John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 20 March 2007, from Senator Chris Evans:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

“That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The reaffirmation of the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Register of Senators’ Interests.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The reaffirmation of the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Registry of Senators’ Interests.

I move this urgency motion today because it is an important matter that the Senate should debate. It is important that we get a clear statement from the Senate that reaffirms the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Register of Senators’ Interests. I genuinely hope that we get a unanimous vote on this resolution so as to reassure the public that we still uphold this important measure, which acts as part of the checks and balances in our democracy.

The Register of Senators’ Interests is a register that records the financial interests of senators. It details their ownership of assets, shares and properties, and seeks to provide a transparent system by which members of the public and the media can examine the interests held by senators and shine a light, if you like, on whether a senator’s actions, voting and behaviour are appropriate and whether or not there is any inappropriate linkage between their assets and interests and their behaviour. It is one of the checks and balances that has been brought into most democratic countries. Just as we have disclosure of donations, we have disclosure of members’ and senators’ interests.

This particular Senate provision did not come in until 1994. The House of Representatives introduced a members’ register of interests in 1983 on the coming to power of the Labor government. But the Senate resisted having a register of senators’ interests until 1994. Since that time we have had cross-party support for that register. We have a committee that administers it, and it has generally been accepted as a positive development. Obviously, for senators, the public interest should be uppermost in mind when they perform their responsibilities. That can obviously only occur when they abide by high standards of probity and integrity. The register of senators’ interests helps build public confidence in the political process. But fundamentally it relies on the honesty of senators. You fill in your form; you make a declaration as to your interests. The whole system is based on that honest declaration. We all have a responsibility to provide the information required under the rules of the Senate. As I say, these declarations are sought and administered for very good reasons that have been accepted across party lines in the Senate since 1994.

There are always some issues surrounding these measures and generally we work through those in a collaborative way. But there have been in recent times a couple of instances where there has been concern about whether declarations have been accurate. There was the case of Senator Lightfoot last year, where concern was raised about whether or not he had accurately declared his shareholdings. Senator Lightfoot made a statement to the Senate following those issues being raised, apologised and corrected the record. I and other senators accepted his explanation as reasonable on the basis that he said that he had made an inadvertent error in filing his declaration. He apologised and corrected the record. People saw that as a reasonable response given the admission from the senator that an error had been made.

The events of the last few days raise much more serious concerns about whether or not the registry is working in the way that it is intended and whether the integrity and the intent of the registry are being honoured. We have all accepted the importance of that. However, on Senator Santoro’s own evidence he has not met the requirements of the Senate in terms of keeping that register up to date. Clearly, by his letter last week—in which he detailed the share trades that he had made that had not been declared in the register—he has admitted to filing returns to the register that were not correct. We now have evidence of at least 72 share trades over a 19-month period from September 2005. Senator Santoro had not made a declaration of some of his interests but chose to be selective in the interests he declared. So, clearly, Senator Santoro has not complied with the requirements of the Senate.

I understand that tonight Senator Santoro will provide an explanation as to why that failure occurred. The Prime Minister has expressed the view that he is very angry with Senator Santoro for his failure to meet his obligations, and a number of senior coalition ministers have expressed the view that they cannot understand why such a blatant disregard for the rules has been perpetrated by Senator Santoro.

As I said, with Senator Lightfoot’s incident, clearly a defence of inadvertent omission was plausible. Such a defence in this case is clearly not plausible. Senator Santoro was trading, was buying and selling shares. He has not attempted to use the defence that the broker was doing so on his behalf; he has conceded that he was engaged. Of course, the thing that counts most against Senator Santoro is that he has made declarations of some shares and not others. He has been selective about what he has declared. We do not yet know—and I would be interested to hear his explanation tonight—whether or not he made honest declarations before he became a minister. Clearly, on looking at his declarations, he alleged he did not own more than a couple of shares prior to becoming a minister. But, as I say, that will be for Senator Santoro to explain to the Senate. Quite frankly, up until now, his explanation has been woefully inadequate.

Senator Santoro has failed to address any of the key issues as to why he failed the fundamental requirement to declare his shares and why, when issued time and time again a reminder as to the need to make full declaration, he did not do so. Why, more importantly, when he signed his name to the declaration does he now admit those declarations were false? On at least three occasions he signed declarations which he now says were false. He declared some shares but not others and, for a long period, he declared that he had no shareholdings at all. If Senator Santoro’s recent declaration is to be believed, he has systematically set out to mislead the Senate and the Australian public about the extent of his shareholdings. Quite frankly, that is a matter that this Senate ought to take very seriously.

