Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few comments. I'm conscious that senators' statements start at a quarter to one, so I will keep my comments rather brief, but I want to lend support to my colleagues' contributions this morning in pushing back against the government's lack of transparency and accountability in this chamber. We've seen this week numerous attempts, through orders for the production of documents, where reasonable requests have been made for the government to table information that would assist the Senate to perform its job as the chamber of review, the chamber with powers to inquire into matters. To fulfil that obligation or that responsibility that we have to the Australian people, we have forms available to us in this chamber should we get a majority of votes, which we were able to do on, I think, more than six occasions this week, where motions were moved by different non-government senators to request information that would help the Senate perform its role as the chamber of review. In each one of those, we've had the minister come into this place and essentially provide no further information and hide behind some pretty spurious cabinet-in-confidence claims or public interest immunity claims to withhold documents from this place.

These documents are critical to the ability of the Senate and senators to perform their duties. We are not seeking deliberations of cabinet and we do not seek unreasonable access to any other information around the sports grants administration or thereof. What we want, in particular—apart from key documents that are raised in the Auditor-General's report, which have been refused and held back—is, importantly, a report from the head of the Public Service which essentially contradicts, or certainly undermines, the report that was provided by the Auditor-General.

And we don't actually know that the report said that. We know only what the Prime Minister has said in his public comments—that the head of PM&C, Mr Gaetjens, did not have similar findings to the Auditor-General and that he didn't see any inappropriateness in the allocation of grants. Well, that is a fundamental disagreement with the independent Auditor-General, who had undertaken, I think, probably a much more extensive inquiry and review into this matter. So we have two reports: one from the independent Auditor-General, saying one thing, and quotes from the Prime Minister about a report which disagrees with the Auditor-General.

There is a huge amount of public interest in this matter. It has been a story which has been covered widely for over two months now. To get to the bottom of it, that report needs to be released. There are no reasonable grounds to withhold that document from the Senate. The Senate needs to assert its role here, the role it plays within the federal parliament and also in our democracy, and that is in how this chamber was set up. It's not often a majority chamber. Often, the government of the day will have to work with non-government senators in order to progress its agenda. There is a range of negotiations, agreements and concessions that have to be part of the mix in this chamber.

But the Senate cannot be taken for granted. It is not a majority chamber and you cannot run it like the House of Representatives, where—apart from electing Deputy Speakers and other close votes, it seems—the government does have majority control and can act in a way that disregards the influence of other members of that chamber. Well, this chamber doesn't work like that. This chamber works in a different way. It was established to play a different role. Based on the way that this government is treating orders for production of documents, based on the way that it treats senators at estimates—taking things on notice, not providing documents and making public interest immunity claims—and based on the way it treats questions on notice in the same way, saying, 'It will take too many resources to actually answer that question,' it is showing a continuing pattern of a lack of accountability and transparency. And non-government senators are sick of it.

That's how we got ourselves into this position today. Again, it's another day where we're taking note of more ministers coming in and providing no answers to the orders for production of documents. And this is how we've got ourselves to a motion that we'll be dealing with later today. This is the Senate pushing back. It's a message to the Morrison government that it has to work with people, it shouldn't be arrogant and it needs to uphold proper conventions and past practice in this chamber, and that accountability, transparency and honesty matter. Honesty matters to the Australian people and it matters to us in this place, and we will pursue it. We will not just be disregarded in the way that government senators have been treating non-government senators in response to reasonable requests for information.

The Senate will be here for the long run, much beyond when all of us in this place are here. We must protect the power and ability of the Senate to stand up and at times curtail the excesses of executive government, because that is our job here. I wish we were on the government benches, and I know that when we are we will be charged with similar responsibilities in terms of respect for this chamber and working with non-government senators to progress our agenda. I get that. This is not overreach. This is us sending a message that what happens here matters, that the conventions in this place matter and that we need to stand up. Essentially, we have watched the arrogance of this Prime Minister grow over the last seven months or so, with him believing he is untouchable and unreachable and that what he says goes. Well, that might work at times over in the other place and it might work at times in the party room—although we've seen different accounts and reports of that in the last few days—but this place works differently.

I recognise that senators are waiting to make statements, so I will finish on that note.

Question agreed to.