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

They're doing what Mr Morrison tells them. They're supposed to independently look at the matter—each one of them—look at the cases, not at the hymn sheet produced by Mr Morrison. It brings them into disrepute, sadly, the way this works.

Just to make it very clear to the chamber: what these officials are saying is that there's new information that Justice White didn't consider, and they then mention some terms of reference. But if they read the decision of Justice White—I think it's in paragraph 189, though I may be mistaken there—Justice White looked at the terms of reference and read them in the context that the decision-maker was concerned about, saying, 'These are the terms of reference established by COAG.' They were actually part of the FOI documents that were provided to me. Justice White looked at them. When he was making his decision, he raised some serious concerns about PM&C, which is supposed to be the pre-eminent government body. He raised concerns that they hadn't put up any evidence other than secondary, other than hearsay, as to the forming up of the national cabinet. So he said: 'You know what? I'm going to take the terms of reference that were in the documents and I'm going to include them in my decision. But it doesn't change the facts, because the terms of reference were generated by COAG.' That's the first point that these decision-makers are trying to hang their hat on, and it's wrong. It's simply wrong.

The second one is: they say that, since that decision, the Prime Minister and the premiers have all stood up and said, 'We want national cabinet to be confidential.' But that's not how this works. Justice White was asked to make a legal determination on the statutory expression 'committee of cabinet'. He was asked to interpret what was in the statutes. No amount of statements from outside of this chamber as to what 'committee of cabinet' means, whether it's the Prime Minister, premiers or even a legal expert, can override what Justice White has said. If the department and the Prime Minister thought that Justice White was wrong, they could have appealed it to the full bench of the Federal Court, but they didn't. They didn't. So what do they go off and do now? They now come out with this approach that says, 'Let's just ignore what the judge said.' That's why I stand up in this chamber upset. That's why I'm having a go at public servants directly, noting their seniority and the need for them to respect the law of this land. That's why I stand up and say what I do and that's why I'm doing it on a regular basis. It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable to the Australian public.

The principle, in general, that Australians are not allowed to see some of the really important decisions that were made by the national cabinet and that affected their liberties is unacceptable. They weren't allowed to see the AHPPC's advice as to whether children should go to school or whether we should have lockdowns or what constitutes a hotspot. All of that sort of stuff ought to have been made available to the public. It should have been made available to the public, and the Prime Minister should have recognised that the release of that information was important. It was important for public confidence, but he failed to recognise that. That's why I'm disturbed about what's happening here.

We've got another official, Petra Gartmann, who simply has not had regard to her obligations, basically trimming her sails to the political will of the Prime Minister. It is quite appropriate for me to walk in here, noting that the government spent money on a QC to challenge me at the AAT. They spent all that money. I want to know how much it was, and the Prime Minister is refusing to provide me with that information. That's why I come in here, week after week, day after day—and I'll continue to do so in the very few sitting weeks that we have next year—to press for this answer. Gee, I hope by February I've got an answer to this question!

The government need to understand: our role is oversight. Our role is to inquire to inform ourselves as to what the government are doing on behalf of the people, and also to question what they're doing on behalf of the people. That's exactly what we do when we ask a question on notice. We're not doing it for ourselves. We do it for our constituents, the people who we represent and the people who actually pay the ministers' salaries and the public servants' salaries. It is completely disrespectful that the government takes more than the 30 days allowed in the standing orders to answer these questions. I hope that, the next time I stand, I will not be needing to exercise standing order 74(5).