I am prepared to wait for final judgement on Senator Santoro’s explanation, but clearly the Prime Minister and other senior ministers in the government are not. The Prime Minister has found that Senator Santoro breached the ministerial code of conduct and has accepted his resignation. But there are other tests for the Senate. While the Prime Minister gets to judge whether or not Senator Santoro has met his obligations under the ministerial code of conduct, the Senate gets to decide whether Senator Santoro has met his obligations to the Senate under the rules regarding the Register of Senators’ Interests. As I said, there is a very strong prima facie case that the Senate has been deliberately misled. The senator has admitted that his declarations were false.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am of course directing your attention to standing order 193(3). I understand that this is a difficult issue for senators. I understand that the conduct of a senator is properly under scrutiny, but the operation of standing order 193(3) does prohibit, as you know, Mr Deputy President, reflections of want of probity and so on against other members of the Senate. I would, through you, Mr Deputy President—and without in any way seeking to limit what Senator Evans might properly say on a matter properly being debated in this chamber—remind him that this is a matter which, as I understand it, is to be referred to the Privileges Committee on the instance of his side. I have read press reports to that effect; I assume that is right. I would ask you, Mr Deputy President, to caution Senator Evans, in whatever remarks he might make, to limit himself to the matters that are a matter of public record and not to speculate on dishonesty or improper motive, which is what standing order 193(3) specifically prohibits.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: firstly, as a matter of fact, as I understand it, there has been no request for a reference to the Privileges Committee made to the President. Certainly, the President has not reported that so that is not a consideration. Secondly, it is competent for us to debate the actions of Senator Santoro. I will abide by any rulings, Mr Deputy President, on motive, but clearly the evidence of Senator Santoro is to the effect that his trading activity was not properly declared. It is not a case I make; it is a case he makes.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: I take on board what Senator Evans said about there being no current reference to the Privileges Committee. Standing order 193(3) prohibits personal reflections against members of this chamber, as well as members of other houses. All I do in the circumstances is to ask you to caution Senator Evans to confine his remarks to matters which are acknowledged and on the public record. Standing order 193(3) does not give him licence—reference to the Privileges Committee or not—to reflect upon Senator Santoro or his motives or indeed his honesty.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order, in addition to Senator Brandis’s comments: I am going on my memory, but I think I heard Senator Evans accuse Senator Santoro of deliberately misleading the Senate. I think the term ‘deliberately misleading the Senate’ is what we are referring to rather than some of the other comments.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right, Mr Deputy President.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, I cannot recollect the wording myself, but if you have accused a person of deliberately misleading, you should withdraw that. I will deal with that first, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot be precise, but I certainly do make the charge. If that is ruled out of order, Mr Deputy President, I will take your advice. It seems to me a particularly precious interpretation, given the contributions of coalition senators to the taking note debate, but this is a subject for your ruling. If you rule that ‘deliberately misleading’ is—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been ruled on here before. You cannot say ‘deliberately misleading’, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw then.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, on the other matters that you have raised there is no point of order. I am sure that other speakers in this debate will be cautious in their approach to order before the chair.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the sensitivity and the seriousness of these matters, and I am trying to walk a line that does not prejudge Senator Santoro’s statement to the Senate. That is why I have not as yet sought to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, but it may well be necessary. To be frank, Senator Santoro would have to have a pretty damn good story—certainly much better than the one he has advanced so far—for senators across the chamber not to consider that this matter ought to be referred to the Privileges Committee.

It is clear from Senator Santoro’s own evidence that the declarations he consistently filed in the Senate were not accurate—not once, not twice but on numerous occasions. The reminder sent to him—and to all other senators—from the Committee of Senators’ Interests to update his returns were ignored and share trading and shareholdings were not declared. We now know that at least 72 transactions were not declared to the Senate. So any defence based on inadvertence will look very thin, because you can forget one, you can forget two, but to forget 72 different trades is clearly not something that any reasonable person could accept as being an inadvertent omission.

The reason I moved this motion today is that I think this is an important matter for the Senate. These events challenge confidence in the register and people’s confidence in the ability of the Senate to properly maintain the Register of Senators’ Interests. As people know, there is a general disquiet in the community about whether or not the Prime Minister is able to properly maintain the Prime Minister’s code of conduct and ministers’ adherence to that. Clearly, that has not been the case on this occasion. Given the history of share trading impacts on previous ministers of the government, it beggars belief that such trading could have occurred with such contempt for the rules of the Senate and the Prime Minister’s code of conduct.

