Cash, Sen Michaelia

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:18): Transparency, integrity and accountability. This is the Prime Minister of Australia, the man who went to the last election stating that if he was elected by the Australian people an Albanese-led government would be the hallmark of transparency, integrity and accountability. Yet today what we see is that Mr Albanese has fallen over at the very first hurdle. In providing an explanation on behalf of the Prime Minister of Australia, what did we get from the minister representing the Prime Minister? Well, actually nothing—nothing but excuses and blame. You see, what the minister and the Prime Minister clearly fail to remember is that you are now in government. You set the standards by which you wanted the Australian people and this parliament to judge you: transparency, integrity and accountability. Yet on each one of those standards, with 117 questions overdue—and it's not like you had a short time in which to provide the answers; they are overdue now after over 30 days—you have failed in every regard. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate stated, when those in government were on the other side of the chamber, they were very demanding when it came to questions being answered on time. Yet now that they are in government, they don't hold themselves to that same standard of accountability. In June last year, just over 12 months ago, what did now Minister Watt say in relation to the failure to provide answers to questions on notice in a timely fashion? He said this: 'We deserve answers and transparency.' He went even further and said: It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions. Of course, the Prime Minister is now his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister Albanese. According to what now Minister Watt said at the time, Mr Albanese has failed. Mr Albanese has decided that transparency is negotiable, even though it was not negotiable when they were in opposition and we were in government. Then, of course, Senator Marielle Smith said on 15 October 2019: I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days. I agree. It is not an unreasonable request, in particular when you are the now Prime Minister of this country and you have gone to an election on the basis of integrity, on the basis of transparency and on the basis of accountability. The Prime Minister should stand true to his words and ensure that at all times he complies with the standards that he himself set. The Prime Minister made a huge fanfare when he announced what he said was his new code of conduct for ministers. What did he say in the foreword to the code of conduct signed personally by Anthony Albanese, the new Prime Minister? Australians deserve good government. The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people. Yet when it comes to ensuring that they comply with the standing orders in this place, the Australian Senate, all of that goes out the window and the now Prime Minister thinks, 'Well, I won't personally observe the standards of probity, governance and behaviour that are worthy of the Australian people.' In making all the fanfare that he did in relation to his code of conduct, at clause 5, Accountability, he says this: Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee. This is the code of conduct which Mr Albanese made great fanfare about when he announced it. This was going to be the code of conduct to end all codes of conduct, and yet what we've had is the Prime Minister himself—and they've only been in government for over 120 days—already failing the code of conduct that he himself signed off on. But what is worse, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has stated, the Prime Minister has been more than happy in the past to have several press conferences about the ministerial arrangements of the previous government, and yet when it comes to taking responsibility for his own government and answering questions, very serious questions, he is nowhere to be seen. The questions on notice, and there are 117 that are outstanding, which have been asked of this government—and particularly in this case were asked of the Prime Minister of Australia—are very important. In the case of the questions on notice that are outstanding for me, they seek to inquire into what discussions Labor ministers and the Prime Minister's office had with a number of union stakeholders. Senator Scarr: Aah! Senator CASH: Exactly! But Senator Scarr, as you would know, many of these stakeholders donated millions and millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party. Money comes in by way of donations, policy goes out. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator CASH: Exactly. There's one accord in town, and that's the accord between the Albanese Labor government and the union movement of Australia. And then when we deign to ask very simple questions—just what, where, when, why and how—we are treated with complete contempt. And in treating the opposition with contempt, the Albanese government is treating the Australian people with contempt because the Australian people deserve to know the answers to these questions. Of course, we know the contempt with which the now Prime Minister treats his code of conduct. He says in a big press conference there's a new code of conduct and all his ministers will abide by it. Yet what do we see within the first few months of the parliament? We see minister after minister in potential breach of the code. As I said, what the code says is: Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee. And what do we have? Minister after minister after minister ignoring this code. What does the Prime Minister of Australia say—the Prime Minister of Australia who went to the election on the basis of transparency, integrity, accountability and honesty? Well, let's be honest: he really doesn't seem too interested in whether his ministers are actually abiding by it or not. In relation to one of the first ministers to have a conflict: Minister Kristy McBain decided the best way to divest herself of a number of her shares was to give them to her husband, which was unfortunate because, if you read the ministerial code of conduct, it actually says that is a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. Senator Scarr: They're actually going to have to read it! Senator CASH: Exactly, Senator Scarr. In this case she clearly didn't read it. While I understand all ministers were issued with a copy of the code of conduct, perhaps Mr Albanese didn't give them the instruction that they should also read the code conduct. Had Ms McBain read the code of conduct, she would have understood that she can't just transfer the shares to her husband. What did she say and what did Mr Albanese say? 'Nothing to see here. No breach of the code. There's nothing that has been done wrong.' Then you had the second minister, Minister Ged Kearney. She had an interest in a fund which had a number of holdings in a fund with significant exposure to health care despite having a portfolio in that area. But, again, according to the Prime Minister—who was big on transparency, integrity and accountability in the lead-up to the election—when his ministers are called out there is nothing to see here. Of course, we have the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who loves to lecture others on integrity—we saw it in question time today, actually, with Senator Shoebridge's question. Senator Scarr: Who refers people to the police. Senator CASH: He does—frivolously! He frivolously referred nine of his political opponents to the Australian Federal Police just to get a headline, because none of these referrals were in any way successful. But Attorney-General Dreyfus—for the Hansard record—was heavily invested in a fund which owned shares in Omni Bridgeway, a company which put out a press release—you can go online, google this and see it—praising a decision by the Attorney-General in litigation funding policy, a policy which strongly benefits that company. On any analysis, whether or not you are a minister in the Albanese government, how the Attorney-General of Australia would think this is a good idea is, quite frankly, unbelievable. Senator Scarr: And he is the Attorney. Senator CASH: He is the Attorney; he should know. He should have at least read code of conduct. When he was questioned about this in the parliament, though—it's actually fascinating to watch, if you go online and watch the video—as Mr Dreyfus reads the code of conduct, you can see his face and he realises he needs to report back to the parliament on the matter. But this is very typical, colleagues, of the Albanese government. What is good for the government when they are in opposition is not the standard that they are going to live by when they, themselves, get into government. This is the Prime Minister of Australia who has failed to answer very simple questions. According to the statistics, over 16 per cent of questions in the Senate are currently overdue. Sixteen per cent of the questions asked are overdue. Senator Scarr: They have only been in three months. Senator CASH: Three months. One would think that when you are elected on a platform of transparency, integrity and accountability, no questions would be overdue. But it gets worse because, when you break down the 16 per cent, over 40 per cent of that 16 per cent are actually overdue and they were directed to the Prime Minister of Australia. He has only been asked 48 questions on notice yet he thinks this parliament, the Senate, is beneath him to respond. As I said, if you treat the opposition in this place with contempt, you are treating the Australian people with contempt. The Australian people, who believed in transparency, integrity and accountability, are being failed miserably by the Prime Minister of Australia. Transparency, integrity and accountability—those are words in the lead up to an election which the Prime Minister is happy to throw around happily but, when he gets into government, it all goes out the window.