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 document.

I rise to take note of this explanation by the minister and thank him for tabling some documents, which I'm yet to actually see. I was hoping to table the letter. I hope one of these documents tabled is the actual letter from Australian Organic Ltd around standards et cetera.

I want to walk the Senate through some of the issues. This minister has form on being called over and over back to the Senate to explain to the Senate either his own behaviour or that of his department or on behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, Ms M King, the minister he represents. On 8 February, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents, No. 144, requiring Minister Watt to table documents relating to a domestic organics standard or regulation for Australia. The order was responded to on 5 March—nearly a month later—with 20 documents.

On 8 March, Australian Organic Ltd put out a statement and published a letter sent by the minister on 14 December last year. This letter to the industry body should have been tabled by the minister as set out in paragraph (h) of the order passed by the Senate. The minister failed on 5 March, in those 20 different documents tabled in this place, to table a letter he had had in his department—in his hand—since the previous December. It begs the question of what else hasn't been tabled and undermines confidence in this process.

The majority of senators in this chamber joined together to order the government to produce documents. The casual disregard that this government's ministry has towards this chamber beggars belief—after barely 10 months in office. It's an absolute contempt of the Senate from this particular minister to not comply with an order. In 10 short months they have shown a complete disregard for the orders of the Senate, and ministers have frequently failed to comply. A pattern is emerging from this government and this ministry—this executive—whether it's on the Voice, and tabling advice about it from the Solicitor-General, as previous Labor governments have, when the public is asked to determine a referendum question, so that people can have confidence in the process, or whether it is complying with orders of the Senate around transparency and accountability.

From Minister Watt and this government, a pattern is emerging and a set of standards and behaviour is being set. This particular minister has been called to provide explanations for not responding to questions on notice and for failing to comply with orders of the Senate no fewer than six times. This will be the seventh in just 10 months. In just 10 months, ministers across this government have been called to give explanations nine times. Is this the standard the government wants to set? Senator Roberts pointed out that the last time Labor was in government they complied with just 35 per cent of orders. This should be a red flag because it shows that colleagues on the crossbench are equally dissatisfied with ministers in this place for the wilful disregard that they've shown for the standing orders and for more than a century of procedure and convention.

Ministers will do well to remember that not complying with an order of the Senate may lead to censure, contempt or other penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Standing order 206 outlines the penalty for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Senate as 'a senator may be ordered to attend the Senate and may be taken into custody.'

Further resolutions on parliamentary privilege, agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988, that deal with matters constituting contempt are at section 6:

Without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts.

Ministers must establish that the public disclosure of documents in question would be prejudicial to the public interest. This minister did not do that. In fact, he forgot to put a document pertinent to the order, essential to the order, that he'd had in his possession for in excess of 2½ months, with the 20 other documents. And, now, he casually stands up and says, 'Oh, I forgot one.' Well, what else have you forgotten? The Senate is left questioning what other orders has this minister and others wilfully not complied with. The government is now on notice. This minister is now on notice. The Senate is not a game, some casual sandpit where you can toss around toys and sand in each other's eyes and walk off unscathed. This is a serious chamber. It is here to hold the executive government to account. It is something we all, whether you have had the privilege to serve in executive government or not, take seriously. The first 10 months of this government and this executive shows that the Anthony Albanese government has a casual disregard for the orders of the Senate, for the role of the Senate, in our democracy. We ask them to do better on behalf of all Australians.