I am particularly concerned about the Prime Minister’s actions when he was confronted by Senator Santoro with the admission that he had bought shares in a company where a conflict of interest with his ministerial duties had arisen and that those shares had not been declared. The Prime Minister did not seek to have him correct those failings immediately and make a public declaration about them. What occurred was that the minister was allowed at his leisure, over a period of two months, to make a declaration that he had purchased the shares—not that he had the shares prior to that event but that he had purchased shares. The minister made a declaration which did not reveal the fact that he had held those shares prior to a recent purchase. So the Prime Minister was less than open, less than transparent, in the way that he allowed Senator Santoro to behave. That does go to the question of the standards applied by this government. It does go to public confidence in the system where the Prime Minister allowed an issue like this to be dealt with on the quiet, on the hush-hush, without any proper public accountability and allowed the senator to provide a statement that was far from transparent—one which did not identify the fact that the senator had held those shares for a long period of time and had failed to declare them.

On a cursory examination of the declaration made in December, one can note that the shares that he listed as having sold were shares that he previously had not admitted to buying. It does not take a genius to understand that, in making his declaration under the Prime Minister’s supervision, he was declaring that he had previously misled the Senate. That is how amateurish the whole thing is. The declaration lists shares as being sold that were never listed as having been bought, in addition to the key conflict of interest of the CBio share purchase. So there is a real undermining of confidence both in the Prime Minister’s code of conduct and in the Senate’s register of interests that this Senate ought to seek to address. We will address the issues of Senator Santoro following his explanation. I am a bit surprised that he did not bring himself into the chamber immediately.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A senator is required to correct the record immediately. We have been sitting for a few hours. There has been no sign of him. I am told that he has promised to come in. We await that with interest. He will have to provide a very compelling case as to why we should not refer these matters to the Privileges Committee and why he should not be the subject of some censure from the Senate. But the bottom line in all of this, of course, is that that is a decision for the government. Senator Santoro and his coalition colleagues will get to vote on whether any action is taken against Senator Santoro. That is one of the ironies of the government’s control of the Senate—the government will be held to account as to what standards it will apply to its own. You will not be able to escape being held to account for the standards that this government regards as acceptable, because whatever a privileges inquiry finds, the Senate will have to decide what punishment or censure it takes— (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those who are listening to this broadcast today cannot see what I can see; the four members of the government sitting in the chamber can. What they can see is that on this matter of urgency the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is being supported by only two Labor senators. This is not a matter of urgency; this is a cheap political stunt. If those opposite were serious about this matter then those benches opposite would be filled. One of those Labor senators has to be here because they are the whip. This is a cheap political stunt. I will wager whatever amount of money Senator Evans wants to put on it that this matter will be referred by the Labor Party to the Privileges Committee. The only reason that has not been done is that they know, and I know, that had they done so this morning we would not be debating this matter this afternoon. It is a cheap political stunt.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Santoro doesn’t come cheap.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If my high-pitched friend here keeps quiet then I might get the rest of my speech in. This is a cheap political stunt. The arbiter of the matters contained in this motion are the very group that will ultimately judge the outcome of the senator in question. Senator Evans knows, and I know—and even the chattering Senator Carr knows—that these matters will be referred to the Privileges Committee. In the normal course of events that committee, of which I am deputy chair, will discuss this matter and take into account the very matters that Senator Evans has referred to in the motion. They are the arbiter of these matters and they will refer the matter back to the Senate, which is the final arbiter.

What Senator Evans has attempted to do today is to pre-empt the role of the Privileges Committee, which is chaired by his own colleague. Senator Evans, you should read your speech. If you were hoping to become a household name after this speech today then I am afraid, my friend, that you will be bitterly disappointed. You were not a household name before that speech today and you most certainly will not be after. If you read Senator Evans’s speech, you see that he said he was prepared to wait for final judgment but the PM was not. So what Senator Evans was telling the Senate was that he was waiting for final judgment—presumably from the Privileges Committee—before anything was done. What has actually happened is that the PM has moved to address the very things that you have referred to in this motion to maintain the integrity of this chamber and the very matters you are referring to.

Let us cut to the chase on this. This is a political stunt that would not have been possible had there been a reference to the Privileges Committee. This is about the opposition having a cheap shot at the Prime Minister for purely political purposes. Quite frankly, Senator Evans, your duplicity would not fool anyone undertaking—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator, I would ask you to reconsider the term ‘duplicity’.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More’s the pity if I have to withdraw that, but I will. Your stunt today would not pass the kitchen table test, would not pass the pub test and would not pass the barbecue test because the Australian public will see straight through your cheap stunt. You have had two goes at it. You have had the motion to take note of answers and you have had this urgency motion. You have repeated yourself. You made no sense in your first speech and you made even less sense in your last speech.

