Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders for the reasons that Senator Leyonhjelm has indicated—that is, there are procedures to do this and we do need to respect the normal order of business in this chamber. However, if the suspension is successful, or indeed if it's brought on tomorrow, we will be supporting the motion as amended by Labor.

I want to go to the issue of cabinet in confidence. Obviously we've been denied access to this document. It's subject to an order of production. Minister Cormann has stood here, and indeed written to the chamber, stating that this document can't be released 'because it's a deliberation of cabinet'. Now, I respect the idea that deliberations of cabinet are in fact sacred and they should be withheld for good reasons, solidarity of cabinet reasons, but we're not asking for any record of the deliberations. We're asking for a report that was prepared by Mr Ruddock. It is not a cabinet submission, it is not a record of cabinet and it is not a decision of cabinet. And those three document types are the only ones that you can claim cabinet in confidence over. What the government is doing here is using an aroma of cabinet to actually hide or try and keep from the Senate a report which is not a cabinet submission.

And indeed they perhaps have done themselves a disfavour by having a partial report released or, at least, having elements of the report released. We don't know whether the whole document says something that is contrary to the leaked material. So it's a bit of an own goal for the coalition. I might also ask: if the coalition really believes this is a document that is subject to cabinet protection, why have you not called in the AFP to find out who has, in fact, leaked this information? You certainly were quick to do so in the au pair cases, so why not in this instance, if you really do believe that this is a cabinet document?

As to the more important topic of this motion, the Centre Alliance's position is very clear. All teaching appointments should be based on merit. Sexuality has no part to play. Conduct, of course, can be a determinant in any sacking, but, provided unacceptable conduct is spelt out and people understand what that is, it can be dealt with accordingly. Once again, that's the reason why we will support the motion with the foreshadowed amendments from Labor. I might also make it very clear that Centre Alliance also supports religious freedom, insofar as that freedom is not inconsistent with national laws or with broad community expectations.