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

I note that we do not have much time left in the debate. I notice there are three minutes left. I will start and then seek to incorporate the remainder of my contribution. I start by saying that the position of the government is generally—and this is quite well understood in this place—not to produce iterative working drafts. There is no need to table the draft statement or the draft correspondence, because, for the purposes of transparency, accountability and scrutiny, I have tabled the final version of each.

And here is the record of open and transparent disclosure in relation to this issue. The expenditure was approved as part of the budget process for the purposes of openness, transparency and accountability. It was specifically identified and published in the budget papers. In other words, we told the entire world, including the opposition, the Greens, Senator Fielding, Senator Xenophon, the media and the public on 11 May that this campaign was funded and was going ahead. The department was made aware of the Treasurer’s request for an exemption on 12 May. This bears reiterating: at the time, after 12 May, the department was aware that a request for an exemption existed and was on foot. I made the decision on granting the exemption on Monday, 24 May.

The next day, on Tuesday, 25 May, I appeared, for the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, at Senate estimates from 9 am to 11 pm and was questioned extensively on government advertising with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and its agencies. Had the opposition seen fit to ask on 25 May about the exemption, I would have been at the table and answered questions that were put to me about the decision I made the night before.

I appeared, for the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, at Senate estimates on Thursday, 27 May from 9 am to 11 pm and was questioned extensively on government advertising with the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Had the opposition seen fit to ask on 27 May about the exemption, the department would have made them aware that an exemption was in train and I would have answered that as well that I had made the decision on the 24th.

For the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, I tabled a statement of reasons relating to the exemption at 9.30 on the morning of Friday, 28 May. I put out a press release to the world to the same effect. I did not wait until Friday evening, until 5 pm, when everyone had gone home; my staff actually went up to the gallery and boxed the statement in the interests of transparency, openness, accountability and scrutiny.

For the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, on Monday, 31 May I declassified cabinet-in-confidence correspondence between Treasury and myself. Again, my staff personally went up to the gallery and individually handed out copies of the correspondence to interested journalists.

For the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, I attended question time in the Senate between Monday, 15 June and Thursday, 17 June and was questioned on the issue by Senator Back on the 15th.

For the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, on Wednesday, 16 June Senator Fielding’s loaded terms of reference were agreed by the Senate for inquiry by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee. I am not entirely sure, though, why an inquiry is needed. Nevertheless, for the purposes of transparency, accountability and scrutiny, relevant officials will be made available to assist the inquiry. Again, for the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, on Thursday, 17 June the Auditor-General and the chair of the Independent Communications Committee appeared before a hearing of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. And, again, for the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and, for those opposite, scrutiny, I appeared at the reconvened Senate estimates on 17 June and was questioned extensively on government advertising with the Department of Finance and Deregulation.

For the purposes of openness, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, I attended question time in the Senate this week from Monday, 21 June to today and will be here tomorrow again—God willing. I was questioned on this issue by Senator Ronaldson on 22 June. In addition to this scrutiny, we have had a private senator’s bill on government advertising introduced, inquired into, reported on and debated and we had an MPI on this issue yesterday. That is just the Senate. In the other place, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have also fielded multiple questions on the issue for the purposes of openness and transparency. I would be surprised if ever before in the field of human endeavour had so much accountability and scrutiny been applied by so many to such great openness and transparency practised by so few.

Senator Ronaldson makes a lot of noise—