Senator Evans, you know that this should have gone to the Privileges Committee. You know full well that your colleagues on both sides of the political fence treat that Privileges Committee very seriously. You know full well—and if you do not, you should—that there has never been a matter, according to my understanding, come out of that Privileges Committee where there has not been unanimous agreement of the committee. That committee is sitting in judgment on its colleagues; the very judgment you were talking about in your speech. You should hang your head in shame that you have totally bastardised the process of this Senate today by this cheap political stunt. You have bastardised the process that has stood the test of time. It is a process that has required our colleagues to sit in judgment on each other with those very matters that you have referred to as the absolute primary matters for their consideration. For you to debase the process the way you have today is to your eternal shame. You have been shown up as engaging in a cheap political stunt.

I turn now to your comments in relation to the Prime Minister in the earlier debate. The pub test should make it quite clear to you that the general community has expectations that have been met by the Prime Minister. I will read again the Prime Minister’s comments from The 7.30 Report. Just for interest’s sake, I notice that there is no-one else from the Labor Party in the chamber seven minutes into this speech. I will go through again what the Prime Minister said. He said:

As a Senator, he has to disclose these transactions. I reminded him of that obligation when I appointed him as a minister and I wrote to him reminding him of his disclosure obligations. He broke those obligations. I didn’t know of that breach until a few days ago when he owned up, and that is why he’s out.

In relation to a question from Kerry O’Brien, ‘But doesn’t that go to the heart of the probity of your government, that one of your ministers appears to have lied to you about something really quite serious?’ the Prime Minister replied, ‘That would go to the heart of the probity of the government if I, having found out about this a couple of days ago, had done nothing about it. The fact that he went quickly for a clear breach of simple rules that every senator or member of his or her own volition should observe is an indication I do take the probity of my government very seriously, and I resent suggestions to the contrary.’

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may well resent it, but—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seriously suggesting that the Prime Minister should be acting on matters that he has no knowledge of? The stupidity of your argument is that, even if the Prime Minister had gone through the registers of interests—for every single one of us, in both the Senate and the other place—they would not have shown up these matters that are before us today, because they were not in the Register of Senators’ Interests and they were not matters of which he had knowledge. How could he possibly have acted as you have told him he should, if he had no knowledge of these matters?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had knowledge from October.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has not passed the public test on reasonableness.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He knew in October!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope tonight, when you are reflecting on today—and you can interrupt me as much as like—that you realise what you have done to the process of the Privileges Committee, to a process that has stood the test of time. Senator Evans, you have effectively single-handedly destroyed that process.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I remind you to make your remarks through the chair.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary debate this is. I think it is fair to say the standards of probity and accountability in the last 11 years of this government have been seriously undermined. We have had electoral laws that have disenfranchised people and we have had the regime for disclosure of political donations watered down. So many changes in this place have sent a very strong message to people like Senator Santoro that it does not matter. It no longer matters: honesty in government, honesty in politics and honesty in political activity have now taken a back seat. I remember that the Prime Minister, when he came up with the ministerial code of conduct, applauded himself on how wonderful this was going to be and said that there would be no probity issues with his ministers. And the ministers quickly fell at that time. I remember Senator Short, Senator Wood and Senator Gibson, who were sacked in very quick succession. And others went as well. In the lower house there were Sharp and Jull, and I think here too we had Senators Cobb and, at one stage, Crichton-Browne. So there is a long history of ignoring standards, putting them in place and finding that there are too many people who need to be sacked as a result of them, so you need to drop some of those requirements. We are very used to it.

So it is little wonder, I think, that Senator Santoro has not taken the ministerial code of conduct seriously. He is one of the ‘born to rule’ amongst us, who think that having shares is a right and proper thing that everybody should do, otherwise you are a bit of a mug. And that thinking has infiltrated all of the activities of people in this place who now defend Senator Santoro’s appalling behaviour.

I thought it was extraordinary today. We have Senator Minchin saying that the Prime Minister acted honourably on this and cannot be expected to know or act on ministers’ affairs. We have heard it again this afternoon. That is precisely why a ministerial code of conduct, which is up to the Prime Minister to administer, will not work. What we need to do is move to a situation where there is a committee of the parliament which determines both the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct for senators and members. That should be set up by a joint committee. It should develop a comprehensive code for ministers and members of parliament, as I said, including rules about avoiding conflicts of interest and strong penalties for transgressions.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does! That’s what it says!

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you ignored it!

