Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senators Brandis and Fifield.

I will do this sequentially if it is convenient to the chamber. In relation to the first question, this is a request in relation to various requests made freedom of information. It was asked in December last year. It was asked—I think this might be the basis of the confusion—of a number of ministries, and the question that I asked Senator Brandis on notice that I wanted to follow up was the one asked of him in his capacity representing the Prime Minister. I note the minister's answer and I say that this is an unacceptable response to the Senate for the Prime Minister to fail to answer this question.

My question went to the government's performance on freedom of information. Freedom of information legislation has been a part of our system of accountability for many years. Changes were debated in this chamber under the previous government. It is an avenue of accountability which plays a critical role in our democracy. Freedom of information is one of the mechanisms which ensure that governments remain accountable, transparent, open and honest with the public. It is also an important mechanism for members of parliament to utilise in scrutinising the actions of executive government. Notwithstanding that—and obviously the opposition has an interest in making sure that avenues of accountability are open to us—I also remind the chamber that this is an important mechanism for ordinary citizens to utilise because, of course, under the Freedom of Information Act any citizen can lodge a request with any government department, agency or minister. Those requests can seek information and documents held by those agencies of executive government. So, as I said, it is an important accountability mechanism.

The starting point of the act is that it grants members of the public a right to have access to information held by the government—that is, their government. Of course, the spirit of the FOI Act and the starting point can be frustrated if government agencies or ministers' offices do not comply with both the letter and the spirit of freedom of information legislation, but it can be frustrated also if the decision making process is delayed, and it can be further frustrated if decision makers refuse to grant access to information on spurious grounds.

One of the measures of a government's commitment to accountability and transparency is its attitude to and its performance when it comes to how it deals with FOI requests. I regret to say that this government has demonstrated a real antagonism towards FOI since coming to government. It is a government that is very fond of secrecy, a government which is often not honest with the Australian public and a government which, we have clearly seen, breaks its election promises. It is a government which does not respect the Senate as a chamber of the parliament but treats it as some sort of block on executive government being able to do whatever it likes whenever it likes. We have seen a lot of that over the last few years—the government's failure to negotiate, its refusal to actually deal with the crossbench in a sensible way. We also saw it highlighted today when the government voted with the Greens to gag and block debate on the legislative program.

The government's lack of respect for the principles of transparency, openness and accountability has, I think, been demonstrated, and that makes it even more important that we scrutinise the government's freedom of information performance. That is in part why I put my questions to the Prime Minister, through Senator Brandis, last year. Those questions go to statistics from the Prime Minister. They ask how many FOI requests have been received by his office and his departme

One would have thought that is not a hard question to answer. I note Senator Brandis's comments that this is a very complex, very big, very lengthy question. Well, departments keep FOI statistics, and, if Senator Brandis went back to his office and he asked the Attorney-General's Department for statistics on FOI requests to date, I suspect it would not take him very long at all to provide them. There is really no valid reason for the Prime Minister being unable to answer this question some three months after it was asked.

My question also went to the issue of delays in responding to a freedom-of-information request. The act requires departments and agencies to acknowledge those requests within 14 days and to make decisions within 30 days. Failing to meet these time lines is a breach of the act. These are statutory obligations. I regret to say that, on occasions, what has been clear from Senate estimates is that sometimes it appears those statutory obligations are seen as less obligatory than they ought to be. My question asked how many FOI requests to the Prime Minister, his office and his department were not acknowledged within the time frame required under the legislation and how many were not decided within the time frame required under the legislation. The question simply is: how many times have you not complied with the law? I would have thought the Prime Minister's department ought to be able to answer that. This goes to whether his department and his office are compliant with the law of the land when it comes to freedom of information. Does the Prime Minister not know? Do Prime Minister and Cabinet not know whether or not they are complying with the law or do they simply not want the information released?

The question also went to other matters. It went to the number of cases where the Prime Minister's office or department sought an extension of time for making decisions, the number of cases which were subject to internal review and the number of decisions which are subject to reviews by the Australian Information Commissioner, the Ombudsman or the AAT. Whilst I note Senator Brandis's assertion that this is a lengthy question, I make this point: these are statistics that departments would keep. What is frankly open to conclude on the basis of the failure to answer is that the Prime Minister and his department are running a go-slow on responding to these questions. It is a little ironic, actually: questions about the government's frustration of people's legal rights under the FOI legislation are met by delay and obfuscation.

