Censure motion response
[4.18 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - It's another day in Tasmanian politics. The special day where the new governor has been sworn in and we're considering on the very same day a censure motion in the Premier, which I believe is unprecedented. We've had some very fine contributions from both sides of the argument. From people who are coming in making their mind up as they go along, as well as some of us who are quite fixed in our opinions. All of these contributions have been important to hear.
There have been what I've regarded as various expectations that should be on the Premier. Various expectations and standards that each and everyone of us has in this place. Some are very high and some are more lenient. But I understand the gravitas of this debate and censure motion. This is an important decision which hasn't come out of thin air. It has probably been expected by the Premier. When I look at it, it has certainly been something that has some things that are fundamental to the democratic process.
There have been some points made today, talking to this censure motion, that we shouldn't be just thinking about ourselves, about what happens here, but actually those standards are very important, and they are standards that the community does insist upon.
In some ways this censure motion makes us think about all of our responsibilities. I think Ms Johnston said it well and minister Archer said it well, that we have a shared responsibility in providing integrity and decision-making in this place.
When we came back to parliament this week, I thought the first thing the Premier might do is make a ministerial statement in regard to the issues that had been aired very fully over the weekend, the issues around former minister Ogilvie and the more recent issues, if you like, of former minister Howlett. I had spoken to the Premier over the weekend. I had written to the Premier after the letter, which I was very happy to sign, which came from the Greens and other members of the crossbench. That was important, but it was also important to write and speak to the Premier over the weekend and I implored the Premier to do that ministerial statement and consider the position of former minister Howlett and her tenure on the front bench and whether that was going to be acceptable to the people of Tasmania and this parliament.
Whilst we've had somewhat of an apology - and it's been said before that there has been an apology to the people outside of this place - it's really important that there is a statement from the Premier and a sincere apology about the issue of former minister Ogilvie and I'm not sure that has been clearly articulated and it certainly wasn't articulated in a ministerial statement. Westminster convention required the Premier to come before parliament, acknowledge the failings of his ministers and his government and apologise to this House for them. He didn't do that in a formal statement. I think that matters. It should have been the very first thing, the very first order of business yesterday, but it was not.
The Premier, as we've heard aired throughout this debate, has issued a ministerial code of conduct and under the Westminster system the Premier is ultimately accountable to parliament for the conduct of his ministers. If that code is to mean anything, it must not only be enforced by the Premier but it must be seen to be enforced. By refusing to clearly acknowledge earlier that parliament was misled and the code had been breached, the Premier has failed his responsibility.
It's not simply about unanswered questions, it's about a failure to act accountably towards parliament, and that failure was evident, as I said, in the way the Premier handled the matter involving former minister Ogilvie. More concerningly, it was repeated yesterday when the Premier would not concede that parliament had been misled by former minister Howlett, let alone provide that formal apology then. I can see that the Premier has gone some way today in making his position clearer.
Honourable Speaker, this is not a no-confidence motion. It captures concerns of members of the opposition and members of the crossbench and I thank Dr Woodruff for bringing this on because it's an important debate to have. Leadership is not easy, as the Premier said earlier, and it is like we're sitting in judgment of others. Mr Garland made it very clear that it's a difficult situation we all face and find ourselves in, but the Premier has the ultimate responsibility of his ministers.
When I look at the motion I think there are two things that could be easily conflated and there is concern for me in relation to the second part of the motion around failing to uphold the ministerial code of conduct in relation to former minister Jane Howlett MP. I want to place on the record that, based on the evidence presently available, I'm not convinced that the Premier failed to uphold the ministerial code of conduct in relation to former minister Jane Howlett. Prior to the evidence given before the committee on caretaker conventions this week, I do not believe there was a clear-cut case of the minister misleading parliament upon which the Premier could reasonably have acted. Nor am I convinced that the mere existence of legal proceedings about which neither the parliament nor the public knows anything, necessarily imposed a duty on the Premier to remove former minister Howlett from her portfolio. Nevertheless, in the interests of allowing the House to proceed with the government's business, including the passage of the Budget, I will not be moving an amendment. I simply place on record that I do not believe the case in relation to paragraph (b) has yet been conclusively established.
As I said during Labor's MPI on integrity in government yesterday, at least part of the reason the government finds itself in this situation are the secrecy provisions in the Integrity Commission Act and the way the government is interpreting them. I won't repeat what many have said today and I said yesterday, but I think we can all agree that these secrecy provisions in the act have become unworkable and need to be urgently reviewed and reformed. The best way to do this is to urgently refer this issue to the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity. I have approached the Premier about doing this himself, but if he won't use his government business time to do this then I will during my next private members' time. It needs to be done. This needs to be reviewed by a committee of both Houses so that we can clearly prosecute all arguments, but also own the issues ourselves. There are several points that need to be made on behalf of Parliament and the Tasmanian public.
The Premier would clearly prefer these matters to be swept under the rug, but they're not going anywhere. There is a pattern of conduct here that must be called out and condemned. That's why this motion is both necessary and important. The Premier would have us believe that his conduct in relation to former ministers Howlett and Ogilvie amounted to little more than a failure to ask enough questions, a failure to be sufficiently curious, and for that he has said he accepts responsibility, at least in relation to former minister Ogilvie. One such failure might be understandable, but two such failures involving two separate ministers is something else entirely. At that point, parliament and the public are entitled to ask: if the Premier is not keeping on top of these matters, if he's not rigorously enforcing his own ministerial code of conduct, if he is not asking the necessary questions and holding ministers to account, then what else is happening inside Cabinet that he does not know about and what do we not know about?
There is of course another interpretation of the way the Premier has approached the issues of misconduct. I did quote him this morning. I won't quote him again, but he did use a rather colourful turn of phrase which suggests there are many things that the Premier may not want to confront, but he has to take ownership, even if he'd rather somebody else clean up and dispose of the problems on his behalf. In that sense, it's a remarkably apt metaphor for how we arrive here. This censure motion is parliament's attempt to send a clear message to the Premier, a message that reflects the expectations of Tasmanian voters. It says lift your game, take responsibility, hold your ministers accountable because integrity matters, and if the Premier doubts that, I invite him to consider the words of today's editorial in the Mercury:
Despite Premier Rockliff's combative rhetoric on Tuesday, these are problems the Liberals have brought on themselves. The legal matters involving both ministers are longstanding and the public outrage arising is the result of a lack of transparency.
The editorial goes on:
Mr Rockliff is wrong to say ordinary Tasmanians care little for what he calls gotcha moments, or that doggedly pursuing such matters of integrity is grubby politics. Expectations of integrity are foundational to democracy. Tasmanians expect their political leaders to be honest and ethical and to be working hard to solve the important issues.
That's exactly right: it's not about gotcha politics. From my perspective, it's about accountability, it's about ministerial responsibility, it's about maintaining public confidence in our institutions, and it's about ensuring that the standards the government sets for itself are standards it is actually prepared to uphold. Politics is a tough game. This censure motion of the Premier is serious, because we need a parliament which functions well, with a Premier who is accountable and does take responsibility.