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the problem is, we keep hearing Senator Brandis saying it is already there; there is no problem. Well, there is a problem, and there is a problem because Senator Minchin said, and I will be precise—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senators, I am having trouble hearing Senator Allison.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz said this afternoon: ‘The test is not whether we make mistakes; it’s how we deal with it.’ In other words, if I am a bank robber and I go along and I rob the bank and threaten the employees and whatever else, and then when I am found I hand over the money that I got from the bank to charity and I apologise, then it is okay. So it is only a question of being caught and how well you handle being caught that is an issue here for the government.

We would rather see things done rather differently. We would rather that this parliament was the place that determined such things—not the Prime Minister, not Senator Brandis, not individuals within the Liberal Party. It is a parliamentary matter, and I remind senators that one resolution about senators’ interests says:

Any senator who:

(a)

knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators’ Interests by the due date;

(b)

knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Senators’ Interests within 35 days of the change occurring; or

(c)

knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators’ Interests;

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate—

not the Prime Minister; the Senate—

and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly ...

That is the whole point here. It is not up to the Prime Minister to say, ‘Well, we’ll let him off this time because he really is a nice guy and he didn’t mean to do it, and in fact we’ll take his ministerial position away from him.’ And that will be seen to be—what was the phrase being used over and over again? A high price to be paid. So he has already paid the high price! Judge and jury over there have determined that Senator Santoro is a bit guilty— (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This urgency motion, in truth, deals with the lack of probity under the Howard government and, in particular, the failure of the former Minister for Ageing, the honourable Senator Santo Santoro, to comply with the requirements of the Register of Senators’ Interests. The actions of the honourable Senator Santoro bring to light a wider and worrying trend under this government. It is a trend that we senators in the chamber know only too well, it being the reduction in avenues for scrutiny and accountability.

From the moment the government took control of the Senate, from 1 July 2005, the Howard government drew the curtains, turned off the lights and threw away the keys on scrutiny. Why? It was so that it could begin to govern true to its form: away from the watchful eyes of the opposition, the media and interested members of the public. That was the true intent. In terms of public policy, the manifestation of this cloak of secrecy is best exemplified by extreme industrial relations. Witness how the government refused to provide statistical analysis of the AWAs. This government wants to claim how great AWAs are, how much better off workers are under them. Yet it will not even reveal the statistics to back this up.

We have all heard of the expression ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’, stemming from the common observation that, with sufficient manipulation, statistics can be made to say anything. What this government does do is not provide transparency. It keeps its secret records. I will tell you what it says. This government sends in its expert spin doctors to spin what it needs to, whatever positive message—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would senators stop shouting across the chamber!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This is an opposition motion. The terms of the opposition motion are:

The reaffirmation of the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Registry of Senators’ Interests.

It is quite specifically directed to the topic of the Registry of Senators’ Interests. Can I ask you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to direct Senator Ludwig to the topic of the opposition’s own motion.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brandis, I hear your point of order. I believe that Senator Ludwig is making a case in terms of his argument. I will let Senator Ludwig continue with the process. I do not accept your point of order.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have 10 minutes, and I hope you will stay to listen to all of it, Senator Brandis. Meanwhile, once the government has sent in its spin doctors to spin a message—I see Senator Brandis is now leaving the chamber—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see that you do not want to hear my points, Senator Brandis. That is the government: it turns its back on the Senate. That is what the government members are very good at: taking a point of order, turning their backs and running out of the chamber. That is what government members do very well because they do not want to hear and they do not want to hold the government to account.

Meanwhile, the actions of the honourable Senator Santoro demonstrate the decline under this government of accountability and probity. It is a small example, although, when you listen to Senator Santoro, you hear that it started out as a small one and then grew like Pinocchio’s nose. But it is an example of where this government is failing on accountability and probity issues. It is but one, and it will be interesting to find out how many more will be dragged out.

There are three key things that hold governments to account in Australia and keep them from straying down the path of maladministration and misappropriation. The first is the government’s own conscience and sense of responsibility. We all know that that flew out the window back in 1997 when the Prime Minister realised just how few of his Liberal and National Party colleagues could actually pass the ministerial code of conduct. So he abandoned it soon after.

When you look at the recent departures of former Minister Ian Campbell and the honourable Senator Santoro, you realise that, in the eyes of this Prime Minister, the sin of these two men was not one of a lapse in good character or judgement. I add that, for the honourable Senator Santoro, it in fact looks like quite a long lapse. No, the sin of these two men was that they stood in the way of the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, and his hold on power. The unwritten ministerial code of conduct that operates in the year 2007 has only a single sentence: do not get in the way of Mr John Howard and his desire to win the next election.

Given that we cannot rely on the conscience and ethics of those on the government benches—the Prime Minister, in particular—to keep themselves in check, let me turn to the next line of defence. The second line of defence is the Australian parliament. That includes the committees, including the Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests. All of those matters are wrapped up in how the Australian parliament and, in particular, this chamber operate effectively both to meet accountability and probity standards and to hold the government to account.

