Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Exactly. This order for the production for documents says—and there are people in the gallery listening to this, so I want to read this out. This is what this Senate ordered and provided to the Attorney-General with respect to this order for the production of documents:

Any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the resignation of Mr Leo Hardiman PSM KC as Freedom of Information Commissioner, dated 5 March 2023—

any correspondence. And we hear that the letter of resignation, the actual letter of resignation, isn't captured on the basis of the Attorney's interpretation of the order for the production of documents. He didn't consider the letter of resignation to be captured in the order for the production of documents. This is absolutely bizarre.

In agreement with Senator Shoebridge, it baffles me that someone could look at the words in that order for the production of documents, look at the substance over form. You don't have to do that, but if you look at the clear intention of the document—'provide us with all of the documents in relation to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner'—would that include the letter of resignation? Yes, I think it might. I think that might be a relevant document in relation to the documents pertaining to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner. It might be directly relevant. It might go to the heart of the issue! And to actually have this debate in relation to the failure of the Attorney to meet the order for the production of documents in accordance with its clear terms, to have this debate with respect to the suppression of information in relation to the Freedom of Information Commissioner himself, it's even more bizarre and more Kafkaesque! It's just extraordinary stuff.

I feel sympathy for Senator Watt, from Queensland, that he actually had to come in and read that statement. It must have been embarrassing for him. And it's not the first time he's been forced to come into this chamber and read a statement on behalf of another minister, which no doubt caused him embarrassment. I can remember the time he had to come into this chamber and read the statement with respect to Nauru not being continued as a regional processing country because it had been overlooked by the Minister for Home Affairs. He had to come and explain that situation, and now he's had to come in and explain this. Just reflect on how silly this is, that the resignation letter of the Freedom of Information Commissioner was not considered relevant for an order for the production of documents—all documents—relating to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner. It is just bizarre. It is Kafkaesque.

Seriously, the Attorney needs to reflect on this. This is an embarrassment. The Attorney is the first law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia. He is the first law officer. He needs to reflect on this because this is an absolute embarrassment.