are all looking at your phones, but it was the now Leader of the Opposition who came in here and led the charge to make sure that the Register of Members' Interests was effectively rendered meaningless by one of his own receiving money that we will never know the origin of.

Compare that with an incoming government where the Prime Minister has come forward with a code of conduct that those opposite never would have dared do. If any Prime Minister from their side had dared bring in a code of conduct where you were expected to get rid of your shares, they would have knocked off the Prime Minister in seconds. That's what they would have done, because it goes completely against the grain of how they operate. It goes completely against the grain of born to rule, born to invest, born to entitlement—

Government members interjecting—

And born to rort; that's right. It goes against the grain for every single one of them. What they are now doing is complaining and wanting to argue about a code of conduct which contains some of the principles that were there when we were last in government—all of which they got rid of as soon as they came in. They made sure that none of these principles around protecting the public interest and avoiding conflicts of interest were applied to them at all. On the occasion when one of their own was so openly flouting it that the Speaker recommended it be given precedence for the privileges committee, each and every one of them voted to shut the inquiry down. And now that the government has re-established proper standards of integrity, proper standards to avoid conflicts of interest, proper standards that make sure ministers are not caught in the sort of behaviour that those opposite were involved with, what do they do? They decide that that's their big issue.

I have laughed this week thinking about the conversations that they must have had as to who should ask about a breach of the ministerial code. Do we have the person who had to resign over Queensland trips? Do we have the question relevant to the motion we now have in front of us asked by the person who somehow magically uploaded fraudulent documents about the Lord Mayor of Sydney?

Do we have the question asked by someone who took an overseas trip to China in a private capacity, who suddenly appeared as a minister doing private work? Do we have people involved in water sales and water purchases? Do we have—

Government members interjecting—

And I haven't even mentioned the Leppington Triangle! I haven't mentioned that, but after this point of order I'll—

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat—

The member for Barker will cease interjecting!

The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting! When the House comes to order I'll call the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. It is a very wide-ranging debate. I give the call to 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

I don't think that point of order was in the interests of the Manager of Opposition Business, I've got to say. But if he ever wants that to become the precedent for how we debate suspensions of standing orders we can start to go to that rule in the future, if that's where he wants to go!

Of all the questions, right on cue: who might be the person who purchased land worth $3 million, paid $30 million for it, but then, when they had to work out, 'Let's rent it back,' decided that the land was worth even less than $3 million? Then, off the back of that—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From donors!

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

From donors, I might add! Those opposite come to this debate in the worst of all worlds—in the worst of all worlds!—with zero credibility and wanting to talk about a standard that they evaded, that they rorted and that they did everything they could to avoid. I'm proud that we have a government where these questions can be asked, because the answer on every occasion is a standard that is being held here that never existed over there! And if that's going to be the sort of reason that you reckon we should interrupt the rest of question time and make sure that the crossbench don't get other questions—if you reckon that an issue like this was worth it—you are far more out of touch than we had even dreamed. (Time expired)

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

The question is that the motion be disagreed to.