So what happened? The Liberal and National parties, on gaining control, could not wait to sink their teeth into how they were going to control. In a short space of time this government passed extreme laws, took complete control of the Senate committee system and altered it, instructed public servants not to answer difficult questions on AWB at estimates hearings, stopped the Senate committees looking into matters of the AWB and dramatically cut the length of inquiries into government legislation.

That is the record that this government stands on. When it talks here about accountability and probity, this is the record that this government says it should be exemplified for—wrong, wrong and wrong. The actions of the honourable Senator Santoro are just the latest example of how little regard the Liberal and the National parties have for this chamber, this great institution of ours. The honourable Senator Santoro has shown blatant disregard for the rules and procedures that have long been in place here—not just once, but 72 times. And that is just what he has admitted to at last count. We hope to hear more tonight.

It reminds me of the television show Get Smart, where the bumbling Maxwell Smart cannot help but always exaggerate his hand. In this case, the honourable Senator Santoro first fronted the media claiming that it was only one oversight and that he had been proactive in the resolution of that. When caught out, the honourable Senator Santoro fronted the media for a second time, this time saying—would you believe it?—that there were 50 or 60 oversights. But now we know there were 72, at least to date. The only difference is that, while the Chief was keenly aware of and accommodating of his agent’s clumsiness, Mr John Howard expects us to believe that the Prime Minister wears no responsibility for the indiscretions of his own people—his own agent 86. If that is how it is then the Prime Minister really has lost control of his own show.

There is a very simple reason why the honourable. Senator Santoro has disregarded both the ministerial code of conduct and the standing orders of the Senate—that is, he did not expect them to be enforced, quite frankly. That is the worrying element of this whole episode—that he expected neither the code of conduct by the PM nor the senators’ rules by this government’s majority to be enforced. That is the concerning part.

I draw the Senate’s attention to what senior Liberal Party sources said in the media today about the behaviour of the honourable Senator Santoro: ‘He’s actually very secretive.’ I think we would all agree with that. But it is not just the honourable Senator Santoro that is secretive. That is a trait of this entire government. One of the other acts passed after it assumed control of the Senate was a relaxation of the political donations disclosure rules. This government raised the threshold from $1,500 to $10,000 so that fewer donations would need to be reported.

Notwithstanding this, one more check on the growing arrogance and lack of accountability—that is what this government has been removing—is the votes in the ballot box. They in turn are assisted by the media and the opposition in shedding light on this government’s lack of probity. This government has commenced its attack of smear and innuendo only to find its own house not in order. The message is simple: this government needs to clean up its act, get its house in order and join Labor in the debate about the future of this great country. Failure to do so will risk damage not just to its own standing but to that of this fine institution, the Commonwealth parliament. We should stop it and get on with debate about policy and substantive matters. That is what the debate in this house should be on. Those are the issues that need to be debated. But bear in mind that this government has not been doing that. (Time expired)

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read with interest the terms of this urgency motion. I wonder where Senator Ludwig has been, because, in all of the remarks that he made in those 10 minutes, scarcely did he refer to maintaining the integrity of the Register of Senators’ Interests. For the enlightenment of those senators who are present in the chamber—apart from one of the officials at the table, I think I was probably the only senator in the chamber who was here when the register of interests was brought into this chamber—it was brought in in the last years of the Keating government.

A Labor Party motion to introduce a register of interests into this place had been on the books for almost 10 years. Do you think they did it during those 10 years? Not on your nelly. They never bothered to bring that motion forward. After they had made a register of interests for the House of Representatives, the motion lay on the Notice Paper in this place for 10 years. In the dying days of the Keating government, in order to do some grubby deal with the minor parties, they decided to bring it in under pressure from the minor parties. These people did not want a register of interests in this place. For 10 years they left it sitting on the Notice Paper without bringing it in.

Senators opposite talk about transparency. What transparency did we have in this place in the time of the last Labor government? We went to the 1996 election with a $96 billion debt and a $10 billion deficit that nobody knew about because there was no Charter of Budget Honesty and no ministerial code of conduct. Their good friend Senator Richardson and a number of others could get up to their pranks in this place without any scrutiny because at that time there was no register of interests, no ministerial code of conduct and no Charter of Budget Honesty. And you, Senator Ludwig, have the hide to come in here and talk about transparency.

