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

I also rise to contribute to this debate. The Senate Economics References Committee has been holding an inquiry into Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement, and I think Senator Bragg has done an incredible job in pursuing ASIC for answers on behalf of the small-business owners and the consumers who felt have very aggrieved by a body they thought was there to assist them with matters of financial fraud and to ensure that proper process and proper legal frameworks are upheld and that they are indeed protected. Unfortunately, the conduct of ASIC through this inquiry has meant questions haven't been answered, senators have been unable to do their elected roles and this chamber has once again, unfortunately, as has so often been the case in the last 14 months, been held in immense disrespect.

This chamber and the functions of this chamber and its committees are a key tenet and pillar of our Westminster system that we enjoy here in Australia. It is unique in the world. This chamber in particular has a specific task. When you are a minister of the Crown, it is difficult sometimes to subject yourself to the will of this chamber, to the Senate estimates process, to the order for the production of documents process, to question time and to a whole raft of mechanisms this chamber has to hold the executive of this country and, through the executive, the agencies and statutory bodies that help govern arrangements in this country to account, so that we have the most transparency and therefore accountability that a democracy like ours should be able to provide for its citizenry.

This inquiry was set up because this chamber referred to the economics committee an examination of whether ASIC is meeting the expectation of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement. It wasn't called for by the big end of town. This wasn't something that the mighty and powerful in this country were wanting to see happen. It was called for by regular, everyday Australians who were incredibly frustrated by ASICs persistent failure to enforce the law and investigate complaints of misconduct. You would think that, at the very basic level, mums and dads, small-business owners and consumers across this country should be able to assume that an agency that has the power of ASIC is actually doing its job to protect the most vulnerable: regular Australians, who can't take the big end of town to court to have their day of justice. They have to use measures and mechanisms like these procedures to get justice. Yet ASIC not only isn't doing its job, by all accounts; it's refusing to tell us why it can't do its job. Indeed, it is using the smokescreen of public interest immunity to facilitate the cloak of secrecy around its work and why it's not delivering confidence to consumers and small businesses in this country when it comes to investigating complaints of misconduct.

I think Senator Canavan, in his contribution, was right about a minister's role in public interest immunity claims. Unfortunately, agencies often don't see themselves as being accountable to this place and to the boring, mundane and often repetitious questions of senators who might not know in great detail what their role or function is but who do have a right under our system of government to ask them, and absolutely have a right to get an answer. But, unfortunately, under this government it seems it's not just the agencies who are using public interest immunity claims willy-nilly to avoid scrutiny, accountability and transparency around their role; even in my portfolio, we've got Minister Catherine King claiming public interest immunity around the infrastructure project investment pipeline. Poor Minister Watt has had to rock up several times for her to hastily drop the letter to say, 'She's not going to answer these questions because it might prejudice state and territory relations.' We have rightly said, under the standing orders, accordingly: 'Why don't you write to the states and territories and ask them if they have a problem with you telling the Senate this information? If the states and territories do have an issue, well, obviously you have a basis upon which to make your claim of public interest immunity.' But she doesn't, because she disrespects this chamber's role and refuses to subject herself and her decision-making to its oversight.

We also have estimates, another way the Senate seeks to hold the executive government to account. It can sometimes be uncomfortable, as a minister, to have to sit there and answer the questions. But that's your job. You have grave responsibility. You have great privilege and rights, but that comes as a package. You don't just get the privilege and the rights without the responsibility to, therefore, be accountable. If you have personal integrity, then you will subject yourself to that. Catherine King's department took—