John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am that sort of guy. I am a very nice guy and I quite like Senator Brandis. I noticed that he said he felt sorry for me. I noticed that he said that and talked about my political career. That made me reflect on Senator Brandis's career and why he might not have spoken about standards of ministerial accountability. One's mind really goes back to the time of the Howard government. I remember the major debate, the hour upon hour spent in this chamber when debating the issue of whether or not Senator Brandis had described then Prime Minister Howard as a lying rodent. At the end of these debates I think Senator Brandis admitted to describing Mr Howard as a plain rodent—not a lying rodent, just a plain rodent. That is perhaps why we have not had a discussion about standards of ministerial accountability.

This appeared to be an excuse to talk about Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell. With 3½ minutes to go in Senator Brandis's speech, having not canvassed standards of ministerial accountability, Senator Brandis finally got to Mr Thomson and said we should not prejudge issues relating to him. I think that is probably quite wise counsel from Senator Brandis. He ought to recall how the Howard government and its ministers responded when members of parliament, members of the government, were subject to police investigations, and it happened quite regularly. The last occasion this occurred that I can recall, but there might have been one since then, was when Queensland Liberal MPs Mr Hardgrave, Dr Laming and Mr Vasta were investigated for what were alleged to be electoral spending irregularities. Mr Howard quite rightly said at the time that a lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for. I quote Mr Howard directly about that matter:

It is a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course. And then if it is appropriate I will have something to say.

You know, at the time, and right through that period of the Howard government, the then Labor opposition consistently did not comment on matters that were subject to police investigations. On no occasion did we do that. I was then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and many of these issues were raised in this chamber and in committees of the Senate but never did the then opposition comment on any operational matter—something that I think Senator Brandis and others from the current opposition could reflect on.

It is remarkable how the Liberal Party could propose a matter of public importance on ministerial standards—and this from a party which lost nine ministers and parliamentary secretaries while in government, who had to resign as a result of either rorts or conflicts of interest. Of course, that number would have been higher if Mr Howard himself did not water down his own code of ministerial conduct. Liberal ministers could not reach the standards that Mr Howard proposed were required of his own ministers and because of that he watered down the code. Don't forget it was when the ministerial guide was first published that Mr Howard promised to raise the standard of parliamentary and political life. He released the document, A guide on key elements of ministerial responsibility, and in the introduction to that guide he stressed:

… the necessity of adherence to high standards by people occupying positions of public trust …

And he said:

The Australian people have this as their entitlement …

But of course it was Mr Howard who gave Australian politics the non-core promise, and that commitment to higher standards of ministerial behaviour was precisely that—it was a non-core promise from Mr Howard.

Time after time, Mr Howard's ministers and parliamentary secretaries were found to be in breach of Mr Howard's own code. The code was administered inconsistently and it was deliberately applied ineffectively. And then the code was junked. It was junked. Ministerial standards for the Liberal Party—just too hard.

How dare they come in here and propose a matter of public importance on ministerial standards given the record of that government? The Howard government was 11½ years of sleaze, ministerial scandal and abuse of power. That is what it was like. Think about the former ministers—Mr Reith, Dr Wooldridge and Mr Anthony—taking lobbying jobs in the same industries they were regulating mere days before their resignations. Think about the bailing out of the Prime Minister's brother, Mr Stan Howard, from his National Textiles business debacle. Think about the rorting of the grants programs to shore up votes in marginal seats. Think about the 'never, ever' GST and the concept that I mentioned before—the non-core promise. Think about the AWB $300 million wheat-for-weapons scandal. Think about the Iraq war and the suggestion that there were weapons of mass destruction. Think about the dogs and the balaclavas on the waterfront. Think about the lies on 'kids overboard'. Think about the cover-up of 'kids overboard'. Think about using Kirribilli House and the Lodge as party central for Liberal Party fundraisers. Think about the shameless use and abuse of taxpayers' money for partisan political advertising. And so it goes on.

How extraordinarily hypocritical—but how courageous—for the Liberal Party to come in here and propose a matter of public importance about ministerial standards. So I thought: in the time available to me, why do we not go to the ministers themselves? We might have a look at some of them. We could start, if you like, with former Senator Herron and his professional practice as a surgeon—which he had to give up because it was in breach of the code. We could talk about Assistant Treasurer Jim Short, who resigned after it was found that he had approved an operating licence for an ANZ Bank subsidiary while holding shares in the ANZ Bank. We could think about the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore, being forced to defend his $100,000 shareholding in Bligh Ventures and his controlling interest in Ralston Pty Ltd, a share-trading company, despite the express prohibition in the code. We could talk about Brian Gibson and Geoff Prosser, both forced to resign—they were of course both expendable in those early days of the Howard government. Former Senator Gibson had exempted a Boral subsidiary from certain provisions of the Corporations Law while he held Boral shares, and Mr Prosser owned three shopping centres and took an active interest in running them. We might talk about former Senator Parer, who was the resources minister. He owned, through a family trust—those of you who were in the Senate at the time might recall—an $8 million share in a coalmine plus interest in a range of other resources companies. The pursuit of Senator Parer was described by the then opposition as 'the great white rhino hide', you might recall. I do not have time to explain why that terminology was used, but it certainly caught on. Of course, in relation to Senator Parer, Mr Howard chose to sacrifice his standards rather than the ministry.

I could go on and on. I do not have time to go through all the Howard government ministers who fell foul of Mr Howard's original code of conduct before Mr Howard watered it down because he was not willing to ensure it was properly administered and implemented. How extraordinary is it that the current Liberal opposition would come into the chamber and talk about ministerial standards, with its record? There is an old expression in politics, you know: 'People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.' That is exactly where you are when you are talking about ministerial standards, although I acknowledge no-one from the Liberal Party has even mentioned, yet, ministerial standards in this debate. As I said on another matter earlier this week, 'You're standing right in the middle of a very, very large glasshouse throwing very, very small pebbles at this government.' I suggest that the opposition gets its act together before it comes in here proposing a matter of public importance on ministerial standards as a ruse for discussing other matters.