Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I take note of the motion moved by Senator Ruston, and I do so in general terms, because what is becoming clearer and clearer when you look at the list of questions that remain unanswered by the government is that that list is getting longer and longer day by day and across portfolios.

I know that, when you have a change of government, and ministers are trying to get their feet under the desk and get across their portfolios and their briefs, and department personnel might be changing, it's hard to keep up with all of the chamber's demands for information. However, we are seeing this government's second budget being handed down today, and there is just no excuse for ministers and departments to hold back basic information that this Senate has voted for and that individual members and senators have asked of ministers, departments and, indeed, agencies—because that is what we are here to do. It doesn't really matter what side of politics you come from; the job of the Senate is to scrutinise legislation and hold government and government officials to account. That is our job.

It isn't a 'winner takes all' parliament, and I continually am surprised by the lack of acceptance from some within the government that they don't actually have control of this chamber. They don't control the Senate and they never will. The Australian people have voted for diversity in this place for a reason—because it forces all sides of politics to work together, to get better outcomes, to ensure that mistakes are picked up before they're made, to ensure that there is accountability from individual ministers and departments and to ensure that there is basic transparency so that the public, the community and those who are neck-deep in policy development have a good idea of what's really going on.

I look at this list of questions, and sometimes it feels like it's just basic the stubbornness of government ministers—some, not all. Some are quite good, but some have a less favourable record than others when it comes to coughing up information. It's as if they've got a Messiah complex: 'I'm in charge. It's my way or the highway. It doesn't really matter if the Senate's asking for things.' Well, it does matter.

I know there is a long list of orders for the production of documents. Many orders have passed through this place, and I know the government is becoming more and more frustrated by that. However, unless you start to actually participate in transparency of government and work with the Senate to get across these issues then, you know what? There are going to be more and more of these questions and requests from the parliament. Otherwise, we're being asked to vote on legislation without having all of the information. There are some questions and orders for the production of documents that I've put in to the government that are still outstanding, and there's no excuse except that they just don't want to put the work in. There are decisions made by the previous government that they won't even reveal. I'm sorry—not my problem. We require the information. The government must cough it up. It strikes me that it's not just an individual minister's problem here. This seems to be a recurring attitude and a growing attitude within this government that they don't have to comply with requests of information from this chamber. I don't think that's a very good way of building collaboration, I don't think it's a very good way of enlisting trust and I don't think it's acceptable to think that the Senate can be ignored.

Now, we're about to have another round of estimates after this budget, and there will be a whole lot of new areas to inquire into and detail to get into, because we're going to have the new budget, but there are so many questions that remain outstanding from the previous estimates and the estimates before. One particular issue that I'm concerned about is that the government has made promises in relation to streaming services. They went to the election saying that they would put quotas on streaming services, which they should. It's something that I have fought very hard for in this place for a long time. Now, through a Senate committee process, we've asked for the documents that a government department has issued to stakeholders and industry players but is refusing to give that information to the parliament. I'm sorry, but, if the big TV broadcasters and the big tech giants can have access to this information, so should the Australian parliament.

Why is the Minister for Communications refusing to give us this information? It's actually out there; stakeholders have been told, 'Here is a private, confidential copy. Please don't tell anybody about it,' yet, when the parliament and the Senate ask for this information so that we can understand what the government is planning, we can be prepared and we can participate in the transparency and accountability process of government, we are denied. So Foxtel, Netflix, Amazon—the big streaming giants—get access to this information, but the parliament doesn't. Who do you govern for, the big tech giants or the Australian people? This is just one example of the arrogance that is seeping into this government's attitude toward how this chamber should be responded to and dealt with.

I say to government ministers in this place and to those watching that, once you start sliding into this type of attitude, it's hard to put the brakes on. We saw that with the last government and the arrogance that ended up sweeping through the frontbench, the lack of respect for the chamber, the lack of respect for other voices and the diverse views in this place, the lack of ultimate respect to the taxpayer and the people who vote at election time based on the promises and the policies that are put forward. Once you start thinking you're better than the entire parliament, it is the road to hell.

So don't fall foul of the arrogant attitude that Mr Morrison, the former prime minister, fell foul of. It's hard to think that anyone would start appointing themselves to secret ministries, but it all starts somewhere. It starts with refusing to think that you're accountable to the parliament and it ends with the former prime minister, who didn't even think he was accountable to his own cabinet when he started secretly appointing himself.

Let's think about how we want government and this parliament to actually deal with and respect the Australian people: the taxpayers and the voters. It has to start with a basic commitment to transparency of government. Once that starts to be negotiated away—just a cover-up over here or denial of this over there—it is the road to hell. The Australian people expect better and deserve better. So, when their representatives come into this place asking for information from the government and their agencies, it needs to be coughed up. It's not up to you as individual ministers to think you can just hide behind delay and cabinet in confidence—the cloak of secrecy that gets dragged over everything. If you want this parliament to work to deliver the things that you have promised, you must work with it. So, with this extraordinary number of outstanding questions and orders for production of documents, it should alarm you that, less than 12 months on, you're already in breach of the basic courtesy of being transparent and upfront not just with the chamber and the parliament but with the Australian people that you purport to represent.

Despite the budget being handed down tonight and this being the government's day—and I'm sure that there are lots of goodies in there that you're hoping to spruik and be proud of—I would hope that we are genuinely going to see some relief for people from the enormous pressures of cost of living that everyday people, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities, are feeling right now. You can't just promise headlines and then not deliver the policy grit and grunt that come with it, and, in order to ensure that that is there, you're going to have to be transparent with this chamber. If we spend the next two estimates weeks hearing from government ministers and department secretaries that they can't tell us the details of things—well, I'm sorry, don't expect this place to be rubberstamping your legislation.

Why is it that government officers and department officials are so often more interested in not answering questions at senate estimates than in giving the information? The whole process of senate estimates is to engender confidence in the government of the day, regardless of the politics and regardless of what side of the chamber you sit on. It's about engendering confidence that the policies that are being put forward, the programs that money is being spent on and the decisions that are being made are sound. Yet, year after year after year, what we are confronted with, particularly from the Senate crossbench perspective, is government officers and department secretaries who spend their entire time trying not to answer questions.

Often I find it takes more energy to not answer a question than just to be upfront. I know in this place the politics creeps in and the sport of chamber debate creeps in, but, when it comes to Senate estimates, it is not up to departmental officials to play the sport of politics. They are public servants, and they should be allowed to answer basic questions. They should be directed by their ministers to be as helpful as possible, to be as transparent as possible and to go out of their way to help the Senate understand what they are doing, what they have been directed to do and what they are spending money on. That is their job. Their job is not to be an extension of the political arm of government. They are public servants, not servants of the government.