Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

In the Statement of Ministerial Standards that Prime Minister Morrison issued in September last year, he states:

The Australian people deserve a Government that will act with integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve.

…   …   …

I expect all ministers in the Australian Government to live up to the high standards expected of them by the Australian people at all times.

Well, we've just seen exactly what those standards are. We've barely been back a month and we have ministers and former ministers flouting these rules. And it's not just the opposition or the crossbench that is raising questions about this. Let's remember what Mr Pyne's former South Australian Liberal colleague, the member for Barker, said of Mr Pyne's new role:

It's disappointing that it doesn't meet the pub test, and it doesn't, and perhaps that's something that we need to reflect on …

Yes, the member for Barker is right. That is something we need to reflect on. This doesn't pass the pub test at all. And you know there are serious concerns when the Liberal MPs in this government are turning on each other.

Less than a month out from the recent election, we've seen two situations emerge involving former cabinet ministers—Mr Christopher Pyne and Ms Julie Bishop. These situations are flagrant breaches of the ministerial standards. Clause 2.25 of the standards states:

… Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office.

There's no ambiguity here. That's fairly straightforward. It is in fact so straightforward and such plain speaking that you would expect that someone who had served as a minister of the Crown and as a member of parliament would be able to understand it: they will not lobby, advocate, have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, Public Service or Defence Force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as minister in their last 18 months in office.

You might think that the consequences would have been quick and decisive, but instead we have seen the Prime Minister accept the behaviour of Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. It is simply extraordinary that, within weeks of the end of his tenure as a cabinet minister, Mr Pyne would announce that he is commencing work which will directly contravene the ethical standards that he vowed to uphold. It is even more unbelievable that neither Mr Pyne nor Ms Bishop even bothered to tell the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, that they were taking these jobs. Today we have found out that the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, himself found out from the media about the jobs that Ms Bishop and Mr Pyne have decided to take. He found out when the media brought this situation to light. It must have been a rude shock for the Prime Minister to find out that his former colleagues had so little respect for him or his government that they would act in this manner.

How on earth can Australians believe that Mr Pyne will not use or divulge confidential information he obtained as Minister for Defence and as a member of the cabinet when he is working for one of the largest defence industry consultants in the country? It is absurd. How on earth can Australians believe that Mr Pyne and Ms Julie Bishop, who was until recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, were not already preparing for their post-politics careers while serving out their final days in their ministerial offices?

These are important matters, and I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister or even the finance minister attempted to dismiss these concerns as being something 'inside the Canberra bubble'. This is not something just 'inside the Canberra bubble', Mr Morrison. These are the ethical standards that you and your ministerial colleagues vowed to uphold. You took a sacred oath to the Australian people that you would uphold them. They have been flagrantly flouted by Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. The Prime Minister didn't even know about this. He was rudely surprised by it.

We are not only talking about ministerial standards; we are also talking about billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Palladium, the board of which Ms Bishop has joined, received a $500 million contract from the government during her tenure as foreign minister. Palladium got a $500 million contract from the government while Julie Bishop was foreign minister; she left office; and then, not waiting the required 18 months, she took a paid board position with Palladium. Ernst & Young, where Mr Pyne has gone to work, has been awarded 838 contracts, worth $377 million, by the government. Of these contracts, 138 were awarded by the Department of Defence, Mr Pyne's former department, with a total worth of $148 million. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to defence contracts. Australia right now is in the process of a major defence procurement, which Ernst & Young themselves maintain will estimate more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money over the next decade. And who did Ernst & Young hire within just weeks of the federal election? They hired the former defence minister, Christopher Pyne. Who took a job with them? It was the former defence minister, Christopher Pyne. Of that $200 billion, $50 billion is for the Future Submarine project and $35 million for the Future Frigate project.

This is not just about the ministerial standards. It is about the integrity of the major initiatives to acquire new capabilities and assets for the Defence Force. Serious and legitimate questions have to be asked about whether Mr Pyne's insider knowledge as a former minister could create an unfair advantage for his new employer. This insider knowledge could taint processes or even raise the prospect of litigation. It's situations like these that ministerial standards are precisely designed to prevent. It is why these ministerial standards exist—to avoid these very types of questions, the potential tainting of processes, the prospect of litigation and conflicts of interest. No wonder Australians are cynical about politics and politicians.

In the weeks leading up to the federal election, the public saw high-paying jobs being awarded to the government's mates. Between the budget on 2 April and the election being called on 11 April—nine whole days—the government made 49 appointments to taxpayer funded roles. Of those 49, seven went to former Liberal or National MPs and senators. I guess it pays to know people, hey? The seven appointments are of former Liberal Party president, senator and arts minister Richard Alston to the National Gallery of Australia Council; former Liberal MP Phillip Barresi to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation board; former Liberal MP Ewen Jones to the board of the National Film and Sound Archive; former Liberal MP Chris Pearce to the board of Creative Partnerships Australia; former Victorian state Nationals MP Hugh Delahunty to the Sports Australia board; former ACT Liberal MP Tony De Domenico to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation board; and former Liberal senator Karen Synon to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute board. Prior to all of this, former National Party federal director Scott Mitchell was appointed to the board of Snowy Hydro.

