Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (17:22): I rise to speak on the Auditor-General report No.39 2018–19 performance audit: the Bureau of Meteorology's delivery of extreme weather services. According to the Department of the Environment and Energy portfolio budget statements 2018-19: The Bureau of Meteorology is responsible for the Outcome: Enabling a safe, prosperous, secure and healthy Australia through the provision of weather, water, climate and ocean services. The bureau's weather forecasts, warnings and analyses support decision-making by the government, by industry, and by the community. Australian sectors which rely heavily on timely and accurate weather services include emergency management, aviation, maritime, defence, agriculture, energy and resources. The bureau delivers forecasts and warning services for all meteorological events. Extreme weather services are a core function of the bureau, which is integrated with its delivery of routine weather services. The bureau delivers domestic forecast and warning services for a wide range of extreme weather events. These include floods, thunderstorms, fires, tropical cyclones, storm surges, hazardous surf and storm tides, tsunamis and heatwave conditions. Effective forecasts and warnings are very important in allowing the bureau's stakeholders, its customers and the public to prepare for extreme weather events, reducing the potential for loss of life and damage to infrastructure and property. This is the rationale behind the undertaking of this audit report. The importance of delivering independent, accurate and quality forecasts is emphasised in this report. The Bureau of Meteorology and the Meteorology Act 1955 are within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Energy. While we're on the topic of independence and the Department of the Environment and Energy, it leads me to contrast the approach taken by the Bureau of Meteorology, which has been largely affirmed by this audit report, with concerns that have been raised about the independence of some other decision-making in this area. There is a serious cloud hanging over the government's head and over the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. On Tuesday, in the other place, the government refused to debate a censure motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition against the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Mr Taylor. The Prime Minister wasn't prepared to defend his minister, and the minister wasn't prepared to defend himself, so they shut down the debate. Tonight I'm putting the case against the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. The case against this minister is very clear: he used his public office to advance private interests. He kept these private interests secret, because he knew he was doing the wrong thing. When he got caught out, he pretended he wasn't acting for private gain; he said he was 'looking out for farmers in his electorate'. He even invented a constituent—the man from Yass—as a cover for his deception. The game is well and truly up. It wasn't 'the man from Yass' who ratted on him; it was the member for Hume, the minister himself. He ratted on himself! On 28 July, he admitted to ABC Illawarra that he was representing private interests all along. He was looking after private interests when he complained to the now Treasurer about an investigation by the environment department. Of course, the now Treasurer was the Minister for Environment and Energy during much of the period covered by this audit report. The now Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, a cabinet minister administering the Department of the Environment and Energy, was looking after private interests when he got the now Treasurer to organise a meeting with the environment department. He was looking after private interests when he asked the Treasurer if science could be ignored in his personal favour. He was looking after private interests when he failed to tell the department and the parliament about his land ownership. He was looking after private interests when he misled the other place again and again about how the grasslands listings affected him in his electorate. Imagine if this sort of interference of which I'm talking occurred with the forecasting of weather! We knew all along that he was not being up-front. He admitted it on the ABC regional radio program in late July. When asked about the impact of the grasslands listing on landholders in his region, he said, 'One of the landholders is me.' That's right—it was about him all along. He even doubled down. He said: 'I make absolutely no apologies for standing up for farmers in my region. That includes me.' He makes absolutely no apologies for acting in his self-interest despite being a cabinet minister. It's truly outrageous behaviour. The case against the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction is clear: he has breached his obligations to the parliament to disclose his private interests, he has breached the Statement of Ministerial Standards by using his public office for personal gain and he has compounded that breach by not disclosing his interests and misleading the parliament about his motivations. Each of these breaches—and there are several of them—is serious. Each breach betrays the trust placed in the minister to pursue the public interest above all else. This minister, Mr Taylor, thinks it's good enough for The Guardian to discover his interests in Jam Land and put it on the public record. He reckons that meets the standard of disclosure required by members and ministers. What a load of tosh! Jam Land is subject to a long-running compliance investigation by the Department of the Environment and Energy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It's alleged Jam Land poisoned 30 hectares of critically endangered grassland. These grasslands are amongst the most vulnerable ecological communities in Australia and are home to 19 threatened species. The minister wanted the investigation of Jam Land to stop, and he worked to that end while keeping his interests in Jam Land secret. So seriously does the other place take the disclosure of private interests that less than 18 months ago it censured the former member for Dunkley, Mr Billson, for 'failing to fulfil his responsibilities as a member by appropriately declaring his personal and pecuniary interests'. The explanatory notes accompanying the House statement of registrable interests say this: Where interests are held in a private holding company (i.e. a proprietary company formed for the purpose of investing in subsidiary companies) all such subsidiary companies, and any subsidiary companies held by those subsidiary companies, should be named. The Clerk of the House said this: Where interests are held in a private holding company, then all subsidiary companies and any subsidiary companies held by those subsidiary companies should be named. The Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards says: All parliamentarians are required to disclose private interests to the parliament. And it says: Ministers must declare and register their personal interests, including but not limited to pecuniary interests, as required by the Parliament from time to time. … … … Failure to declare or register a relevant and substantive personal interest as required by the Parliament constitutes a breach of these Standards. The obligations imposed on the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to disclose his holding in Jam Land could not be clearer. It's not like this bloke doesn't know about subsidiary companies. He's constructed this. He is, after all, an architect of a scheme to register interests in the Cayman Islands, that notorious tax haven much favoured by tax evaders, money launderers and more than one minister who has served in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The minister's interest in Jam Land is held through Guffy, his self-described investment company. The minister didn't disclose Guffy's interest in Jam Land because, once it was disclosed, his campaign to undermine the EPBC Act would be clear for all to see. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Senator O'Neill, I remind you of standing order 193, subparagraph 3, about imputations, which was highlighted by the President earlier today. You've just implied an improper motive. I ask you to withdraw that and then continue. Senator O'NEILL: I find that I have laid out the actual facts of the case. If somebody seeks to determine that that's an imputation of the minister's character I would be inclined to agree with them, but I have simply disclosed the facts of the matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, I have asked you to withdraw the imputation of motive. I ask you to withdraw that. Senator O'NEILL: With respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, I simply said that the minister did not disclose Guffy's interest in Jam Land. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you said 'because'—that was the imputation. Senator O'NEILL: Because, once it was disclosed, his campaign to undermine the EPBC Act would be clear for all to see. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's an imputation of motive. You will withdraw that. Senator O'NEILL: To assist the chamber I will withdraw, but I think anybody who reads facts would read it in the same way. There is a reason for the subterfuge. The reason he invented the man from Yass is that this minister does not want to tell the truth about his personal interference in the department for his own personal gain. He should resign. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.