I had hoped—to be completely open with the Senate—that the change of Prime Minister from Mr Abbott to Mr Turnbull might see a different approach when it came to freedom of information. Yet regrettably to date that has not been the case, although I would note that I think I am now getting responses from Prime Minister and Cabinet which actually have names at the bottom as opposed to FOI officers, so I suppose that is a good thing. This goes fundamentally to public accountability. We know that the government of the day is accountable to the Australian people through the parliament. Too often we see this government treating this parliament and this Senate with contempt. We see senators asking questions on behalf of the public in question time and we see stonewalling and blustering on the other side. We see senators seeking information through questions in writing, and yet ministers fail to respond within the time limits set by the Senate, and, when they do, frankly, often we see obfuscation, evasion and outright deception. I am often reminded of the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott's promise before the last election: 'We will restore accountability and improve transparency.' I think that was yet another broken promise, and regrettably it appears to be a broken promise that is being continued under Mr Turnbull. I say to the government: do not have a contemptuous approach to accountability. Please, I would like a response on the freedom-of-information statistics that we have requested.

In relation to Senator Fifield's answer, which I also am taking note of, I want to go to this because I find it quite remarkable that it has not been provided to date, given that we are in March. The question I asked was to get more information in relation to a measure in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Communications and Arts portfolio had a measure in the MYEFO described as 'efficiencies', with a cut of $52.5 million over four years. I asked where it was coming from. That is a pretty simple question. I know, as someone who has participated in putting together a budget, that this is the sort of information that grounds the costing of any measure. One would have thought that that would not have been a difficult question to answer.

In addition, I asked what, since September 2013, the total cuts were that the government had imposed on cultural and collecting institutions. Whilst I appreciate Senator Fifield's courtesy in how he responded to my request that he explain the delay in answering this question, I do not accept that it should take three months to answer a straightforward question about a measure in the MYEFO. I do not accept that. If you have got $52½ million worth of savings out of the cultural and collecting institutions, you ought to be able to tell the Senate pretty quickly which ones are contributing to that savings measure—where are the cuts coming from? As I said, those are details which would have been part of the decision-making process in the budget, because that is how Finance would have done the costing. Again, page 152 of the MYEFO says:

The Government will achieve savings of $52.5 million over four years from 2015-16 within the Communications and the Arts portfolio, including:

• $36.8 million from cultural and collecting entities within the Arts portfolio, except for the Australia Council. … ;

• $9.6 million through a number of arts programmes, including the cessation of the Book Council of Australia; and

• $6.0 million from the Department of Communications and the Arts by implementing ongoing efficiencies.

As I said, this is not a complicated question. It goes directly to a measure in the MYEFO.

I am told that the Treasurer transferred this question to the Minister for the Arts on 6 January 2016. The question, which was originally asked in December, was transferred by the Treasurer to the Minister for the Arts. I have to say that I did find it somewhat remarkable that the Treasurer had transferred responsibility for this question to the Minister for the Arts. I would have thought that this is a fairly routine question on a budget matter that the Treasurer ought to have been able to answer. I assume that the Minister for the Arts offered these cuts up to the Expenditure Review Committee. If he did, presumably he can tell us pretty quickly which bodies would be affected. He also ought to tell the Senate the extent to which Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull have cut the arts since coming to office in 2013.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I will take the interjection from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The assertion is, 'We haven't cut the arts.' Now he is saying to us, 'It is just a reallocation of funding.' It is good, isn’t it. A cut is not a cut if it is reallocating funding. If that is the case, I look forward to the answer which explains that. I know that Senator Fifield has only more recently become the Minister for the Arts, taking over of course, from Senator Brandis, who famously cut funding from the Australia Council.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Yes, he concedes that, but he makes the point that it was given to his department. Actually, it was given to him. Wasn't this the private slush fund, Senator Brandis, from memory?

Opposition senators interjecting—