Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I would like to compliment the previous speakers in relation to this matter, especially Senator Steele-John, who spoke from the heart and made a lot of points of substance. I'm sure—I'm absolutely positive—that Senator Steele-John did not have to rely on the services of a $300,000-a-year speechwriter in order to make his points. I'm sure because he was speaking from the heart.

Sorry—I stand corrected by Senator Reynolds; it's $320,000. Can you believe it? The NDIS minister, Bill Shorten, has a speechwriter he pays $320,000 a year. That's extraordinary: $320,000 a year to write speeches. Those sitting in the public gallery have just heard speeches from senators across the chamber in relation to this matter, all delivered from the heart, making points of substance, and not one of them relied upon the services of a $320,000-a-year speechwriter. So I congratulate Senator Steele-John on his independently composed contribution to the Senate, and I also congratulate all the other senators on their contributions to the Senate—obviously their own work, obviously their own homework.

The NDIS system is one of the most important policy areas of this country. We all have friends and loved ones who are reliant on this system—every single one of us, every single Australian. So, when we're considering the dimensions of this terribly serious public policy issue, the Australian people—through us in the Senate—have a right to the key financial information which is being considered by governments at all levels in terms of the future of this public policy, the NDIS. That is the right of the Australian people, and here in the Senate we have been seeking the information required for that right to be exercised, for the Australian people to have that key financial information upon which the federal government is making decisions which will have lasting impacts on some of our most vulnerable Australians. That is what's happening here. We're seeking information which the government refuses to provide to us. The government refuses to provide us with the information we need—which the Australian people need—to assess the future of this scheme. We do this nearly every Monday morning of every sitting week. We all line up to make the same points, and it's about time the government listened to those points.

I want to make one point with respect to the public interest immunity claim which has been made by the government. What's happening here is that the government is saying: we can't provide this information to you, the Senate, because it might prejudice relationships between the federal government and the state governments. Now, that begs the question: how? How is it going to prejudice relationships between the federal government and the state governments? We don't know. They don't tell us. And here's the next obvious question: have they actually written to state governments and asked for their permission? Isn't that what you would do if you were saying it could prejudice relations between the federal government and the state governments? If that was an assertion made in good faith, you would contact the state governments and say: 'Look, the Senate is really keen for this information. Do you have any objection to us providing it?' Does that sound logical and reasonable? I would have thought so, but that hasn't been done. If you go to page 666 of Odgers', which is our road map forthe procedures of the Senate, this is what it says about prejudicing state government relations:

This ground, however, has appeared frequently in recent times in the following form: the information concerned belongs to the states as well as to the Commonwealth, and therefore cannot be disclosed without the approval of the states. The obvious response to this is that the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection.

That's what our own procedures say. That is what the federal government should do, and that is what the federal government refuses to do because they do not want the Senate—and, through the Senate, the Australian people—to have the information that they have every right to have.

Question agreed to.