The public have also seen this government award $423 million to a company run out of a beach shack on Kangaroo Island in a closed tender process. The public have watched as this government has awarded half a billion dollars to a tiny private foundation to look after our greatest public asset, the Great Barrier Reef—my goodness—when this tiny private foundation only had revenue of $10 million, six full-time staff and hadn't even asked for the money. Only the Liberals and the Nationals could attempt to claim that these sums of taxpayer money are not in the public interest. The public values which ministers are expected to uphold in their careers are, it seems, casually left to slide the moment they become former ministers. I turn to advice provided by the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—advice tabled by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In regard to Mr Pyne, Secretary Parkinson states:

I consider that he has put in place mechanisms to ensure … he will not impart direct or specific knowledge known to him only by virtue of his ministerial position.

Okay—except there is no detail on what these mechanisms are. Does Mr Parkinson know? Does the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, know what these mechanisms are? Did anyone ask Mr Pyne to explain what these mechanisms are? It is incumbent upon the government and the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to explain what these mechanisms are that Mr Pyne has apparently put in place, and to explain if Mr Morrison is satisfied with them. In regard to Ms Bishop, Secretary Parkinson clearly states in his advice:

Ms Bishop has not provided a full public statement on her appointment or how she proposes to deal with any conflicts with her previous role as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I just need to read that again because it is extraordinary:

Ms Bishop has not provided a full public statement on her appointment or how she proposes to deal with any conflicts with her previous role as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is almost laughable, that public position—which is not to have a public position on how, as a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, she's going to manage her conflict of interest while serving on the board of an organisation that got a $500 million contract from her government while she was Minister for Foreign Affairs. Ms Bishop has provided Secretary Parkinson with a response, saying she expects the projects she will work on will be in the United States or the United Kingdom. She's indicated that Palladium does not expect her to engage on Australian based projects. Well, isn't that interesting, because she was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, by definition, that means she dealt with places like—oh, I don't know—the United States and the United Kingdom! It is laughable that Julie Bishop's only public statement as to how she's going to manage any conflicts of interest between her previous role as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and her current role as a board member of Palladium is that she will not be working on any Australian projects.

Julie Bishop did a lot of work, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, on foreign policy, on our relationships with places like the United States and the United Kingdom, but it's all okay, according to Ms Bishop, because those are the only projects. As a board member, what is she going to do—excuse herself from every item on the Palladium board agenda unless it relates to the United States or the United Kingdom? It's a laughable proposition that she has put forward here. And let's be clear about something—an expectation, as Julie Bishop called it. Ms Bishop indicated that Palladium does not 'expect' her to engage on Australian based projects. An expectation is not a guarantee. An assurance from Mr Pyne that he has put in place mechanisms is not a guarantee, especially when there is no detail as to what those mechanisms are. This is the equivalent of someone saying: 'Trust me. I know what I'm doing.' That's what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop have essentially said: 'Trust me. I know what I'm doing.' And the Prime Minister just seems to have accepted it carte blanche. He doesn't seem to have asked any questions, made any inquiries. He didn't even know they were taking these jobs! And, having been forced by this parliament to make these inquiries, he's given them the most cursory glance. Is this how the Prime Minister intends to operate in this Australian parliament? What is the point of having ministerial standards if they are not upheld by the Prime Minister himself? If these standards are not enforced, they are essentially worthless.

This is a test of integrity for Prime Minister Morrison, and his lack of action is speaking volumes. If this is how the Prime Minister is beginning this new term of government, well, Australians will be deeply concerned about how it's all going to unfold over the next three years. It is further proof to Australians that the Morrison government, particularly the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, will always put political interests first, over the public interest. It tells Australians that Prime Minister Morrison will say and do anything, or indeed do nothing, if he thinks it suits his political agenda. And it tells Australians that, when it comes to public integrity, the Prime Minister is just another politician, another marketing man, another man inside the Canberra bubble and someone who cannot be trusted.

So let's just recap here. We have Mr Pyne, former defence minister, now going to work for one of the largest defence industry consultants in the country and looking down the barrel in the next decade at $200 billion of procurement, of taxpayer money, for our Defence Force. And he has just gone to work for them. He didn't sit around and wait for the prescribed waiting period; he just took up the job. He said he has mechanisms in place to manage his conflict of interest. We don't know what they are. It doesn't seem the Prime Minister knows what they are. We're all just supposed to take that at face value. We have Ms Bishop, who, as the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, was part of a government that gave $500 million to Palladium. She now sits on the Palladium board. She hasn't even bothered to explain how she's going to manage any potential conflicts of interest. She hasn't even provided a full public statement on her appointment.

Let's be clear about where the Prime Minister's responsibility lies. He learns about these issues via the media. He makes no inquiries until he is forced to do so by the parliament. He accepts the vague 'trust me' assurances from Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop. He has no detail from Mr Pyne on how he's going to manage his ethical obligations. He has no advice at all from Ms Bishop; she simply didn't provide it. The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, now owns this process. He owns this report. He owns every action of Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop in these roles they have taken up—every conflict of interest they have and fail to manage; every contradiction between their previous words and actions and their future words and actions; every contract their organisations enter into with the government. This all now sits with the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison. He is now responsible for this.

Make no mistake: he has a divided party room. The member for Barker can see this doesn't pass the pub test. It's amazing that the Prime Minister can't see that. What is even more distressing is that the Prime Minister has simply shrugged his shoulders at what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop have done. He has just shrugged his shoulders and said: 'Yes, it's all okay. They say "trust me". I say trust them. Nothing to see here. Don't worry about all those hundreds of millions—billions—of taxpayer dollars. Don't worry about that.' This is now the Prime Minister's problem, and he owns the consequences of what Mr Pyne and Ms Bishop do now. The Australian people and the Australian parliament will be watching, and we will hold this Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to account.