Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. I should not be distracted by that, because it will diminish my contribution in the time I have. Let us go back to Senator Ludwig, the author and the architect of this. Let us go back all the way to 2011. You want to talk about transparency? You want to talk about process? Let us talk about the cessation of the live cattle trade. Let us talk about the fact that, as I understand it—I was not in this place at the time but I have taken a great interest in this particular subject—negotiations had taken place, discussions had occurred in this place and everyone left this place one evening in the belief that certain things would happen, and of course that is not what happened on the following day. The government used their numbers and they brought down a billion-dollar industry. You want to talk about transparency and process? There ought to have been a very significant due process involved there, with transparency, for the government to explain to the stakeholder constituents—in this case the entire northern beef industry—what they were going to do.

But of course the only way we get transparency with the Labor Party is to take an hour of our valuable time on Tuesday nights to have a look at 'The Killing Fields'. You want to talk about transparency? There it was. 'The Killing Fields' reminded me of when I used to be in mustering camps. You would start the day on a pony and by about mid-morning—and as someone who has a bit of weight I probably went through more ponies than most—their legs would go under them a bit and they would start to wobble, so you would just swing your leg off and throw the saddle onto another pony and away you would go, hoping that by mid-afternoon the first pony would be fresh enough to go into service again. That is what we saw from the Labor Party with their leadership in their last term: just change prime ministers when their legs get a bit weak under them and they might not be operating as efficiently as their colleagues might like. If you watch the process—and this is about process—and you watch the transparency you will see that there was no transparency in that process. Some colleagues in the Labor Party were not even aware of what was happening. Today I would defy some of those colleagues to find out what did happen. They should run the test of putting an internal FOI request to the leaders of their party—some who still sit with us here and in the other place today—and see what sorts of answers they get, see how comprehensive or truthful they are.

I for one will not be lectured. I for one will not be pushed by the Australian Labor Party on matters of process that are annexed to matters of transparency. They have absolutely no credibility in this space. It is a pure political attempt to distract the good people of Australia to suggest by inference that my coalition government is anything bar transparent. This is to plant the seed, to try to have people think that there are some inhibitions on the part of our government with the processing of freedom of information applications—mind you, operating under the current provisions that were laid down by the Australian Labor Party. It was only 10 minutes ago that they were in government.

Is this some late-minute thought on the part of Senator Ludwig? He has been here a long time. If he felt strongly about these issues, if there were truly flaws within the freedom of information process, why didn't the good Senator Ludwig address these matters in 2010? Whilst technologies have moved on slightly, all of the major technology abilities to underpin some of these changes that Senator Ludwig wants were present then. One has to ask the question as to what are the politics of this? The politics are very, very clear. Senator Bullock was right to point out that he does not get a lot of email traffic on this. As I turn my mind to that, I do not think I have had, in my 18 months in the Senate, one representation. Like many of you I get many, many thousands of emails each week on various subjects. I do not think I have had one inquiry or one representation on the issue of transparency with the Freedom of Information Act. They are Senator Bullock's words, not mine, but he is spot on, and there is a reason for that.

I have to disagree with Senator Bullock when he says that this is not an issue on the minds of Australians. I promise you, if you are out there and you have burdened a state or federal government with a request for information,—and some of us have had to deal with people in these circumstances over our time, not just here in this place, but in life generally—you will find that it absolutely consumes them. Senator Bullock's explanation, I think, falls short and lacks credibility because the true explanation is that the freedom of information systems that we have around this country are working, and they are working very efficiently.

In terms of the publication of information, if an individual has made an application or has received a response to an application, there is no caveat on that individual from publishing that. If they think it is in the public interest or in stakeholder interest, they can publish that information themselves. So, you come back to the sheer intent of the process. Senator Ludwig knows that the government would not support this because it does not need to support it. Why would you go to the trouble of drafting a bill, why would you go to the trouble of taking up the very, very valuable time of this chamber to debate the bill when you know, full well, there is no need for the bill, and it is very unlikely that the government will respond positively to the bill? The answer is that this is, once again, a purely political stunt on the part of the Australian Labor Party to try to create an image or a perception that there is some flaw in the freedom of information legislation when there is not, and that there is some issue with transparency with respect to this coalition government when there is not. This has been one of the most open and transparent governments that I have witnessed over my time of political interest of 30-plus year, and I know I participate in the government.

I think that, if I had to put my foot on the sticky paper as to their motive, it does not come as any surprise to me that it has happened on the week when we have had that wonderful ABC show, one of the best productions the ABC has put out for a long time. I know it has been burdensome on their side of politics because I noted that, with some of the contemporary footage, some of your senators have had to take valuable time out. I hope they did not travel on the public purse as they made their way to Melbourne to sit on bench seats so that they could get footage of these people on the telephone pretending it was some conversation that taken place a long time ago.

I have to say that the Australian Labor Party should not pursue this bill. It is not required. It is not on the minds of Australians, as Senator Bullock has pointed out. It is a political stunt. It is one that this government will not be trapped with. It is one that this government will not be supporting. I certainly do not support it because I have better things on my mind. I have ideas for the resources of this nation that do not include hundreds if not thousands of additional staff having to photocopy and upload documents that are available and are under the control of others to publish if they so choose. I thank you for the ability to make this contribution.