Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I rise, once again, to take note of the minister's pathetic response to a request from the Senate—not from the opposition, not from me as a shadow minister, but from the Senate, this chamber. Senators of a variety of political persuasions joined together to say they wanted to understand the decisions of the federal budget, the arrangements that the Commonwealth has with various state and territory governments around infrastructure funding and the cuts and delays that have typified the infrastructure funding in the latest budget. All the Senate was asking was for the government to give us the details. That's what this chamber is all about. It is actually about holding the executive government to account. That is all we were seeking to do.

Once again, the Labor Party has taken the lazy approach to accountability and transparency and has popped in and said, 'Yes, we know the Senate has ordered us to do this, but it would damage and prejudice relations with state and territory governments.' What I find incredible is that one of the promises that the now government made prior to the election was that the relationships with states and territories would be better with them. Let's face it: they're all Labor governments. They're all in the same tent. The argument they put was they would be able to get along better with state and territory governments. Now they stand here saying that they can't even release the details of correspondence about billions of dollars of Commonwealth taxpayer funds for infrastructure projects with the states and territories because it would prejudice those relationships. If Albanese and Palaszczuk's relationship is going to be prejudiced by fessing up to the cuts, delays and agreements they've made on projects in Queensland then we're all in trouble.

Is the relationship of Premier McGowan, the Labor Premier in WA, with Labor Prime Minister Albanese going to be prejudiced because they are going to suddenly admit to things that are on the public record in terms of cuts and delays in West Australian infrastructure funding? Premier Malinauskas is another Labor premier. I very much doubt being open and releasing the correspondence between the South Australian Labor government and the federal Labor government around the cuts and delays to South Australian infrastructure programs that are all on the public record thanks to the budget will prejudice that relationship. If so, I think we've got a few problems. Similarly, Daniel Andrews is the newly elected Labor premier in my home state of Victoria. Would the relationship with the Labor Albanese government be prejudiced if they fessed up and said, 'We did agree to give you $2.2 billion with no oversight and no Infrastructure Australia examination of the veracity of the suburban rail loop, and we will cut those projects and programs that support rural and regional communities and the communities of Lilydale, Narre Warren and Berwick'? I was on the ground with Aaron Violi and Jason Woods only the other week, looking at the cuts that have been agreed between the Victorian state Labor government and the Commonwealth Labor government to critical projects on the ground in suburbs and regions in my home state.

It is a complete disrespect of the Senate and of accountability and transparency that this government said they would bring. It's absolutely appalling, but it's not surprising. On 26 October last year, the Senate required that the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government table the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the minister to any premier, chief minister, Treasurer or minister of a state regarding requests for, or approval of, Australian government funding for projects or programs in their October budget.

The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that further disclosure of the information would harm the ongoing relationship between the Commonwealth and the state government. And then, on 23 November, the Senate said: 'You know what, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister? That's not good enough. We do not accept that public interest immunity claim.' Then Catherine King, the infrastructure minister, on 28 November last year, maintained the same public interest immunity that had been rejected by the Senate.

The thing is, when you make these public interest immunity claims around prejudicing the relationship between the Commonwealth and a state or territory, you've actually got to check with the states and territories if they have a problem with it. You can't speak for states and territories and assume that they agree with you. You will find that out soon enough, as government. You cannot assume that you have their approval or their disapproval. I would be asking the Prime Minister, the minister responsible, to come back to the Senate and put before us the fact that they have actually written to these chief ministers to ask if they mind.

We're talking about projects in the budget that are public. What have you got to hide? The amount of money, the projects that are being approved, the ones that have been cut and the ones have been delayed—that's all public. It had to have been agreed with state and territory first ministers because they're the ones that build the projects. They're the ones who are actually in charge of how those billions of dollars are being spent in their jurisdictions. So it begs the question: What have you got to hide, Labor?

We've just sat through the formal motion section of our agenda and seen the Greens, the crossbench, the National Party and the Liberal Party all sit and vote for openness and transparency about the tabling of documents relating to key government decisions. And Minister Watt comes in here and critiques the opposition for this, for our voting record. Well, I tell you what, it wasn't much different to our voting record when we were in government. We backed the OPD claims when we were in government, against our own government ministers. I'd like to see the same level of commitment to integrity, transparency, accountability and the role of the Senate from this executive. But it's all a bit Labor, isn't it—the culture, the little hush-hush, backroom deals: nothing to see here.

When he made his public interest immunity claim, the minister also referred to when they were in government and to tactics used by previous governments. You know what the Labor Party said about any set tactics? They told us all how it'd be so much different under them and that governments should be providing the documents, that ministers can actually take it on notice and that the role of the Senate should be respected. Senator Gallagher, on 26 February 2020, said:

This chamber has significant powers available to it to hold government to account, but, in order to do that, all non-government senators have to stand together and work together.

It happened today, and I look forward to those documents arriving from the relevant minister in response to Senator Hanson-Young's OPD request. Senator Gallagher then said:

This disregard for the Senate that is being perpetrated, I think quite knowingly, by this government must be responded to.

You have to be gobsmacked at the level of hypocrisy. Not only is this government backflipping on 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets for the referendum and backflipping on diesel fuel rebates they are completely turning themselves 180 degrees on what they said they would do when they were in opposition, and it is very, very concerning.

The problem for the minister and the executive in the government is that their own secretary, in Senate estimates, talked about the letters between state first ministers and the Commonwealth, around the funding cuts and delays and agreements on infrastructure projects, and he admitted that he wanted to put them up on the department website once he received them. If the secretary doesn't think there's anything to hide, I don't know why the minister does. (Time expired)