Senate debates

Monday, 10 February 2020

Documents

Report on Ministerial Standards and Sports Grants; Order for the Production of Documents

6:18 pm

Photo of Tony SheldonTony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about Senator Lambie's motion calling on the government to table the Gaetjens report into the breach of the ministerial standards by Senator McKenzie.

This looks at a very fundamental issue: the whole question of what corruption is. What is the responsibility of government to act transparently in the case when confronted with the issue of corruption? Certainly, I would think that one of them is to clear the air. Secondly, I think that they would actually want the public to be confident that our democratic system is about transparency. When we look at the word 'corruption', the form it takes is dishonesty or criminal offence undertaken by a person or organisations. I looked at Wikipedia, because I thought that would be a bit of fun, just to see whether they've nailed it for the world—or if they've nailed this government. You make some assessments on this.

Wikipedia says when:

… entrusted with a position of authority, to acquire illicit benefit or abuse of power for one's private gain. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement, though it may also involve practices that are legal in many countries. Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain—

tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars; 'sports rorts 1'; 'sports rort 2'. The list goes on and on and on. Hardworking sports activists and communities right around this country are missing out because they weren't the ones who decided to have a rort delivered their way. They weren't people who had an opportunity to turn around and argue the right cases, because it was never about the right cases going forward. It was about corruption going forward. It was about self-interest going forward. It was about a lack of transparency going forward.

The government has failed to make a very fundamental report that was written outside cabinet available to the Australian community. It could have dealt with this very critical question of the rorting of the system. It could have looked at the very fundamental question of whether this was done in a fit or appropriate way by the government. It could be set up in a situation where transparency would allow the community to judge whether the investigation was carried out correctly in a fit and proper way.

I look at it with some amusement, unfortunately, and with some concern, because, when political corruption occurs when an office holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain, corruption is most commonplace—and it says this in Wikipedia, 'Kleptocracies, oligarchies, narco states and Mafia states'. I'm not quite sure which state we're in, but I'll tell you what: it's certainly not a democratic state when you haven't got transparency on the seriousness of the allegations and the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised by the Australian public.

The government refused to table the Gaetjens report into breaches of ministerial standards. Instead the government claims the report is a cabinet document and is not to be made public—simply fundamentally outrageous. This contrasts with the report tabled by the government compiled by former Secretary Parkinson of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, relating to ministerial standards looking into whether former MPs Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop had breached standards. The government has basically said that they released the report because it concerned people who have left the parliament but won't release the current one into McKenzie because she's still in parliament. What a ludicrous double standard. There's no technical nature to this.

Comments

No comments