Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I will be very brief in my contribution. The first matter I want to speak about is claims for public interest immunity. This is a plague, at the moment, of plague proportions. The Senate is continually presented with claims for public interest immunity that are designed to deny the Senate the opportunity to do its job, one of its crucial jobs, of scrutinising the government.

Whilst I agree with the comments that Senator Pratt has made, I do feel it is incumbent upon me to point out that this problem—and it is a significant problem—is by no means limited to Senator Brandis and it is, by no means, limited to the claims for public interest immunity that Senator Brandis has made to the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

I do say to the government that many of the claims it has made, certainly since the election, in my view, do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not measure up to previous decisions of the Senate, in regard to what does and does not satisfy a claim for public interest immunity. I want to place the government on notice that they need to do a lot better in this area. Ultimately, every single one of us is here to represent the people of Australia.

Whilst there are occasions where legitimate claims of public interest immunity may be made, the simple fact is that this government over-uses that claim and, in doing so, it deliberately denies the people that we are all here to represent and the people whose taxes pay our wages the opportunity to fully understand why the government is acting across a range of areas.

The second point I want to make is to respond, just briefly, to Senator Fawcett and his comments in regard to Senator Macdonald's comments on the particular inquiry that this interim report is the subject of. Senator McDonald, at length, has attacked this inquiry and described it as—as Senator Fawcett has—a political inquiry rather than a substantive inquiry. Nothing could be further from the truth. This inquiry has diligently conducted itself. It has relentlessly pursued the truth in the matter of the Bell corporation legislation, the deal between the Commonwealth government and the then Western Australian government, the nexus between that deal and the legal directive that was tabled in this place by Senator Brandis, the nexus between that deal and the breakdown in relationship between the first law officer of Australia, the Attorney-General, and the second law officer of this country, the Solicitor-General, which resulted in the Solicitor-General resigning recently.

These are matters of great import to the country. For Senator Fawcett or Senator McDonald to suggest that an inquiry that is looking right into the heart of these matters is not a substantive inquiry, frankly, is an insult to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.