Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement by the minister.

This is a shameful and shameless attempt at systemic cover-up and obfuscation by the Albanese Labor government. The benignly named Approaches to SEQoNs asked of all (or multiple) agencies was provided by the government—let's be clear—only after journalists had found and published extracts of it and only after every single non-government senator had indicated their support for a motion requiring that it be tabled. The tabling of this document shows the systemic approach of the government to avoid answering questions. There is no defence to the blatant attempt to subvert legitimate processes of this Senate and no defence to the contempt shown by the government in this document. We've heard Senator Gallagher try to make a virtue out of tabling the document, yet the reality is that they were pushed and forced to table the document. And credit goes to the journalist at Capital Brief for uncovering it.

The hypocrisy of the government in claiming time and again that a Labor government would herald a new era of transparency is on show. The minister often tells us how much words matter, and she's right—words do matter. They mattered when, in the lead-up to the election, the opposition promised Australians greater transparency, and when the Prime Minister said, pre election, that there would be a deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy and real accountability. That's what he promised. After the election, he said that transparency is always a good idea. And he was still claiming that it was a good idea in January this year, just a few months ago, even as his office and/or his department were working on this manual—a manual of opaqueness and obfuscation. His own code of conduct promises integrity, honesty and accountability and that his ministers 'will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australia people'. Yet, remarkably, when this document has been exposed for what it is the government stands by it. How does this government act? It instructs department heads and departmental officials on how to avoid answering questions.

Now we know what the Labor government means by 'transparency'. If a departmental secretary is asked how many meetings they've had with a minister: 'Don't answer the question; just say you've had lots of meetings with ministers.' If they're asked how much money is spent on retreats and external speakers: 'Don't actually detail that; just say it would be a diversion of resources to answer that.' If they're asked whether a department is spending taxpayer dollars on training or giving advice—even advice on how to answer questions at estimates—they should just say, 'We don't know, because it's not centrally recorded.' If they're asked for data or information that is routinely provided to senators through estimates, the Labor government's advice is to tell senators to just google it: 'Go and look it up elsewhere.' If they're asked detailed questions around estimates variations by government agencies and departments, the response is, 'Go and look in the parts of the budget paper that don't actually detail those estimates variations to the same extent.' This is apparently how the Albanese Labor government demonstrates integrity, honesty and accountability.

Senator Gallagher may say the Prime Minister had not seen this statement prior to its publication, but he certainly should have heard about it by now and he should not be standing by it. The Prime Minister should have torn this document up and instead said: 'Consistent with what I promised pre election, my instructions to ministers and departments are: do the best you can to answer the questions that are asked. Do it as directly, as straightforwardly, as you possibly can.' But that's not what we get. The Labor government is remarkably standing by this document, claiming it's because they're getting too many questions, and then having the gall to claim that they are answering more questions than had been answered before. Guess what? It's not answering the questions if you respond with the rubbish that's in this document. If your responses are what is written in this document, then you are avoiding answering the questions. If the government's responses are consistent with what's in this document, then it is a deliberate contempt and obfuscation of the Senate.

The government can expect more questions to be asked of this document, about how it was developed and about what it means for the government's contempt of this chamber and how it can be held accountable in the future.