Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have a limited number of tools that we can use to ensure that we are doing our job as senators in this place. We have the questions on notice, we have the estimates processes and we have the orders for production of documents. It's often been the case under this government that you've been able to get more through an FOI request as a citizen than you can as a senator through those processes, which I think is hugely regrettable given that this is a core accountability function that the Australian people want us to perform, irrespective of our political colour or our policy interests or particular positions.

The reason that I asked about these productivity issues in the estimates in June—and I note that we have received the answer to this question in the last hour; it's remarkable, actually, that it's hit right on today—is that the nature of the productivity agenda of the government impacts the welfare of all the Australian people. If the government of the day is not running a productivity agenda in accordance with the advice from the Productivity Commission, which most of us would generally accept would be good advice, then that is a concern and we need to understand exactly why the government is not progressing the changes that the PC has recommended.

My question, which was on 16 June 2023, was simply: what measures from the Productivity Commission's latest reports has the government adopted in that budget? Having received a response on one piece of paper in the last hour, I think the answer to the question is zero. That's fine, but the answer should have been provided in a reasonable period.

I understand that the government wants to support its favourite vested interests. If you could go back and look at the last 100 or so years of Australian politics, one of the major criticisms that have been levied at the Labor Party over this period has been that it is beholden to vested interests, and I believe that is a legitimate complaint that we would raise in our role as an opposition. In relation to these matters, the Productivity Commission has recommended in its latest report that there should be the introduction of menus into industrial awards, which would enable a more flexible workplace, particularly for small businesses. We know that through the government's own policies they are pursuing a different agenda—multi-employer bargaining and the abolition labour hire—for various reasons. It is, I think, fair and reasonable that an opposition member could, through the Treasury secretary at the time, ask a question which relates to how much of the work of the Productivity Commission has been adopted by the government. That's all the question is. There are no tricks or gimmicks. That's all the question was. The answer provided today effectively says that none of those suggestions from the PC have been adopted. That is regrettable, but that is a legitimate point of difference that we may have.

But the point here is one of transparency and sticking to what the government said when it was the opposition.

As I think former senator Patrick has said, 'Transparency is a word that is only ever uttered from the opposition benches.' That is hugely regrettable because the institutions can be eroded by governments deliberately avoiding the orders of the parliament and then deciding that, for political reasons, they will file endless—and I would say in some cases illegitimate—public interest immunity claims. In fact, the vast bulk of the orders that I've seen passed by this Senate chamber in relation to Treasury matters in this parliament have been emasculated by the government and have not been properly complied with. That is regrettable because the institution is going to be less effective if we allow the government of the day—no matter who that is—to erode these transparency and integrity arrangements, which are necessary.

It is a good thing that the country now has an integrity commission and it is a good thing that these things have been done, but it's also important that the old integrity measures and the old transparency measures of Senate estimates, questions on notice and orders for the production of documents are treated seriously and with respect by the incumbent government. I think Senator Walsh has done a good job of chairing the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in estimates and I think she understands that estimates hearings are for the opposition parties to ask questions. I respect that very much. But it is disappointing that the executive government have decided to debase the Senate's powers, which are there in this way for the Australian people, and I hope that in future estimates we don't have to wait until the next estimates or after the next estimates to get answers back on important matters in this country.