Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the same matter. This is becoming something of a regular occurrence, unfortunately, in the early days of this parliament: Minister Cormann coming into this chamber, being forced to explain the actions of his colleagues. Every time it's the same story. Whether it's Minister Taylor, Minister Frydenberg, former Minister Pyne or former Minister Bishop, we get the same thing: we get a carefully crafted statement that dodges real questions, provides no real answers and doesn't engage in any meaningful way with the allegations at hand, which are serious allegations. We get statements that smooth over the glaring inconsistencies in the protagonists' stories. Today we didn't even really get that. We got a glib dismissal—a handful of words from the leader of the government in this place—of the issues as a whole.

I can understand why the Prime Minister and his representative might want to protect two of his most senior ministers. It's politics and it's a political move, but I tell you what: it has real costs. Under each of its successive prime ministers, this Liberal government has overseen a lessening of the standards applicable in public life. They have a tendency to see all rules and all regulations as red tape, to be abolished if possible or evaded if not. It shows itself in their attitude towards the environment, but it also shows itself in their response to the ministerial standards. Those standards are not just there for decoration. They exist to build public trust that the actions taken by elected representatives are for the public interest and not directed towards private ends.

This episode looks like the absolute worst of what people fear about this government: insiders using a privileged position to help themselves and their families, and ministers using their considerable power for what appears to be personal gain. These are questions that ought to have been answered in the statement that was provided this morning, and they were not even engaged with.

There is no court that enforces the ministerial standards. It is ultimately up to the Prime Minister to decide what kind of government he wishes to lead. Mr Morrison this week has been all about the tests. He set a whole lot of tests for the Labor Party. Well, this is a pretty big test for the Prime Minister, and today he's failed it, because, in allowing his representative in this place to make the statement he made this morning, he's made it clear that he is not interested in oversight, he is not interested in accountability, he is not interested in providing transparency and he has no respect for process. The Australian people deserve a great deal more than this.

This morning was an opportunity to put some facts on the record from the government's perspective. What's been reported in the public domain and what's come out through the FOI process that's been undertaken by journalists is truly troubling. The emails revealed under the FOI process reveal a remarkable set of coincidences. Minister Taylor, it appears, sought to contact his colleague Mr Frydenberg, who in turn sought a briefing from the Department of the Environment and Energy about the decision to upgrade environmental protections for certain native grasslands in New South Wales. That briefing was sought the day after the department met with Jam Land, a company, to talk to them about compliance issues. What's asserted in the media is that this property is a Taylor family property. The media reports state that the property was owned by a company with strong ties to Minister Taylor and his family. It has been reported that his brother is one of the directors and that the minister himself holds an interest in the firm. Minister Cormann ought to have confirmed that this morning or denied it.

It has also been reported that this property was the subject of federal and state investigations into the alleged poisoning of 30 hectares of the protected grass. Minister Taylor, under the ministerial code, is required to be honest. It's a core part of your public duties in serving the public here. His explanation for seeking this briefing is unconvincing. He has claimed that he received the briefing in his capacity as the local member for Hume. But the affected grasslands are almost entirely in another electorate. The timing of this request, the timing of the briefing, the location of the property in question and its relationship to the minister is a remarkable set of coincidences, coincidences that have not been explained in any way this morning.

It raises a reasonable concern that Mr Taylor sought that meeting to exert pressure on the department or influence the conduct of its inquiry into his family property. The department was certainly on alert, and you can see it in the nervous emails exchanged between officials. They are especially concerned when there is a direct request from the minister's office that the assistant secretary responsible for compliance be in the room for what is supposed to be a policy meeting. It's a terrible position to be placed in when you're responsible for compliance, isn't it—to be in the room with two government ministers when you're in the process of attempting to undertake an even-handed and fair examination of a set of allegations about a illegal land clearing? It's a terrible position to be placed in. This morning, Minister Cormann ought to have explained whether or not, as reported, this took place and what the reason was for having a compliance officer in the room.

What about Minister Frydenberg's responsibilities? What does he do as the minister responsible for administering this act? Does he act to protect the integrity of the department? The emails obtained under FOI suggest that his office was very active in helping to set up the meetings for Minister Taylor. The FOI emails state that one of Minister Frydenberg's staff:

… started quizzing me on the changed definition, and I gave him some basic information on the thresholds that were applied in the new listing in 2016.

He is now keen for—

redacted person

and I to meet with Angus Taylor to answer questions on the technical aspects of the listing outcome.

He made the point that for farmers in Monaro this is ‘the number 1 issue’ of concern for them.

That's what the department's saying amongst themselves. They make the point that it is 'the number one issue' for 'farmers in Monaro'. That's not in Hume, the seat that Minister Taylor is supposed to represent, but it is where the Taylor family's properties are. The other documents obtained under FOI suggest that the minister then sought advice from his department about whether it was possible to secretly change the listings without consultation. What has been Minister Frydenberg's explanation of these actions? Barely anything, and there was nothing from Minister Cormann this morning.

These actions raise very serious questions that go to the ministerial standards. The importance of separating private interests from public office appears and is a theme all through the Statement of Ministerial Standards, and I'll quote certain paragraphs:

In recognition that public office is a public trust … Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest …

Section 2.1:

… it is critical that Ministers do not use public office for private purposes.

Section 2.9 goes to perception:

Ministers must bear in mind that their private interests can give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interests …

Section 2.11:

… These Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.

This morning would have been an opportunity for Minister Cormann to explain in this place how it is that Ministers Frydenberg and Taylor have met these standards and have complied with these obligations. Instead, we got a contemptuous statement—a handful of words.

There are outstanding questions that need to be resolved in relation to this matter. It is not good enough to come in here and simply assert that the standards have been complied with, without providing any material or relevant information about how. It is not good enough to come into this chamber and refuse to provide information about who has been involved, and what conversations took place between Minister Taylor and Minister Frydenberg. The explanation provided this morning is completely inadequate, in light of the seriousness of the issues that have been raised in the public reporting.

People deserve a fair hearing. The capacity for explanation in this place provides exactly that forum. It's a very great shame that it wasn't utilised this morning.