Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise for that, Madam Acting Deputy President. Again, no senator should be prevented from coming into this chamber and challenging the judgement of any member of the executive. That is entirely appropriate, that is quite parliamentary; in fact, it is the role of the Senate to do so. Section 49 of the Constitution makes it very clear that we have an oversight responsibility, that we hold the executive to account. If that means I stand and make an allegation, grounded by the facts that I've now read into the Hansard, that the Attorney-General is incapable of making proper decisions, then I will do so. That is my role. It is quite parliamentary; it is not in breach of the standing orders.

I know that perhaps some senators may feel they wish to defend the Attorney-General. But a series of decisions was made in respect of decisions to prosecute Witness K, Bernard Collaery, Richard Boyle, David McBride—whistleblowers—because the government wants to keep everything inside the closet. Again, information that this parliament was entitled to have was withheld on the basis of a flawed decision by the Attorney-General. The Senate, in my view, ought to reflect on what's happened here. Very simply, it's another instance where the executive is trying to prevent us from doing our work. I've talked on many occasions about times at which the executive have advanced public interest immunity, and time and time again we find that regular citizens can get access to documents that senators can't because the executive simply doesn't respond and, in many respects, because the Senate doesn't properly exercise its powers over the executive. It's a serious issue and I ask senators to reflect on it. I'm happy to provide any of them the decision that was made by the AAT today.