The ministerial code of conduct works. That is why Senator Santoro was forced to resign. The Register of Senators’ Interests works.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will now have a situation where, as we heard from Senator Evans, this matter—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, there is a lot of talk over on the other side, and I think we listened to Senator Ludwig in near silence.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is. Senators on my left, I wish to listen to Senator Ferguson.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The integrity of the Register of Senators’ Interests is maintained because if someone fails to comply with the requirements of the Senate it is referred to the Privileges Committee.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister tried to cover it up.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hutchins, if you want to get on the speaking list, I suggest you get into the whip’s office and try and get on there.

The Acting Deputy President:

You know that those comments should be through me, Senator Ferguson.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I would attempt to address my remarks through you, but I have a lot of noise coming from the other side—

The Acting Deputy President:

I understand.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which makes it rather hard to concentrate, as you know. The events of the past few days have proved that each of those safeguards that have been put in in this place actually works. Senator Santoro has resigned because he did not comply with the ministerial code of conduct. This matter is going to be sent to the Privileges Committee. The people opposite us suggest that it has not been complied with and so it will go to the Privileges Committee and then come back to this chamber to be adjudicated on, which is the intention of how it should work.

But no-one on that side has yet told me why, if the register of interests is so important, they let it lie on the Notice Paper for 10 years before they introduced it into this chamber—on the Notice Paper since 1983. In 1994, I think it had something to do with the Keating piggery and the Marshall Islands affair of Senator Richardson, which you are all quite proud of. They refused to introduce a ministerial code of conduct and they refused to introduce a charter of budget honesty.

The people on that side earlier today talked about this critical accountability mechanism. I would like to repeat what I said back in 1994 in relation to this Register of Senators’ Interests: it tells you everything and it tells you nothing. I still remember—and some of you may remember—that a couple of years ago the Labor senators opposite came in here virtually salivating at the fact that they were going to pin Senator Minchin on a conflict of interest. In his register of interests he had BHP shares and, as minister for finance, he had a conflict of interest owning them. They were salivating; you and your colleagues were salivating. The question was asked and Senator Minchin said, ‘Yes, I do. It is true. I do have one share in BHP. It was given to me the day I was born by my grandfather, and I refuse to sell it.’ One share at that stage was worth $14. As I said to you, the Register of Senators’ Interests does not tell you whether you have a million dollars worth of BHP shares or one share, or how much it is worth or how much it is geared. It tells you absolutely nothing, and so if they were going to establish a register of interests it ought to be a register that means something.

We had a situation back in 1994 at the time of Mr Keating’s piggery interests. I looked at a speech made by one of my colleagues at the time on 17 March 1994 when he talks about the seriousness of whether Mr Keating obtained a loan from the Commonwealth Bank when he was Treasurer or Prime Minister. He said:

It would be interesting to know whether the Prime Minister discloses his interests in the Commonwealth Bank or his loan dealings with the Commonwealth Bank when he makes decisions at the cabinet table on the Commonwealth Bank ... in the past wholly owned ... now a major shareholder.

We had a situation where there was no ministerial code of conduct. There was a register of senators’ interests, and the Prime Minister had a commercial interest in a piggery which was kept in the dark and where he made a considerable amount of money—much more than I am sure Senator Santoro has ever made out of his shares—and yet he refused to divulge it, refused to tell us. I can tell you: if Senator Santoro had every one of those shares on the register you still would not know whether he had one share in each of those companies or 5,000 shares. It does not tell you a thing. I support the motion before the chair; no-one could not support the motion before the chair. But unfortunately those opposite have gone on all sorts of tangents talking about everything except the integrity of the Register of Senators’ Interests— (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem with ministers and members generally being involved in commercial matters while they are elected members of parliament representing the voters and the people and their wider interests is that inevitably there are points of conflict. That is why I, in this Senate on behalf of the Australian Greens, have pursued for more than a decade now—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; the member opposite has gone quiet on that comment. The Greens have pursued the concept of ending that conflict of interest through having an opaque or blind trust so that, if ministers wish to hold shareholdings, their shares go into a blind trust, which is then traded by an independent authority but without the knowledge of the minister. If the former minister opposite says you cannot achieve that, then the alternative would be to divest yourself of those shares.

We come into this parliament in a place of obligation to be open and fair to the electorate. We get highly paid. Average senators are on a base rate of $118,000 a year plus the electoral allowance and all the other allowances that come with it to be commensurate with the work that we do. It is an affront to probity and democracy that ministers in particular continue to trade on the share market with all the implied biases that that brings to mind while they hold the high office of minister and authority under the Crown.

