Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate, the address-in-reply. I listened to the Governor-General's address with great interest as she outlined the Abbott government's agenda for the 44th Parliament. I have to say that while I listened intently I was watching the faces and the body language of those opposite and I have to say it was very revealing. There were many who could not help but smirk at the words, 'We should never be a country that cuts tall poppies down to size,' knowing as we all did the relentless character assassination led by Mr Abbott against the former prime ministers Gillard and Rudd and Labor members, and the notion that the government will bring a 'Jakarta rather than Geneva' focus to foreign policy. We have seen how that has gone for all the wrong reasons. Our relationship with Indonesia is now at its lowest ebb and we need to very seriously consider how we are going to address that. What was really most disconcerting about the address-in-reply was the lack of policy detail and what was left unsaid has me most worried, as we discovered last week with Minister Pyne's announcements in relation to reneging on the deals across all states and territories in relation to education funding. That concern is quite real and very genuine.

What do we know about this government's approach to social policy, the challenges of aged care, community services, housing shortages or homelessness? There was nothing in that statement that gave us any clue as to what the government's approach might be to those real and emerging challenges. Where was the detail of the complicated machinery-of-government changes in relation to Indigenous affairs, consolidating all of the decision making and the policy development into the central agency of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—a classic example of where coordination equates to micromanagement, and the conflicting priorities of central agency decision making with service delivery can mean delays and inertia where policy change was actually the driving factor in the first place.

The policy agenda of 'Australia is under new management and open for business' allows commentary from close prime ministerial confidants like Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council. In his address to CEDA's 2013 annual dinner, he argued that our minimum wage is too high, that the NDIS is too expensive, that corporate welfare is crippling Australian industry and that climate change is a myth. This government is relying on a coterie of experts to provide cover for the decisions being made across portfolios and we can see even in the way in which the Commission of Audit is being undertaken that that is code for widespread cuts to government programs. And we are seeing some familiar faces: Dr Kemp has re-emerged to undertake the government's higher education review and Dr Switkowsky is back to advise on telecommunications and the NBN—and the list goes on. Not content to just promote jobs for the boys; the government has also withdrawn the appointment of a number of advisory bodies to suit its own purposes. I think it was a deliberately spiteful decision to rescind the appointment of former Premier Steve Bracks as US consul-general. Then we had the decision to wind-up the Australian Social Inclusion Board, the national housing reform council, the Insurance Reform Advisory Group, the Not-for-Profit Reform Council, all based on the argument 'that these bodies have outlived their original purpose'—or, more importantly, are not focused on the government's policy priorities. That speaks volumes for what is really in this government's mind.

The government has signalled its intention to claw back the not-for-profit reform agenda, putting civil society organisations back in their place at a time when there is growing expansion of their role in direct delivery of social services. Again, the government's rhetoric does not support the reality of the work that these organisations do on the ground. Mr Andrews has said that he wants to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, despite its success in reducing red tape, in building greater capacity and capability in the sector and in implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report, which provided a seminal, independent road map for modernising Australia's multibillion-dollar not-for-profit sector—something that is quite critical to meet the implementation of the NDIS, as just one example.

It is a shame that Senator Kim Carr has left because we would like to know what the government's policy agenda for innovation and research and development is. Again, it is Mr Newman who gives us the clue—a known climate change sceptic. He believes that money spent on science and cutting carbon pollution is wasted. So it is very hard to reconcile the rhetoric of the government's statement with the reality of their cuts to the CSIRO and the subsequent loss of our scientific expertise to overseas. It is hard to reconcile the digital divide being created across the country by tearing up the NBN rollout targets and the immediate impacts on university communities—including in New South Wales, Western Sydney and Wagga Wagga—with the rhetoric of innovation within health, commitment to food security, productivity in agriculture and investment in regional industries. What is the future of the multistage, innovative and collaborative research programs being managed across Australia and international research institutions by cooperative research centres, for example?