I think the Prime Minister should have put an end to this a long while ago. The Prime Minister should have acted to adopt the Greens’ recommendation. It has been adopted in other parliaments. The legislative option is clearly available. It is the right thing to do, but I suspect that, because Prime Minister Howard holds the market so high in his esteem, he is unable to see the risks that inevitably are involved with continuing to allow ministers and members to trade on the Stock Exchange. It should be stopped. It would be better for all ministers involved it if it were stopped. If the Greens’ concept of an opaque or blind trust as is used overseas had been adopted 10 years ago we would not be in this position today. Senator Santoro would not be. A number of other ministers who have gone from this chamber and from the other place would still be safely here in the parliament and the cabinet.

It is time we looked much more rigorously and sincerely at the options that are available. In the near future, the Greens will introduce into the Senate legislation to require ministers to place any shareholdings they might have into an opaque trust that is administered at arm’s length and without the knowledge of that minister so that her or his work cannot be influenced by the profitability of shares being exchanged and traded on the Stock Exchange.

We will also introduce legislation to clamp down on lobbyists—to make sure that they are registered and that their activities are open and available to public scrutiny. We believe there is a lot to be done to improve the safety of parliamentarians who cannot work it out for themselves and to deliver a more honest and secure performance by ministers in particular to the electorates they represent—to the people of Australia.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand this afternoon to support this motion and to highlight the importance of maintaining the integrity and intent of the Register of Senators’ Interests. It is patently obvious that we should support such a motion. However, the Labor Party and those on the other side have handled this in a very high-handed manner. It is nothing short of political shenanigans that they have placed this motion before the Senate this afternoon. By doing so, and by highlighting the concerns in the way that they have—by throwing the mud in the manner that they have—they have hijacked their own motion. They have turned the heat on themselves.

They have turned the heat on their own colleagues in the various state governments around Australia because, by any means, it has been quite clearly demonstrated that the system that has been working here at the federal level is actually working well. The system was implemented by Prime Minister Howard, who introduced a ministerial code of conduct for the first time ever in Australian political history. The Charter of Budget Honesty, the system of ensuring accountability and full disclosure, has been supported, acted upon and instigated by the Howard government. Why do you think the Prime Minister is nicknamed ‘Honest John’ from time to time? I can tell you that it is because he is honest, which is important to the Australian people. They accept that and they know that.

The system has been and is working. Yes, Senator Santoro made a mistake. In his resignation statement, Senator Santoro said:

None of these investments involves either impropriety or a conflict of interest and there was never any dishonest intention on my part. Nevertheless I have neglected to properly report a number of investments to the Prime Minister and to the Senate. This is the reason for my announcement today.

The Prime Minister accepted that and said that Senator Santoro had failed to comply with his obligations as a senator and with his ministerial obligations of disclosure. so, on both counts, there is an acceptance that there was a mistake made and the price has been paid. Senator Santoro has paid the highest price possible: he has resigned his commission as a minister in the Howard government.

Senator Santoro, as everybody would acknowledge, got across his brief very well and very quickly. He was competent and professional, and he conducted his ministerial role to a very high standard. He was responsible, at least in part, for the $1.5 billion announcement made by the Prime Minister, on investing in Australia’s aged-care industry. There will be a legacy. People will look back and say thank you: ‘Thank you for your role. Thank you for your contribution. Thank you for your input and for that tremendous investment in Australia’s aged-care industry.’

With the Labor Party, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They have set benchmarks and key performance indicators that contrast with the various state Labor governments around Australia. They are waxing lyrical today over what has happened in the last few days, but they make no mention whatsoever of the very busy schedule of the various anticorruption commissions in the state governments around Australia. Those commissions are implementing their brief to seek out and to act upon corrupt officials in those state governments. Look at what has been going on in Queensland and New South Wales. Look at Western Australia, with the Brian Burke affair. What about Tasmania? Tasmania does not have an anticorruption commission; however the Deputy Premier, Brian Green, has resigned his commission and the DPP is now taking action against him in the courts. I will not speak about that, because it is before the courts.

The Labor Party, in doing what they have done today—throwing mud and allegations and getting involved in political shenanigans—have highlighted their own lack of standards in the various state governments around Australia. The best indicator of how Labor in office would handle public moneys, how they would be accountable to the Australian people, how they would support full disclosure and how they would be responsible for their actions and accountable for their decisions is how they do it elsewhere. What are their brothers and sisters doing in the various state governments around Australia? They are acting in a most irresponsible fashion; hence the very busy schedule of the anticorruption commissions in the various state governments.

I urge senators on the other side to exercise influence over their colleagues in the various states and to ensure that they are acting in an honest fashion. What has been proven once and for all today is that the system that was established under Prime Minister John Howard’s responsibility and control in this parliament is working. There is evidence of full disclosure and accountability. The minister has resigned. He has paid the highest price possible, and you can see exactly the result. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.