What we have seen is a very clear theme emerging in the coalition government, one that will no doubt be dubbed 'dirty little secrets,' I am sure and it is this: no government in living memory has been as reluctant as this government to inform Australia about its decisions, to justify its actions or to engage with the Australian community. We have all heard of Steven Covey's The seven habits of highly effective people and the first of those is 'start with the end in mind'. This is certainly what we have seen in the first few months of the prime ministership of Mr Abbott. He has closed down the transparency of open government—an expectation of a modern democracy. Mr Abbott described being in opposition as theatre and while he was in opposition he promised Australians they would get a 'no surprises government'. What we have been witnessing in recent weeks is akin to theatre of the absurd. His election manifesto claimed:

The Coalition will do the right thing for Australia and deliver a strong, stable, accountable government that puts the national interest first and delivers a better future for all Australians.

We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you.

At his campaign launch in August, Mr Abbott said again and again:

We will be a no-surprises, no-excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future.

How that statement has come back to bite—now we know that a no-surprises government comes at the absolute cost of open government.

Mr Abbott has nothing to say to the Australian people. People in the street are quite nonplussed by his attitude, which they characterise, when I speak to them, as 'pretty unbelievable'. They find it incomprehensible that, unlike our previous eight Prime Ministers, he made no address to the nation in response to the international humanitarian crisis of the hurricane in the Philippines, for example. We can count on the fingers of both hands the number of media appearances he has made. He does not allow his ministers to appear on television. He is being micromanaged by his office, as are his ministers. That is not what Australians would call a grown-up government.

In a signal of the frustration being experienced by the national media, Laurie Oakes recently broke ranks by saying that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and senior ministers were breaking their election promises of greater accountability for voters and that the Abbott government is 'thumbing its nose at voters' through a lack of transparency and communication.

You can't thumb your nose at the voters' right to know and you can't arrogantly say 'we'll let the voters be misinformed and we won't help journalists get it right'. That's just a disgusting attitude.

Laurie Oakes is right—it is disgusting and quite contemptible.

They're busily trying to avoid the media as much as possible and to control the media and ... I don't think they will get away with it for too long.

And, frankly, nor should they. It seems that transparency and the public's right to know are not going to be features of this government.

We have watched the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection tightly bind up his department and others on information about asylum seekers. We no longer know if boats have arrived, been stopped or hidden. This is all done under the pretext that this is not in the national interest and that there is no right to know. Customs no longer issues advice about boats in distress en route to Australia. We read about them in the Jakarta Post. 'On-water matters are not to be discussed'. In another insidious change, it is particularly disconcerting to visit the new website of the rebadged Department of Immigration and Border Protection, where all information about asylum seekers or detention centres has been removed.

Mr Morrison's weekly briefings are held away from the press gallery and he just declines to answer questions, leaving Laurie Oakes again to observe that:

What’s particularly not acceptable is Scott Morrison’s arrogant attitude. He sees it as getting at the press but it’s not. It’s getting at the voters and eventually I think the voters will wake up.

I think that they have already done that. Media briefing are reduced to a farce by the minister and Commander Campbell, who must surely rue the day he accepted the poisoned chalice of heading up Operation Sovereign Borders. We are concerned about the politicising our Defence forces, which is something that has gone beyond the pale already under this government.

Mr Hockey has joined the club. When he announced the government would respond to Australia's ballooning credit card bill by almost doubling the borrowing limit to half-a-trillion dollars, he held a 10-minute press conference and took few questions. He has misrepresented the national accounts and squibbed and fibbed on our economic situation to suit his own purposes, and he is not the only one.

Of course, it is not just the Australian public, the media or us as the opposition who are most frustrated by the strict control on information being run from the Prime Minister's office. Spare a thought for the public servants trying to bring to bear the machinery-of-government changes announced by the Prime Minister since his government was sworn in, and who are ultimately responsible for delivering the new government's agenda. They tried desperately during Senate estimates to explain what was going on, but they could not shed too much light. They are being asked to achieve this at the same time as the Prime Minister has directed the elimination of 12,000 jobs within the service, and that decision making be centralised within the Prime Minister's office. Ministers' offices are still not fully staffed. Ministers' offices refuse to take or return telephone calls about critical policy issues. That leads to confusion, misinformation and policy inertia. The atmosphere in the lead-up to the resumption of parliament was shambolic. In some agencies people were desperate, and many commentators began to suggest that this reflected a deep lack of trust in the public sector by the incoming government. That is of concern to us all.

During the caretaker period prior to a general election and in the period following a change of government, one of the main tasks of senior public servants is to prepare portfolio briefs for the incoming government, called the 'blue books'. The documents usually provide a fairly frank assessment of the party's election policies, the public service's view of the economy and other information designed to allow a smooth transition between governments. In 2010 redacted versions, or red books, were released under freedom of information laws, but not this time. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Treasury official, an acting assistant secretary, responsible for the decision wrote:

… release of the incoming government briefs would interfere with the establishment of an effective working relationship between the Treasury and Treasurer.

The need to develop a trusting relationship is particularly important in the early days of a new government, to set the tone for the future working relationship of the whole department.

Disclosure of the incoming government brief would not be conducive to establishing a productive, trusting and effective relationship with the Treasurer and would adversely affect Treasury's effectiveness as a central policy agency, which I also find to be contrary to the public interest.

What is contrary to the public interest is this veil of secrecy that has come down over this government's decision making. FOI experts, such as lawyer Peter Timmins, suggest that Treasury's refusal to release its advice to the incoming government is clear breach of the public interest. Mr Timmins's view is that:

It's been in the Freedom of Information Act for 30 years that advice, opinions, recommendations, in the course of the operations of an agency isn't protected—except if, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose it.

Senator Ludwig has shone a light on the lack of disclosure by the government and its contempt for freedom-of-information laws, and rightly asks: what have they to hide? At least five departments have refused outright to release incoming government briefs, and another five have asked for fees of up to $2,356 to release the information that previous governments released. No rules have changed; the departments are now simply refusing to release them under the same rules that previously applied.

Now we know that Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, is a signed-up member of the secret squirrels club too because his office recently revealed:

The Attorney-General may, from time to time, provide guidance to the government on the operation of the FOI Act.

And asked whether Brandis supported a recommendation of the recent review of FOI laws by former public servant and diplomat Allan Hawke, Minister Brandis' office said:

The government is closely considering all recommendations of the Hawke review.

The Hawke review recommended that the incoming government briefs be exempt from FOI, which does not match with the Abbott commitment that 'accountability and transparency will be the principles that underpin our government'.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop recently gave the keynote address at the conference of the Australian Council for International Development, but her speech was closed to the media—the rest of the conference was open—because the media were seeking details about the $4.5 billion worth of cuts to our aid budget and the axing of AusAID, which ceased to exist as an independent agency as of 31 October. That announcement certainly did not come into the 'no surprises' category. That action had never been signalled by Ms Bishop in opposition nor by the opposition in its campaign policy.

There are many stakeholders who need to understand just what that is all about: not just the NGO community but the technical consultancy organisations such as SMEC, who work so closely with government in the field. The cuts will have diplomatic impacts too, as programs and funding commitments form part of bilateral agreements signed during diplomatic visits here and abroad. There is no information from Ms Bishop about how the options for implementing large and immediate aid cuts are being developed, who is being consulted or how those impacts will be managed. What possible business is this of the Australian people?

The way in which the AusAID staff were treated was appalling. The graduates, who had already been recruited for next year, were dismissed by email last week. We have to think about what the impacts of the integration of AusAID into DFAT after almost 40 years will look like. It certainly has not been a very happy marriage to date.

Environment minister Hunt, who failed to find one notable scientist to support the veracity of the coalition's direct action plan, and who resorted to Wikipedia to help explain the government's position on climate change, is yet to outline to the Australian people just how this plan is going to deliver the reduction in carbon emissions or how in fact Direct Action will roll out in practice. The bills are in the parliament, as we know and, without the detail required to give Australians confidence, we know that Mr Abbott recently abandoned the bipartisan international agreement that bound Australia to reducing emissions by up to 25 per cent by 2020 by unilaterally announcing a commitment of five per cent by 2020 instead.

This again is another indication of the lack of commitment to our international obligations—code for the Geneva focus—that became a hallmark of the previous coalition government. Now we see the reinforcement of these issues by the introduction of temporary protection visas, by reverting to depersonalised language, such as 'illegal maritime arrivals', and the challenge to the legality of seeking asylum—the issues that have been raised with all of us most recently as people despair about the lack of information and transparency that is coming from this government. We have silence from the Defence minister about bastardisation, we have silence from the Nationals in general and this is our— (Time expired)