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

At the outset, I want to address those who are listening to this debate or watching this debate here today and make a preliminary point. What we're discussing is that, just on 12 months ago, a majority of the senators in this place—across the Senate, from different parties and the crossbench—passed an order for the production of documents in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, one of the most important government schemes that is administered by the Commonwealth. Since that point in time, the government has resolutely resisted responding to that order for the production of documents. It got to the stage where, at the last sitting of this Senate, some of the most profound and fundamental amendments to the NDIS were passed by this Senate without it having the benefit of those key financial sustainability documents that the government refused to provide.

That is the context of what we're discussing. A majority of the senators in this place, and through them a majority of the Australian people, sought the production of documents to provide information to the senators representing the Australian people to better understand the financial sustainability of the NDIS—one of the most important social programs administered by the Commonwealth government, impacting hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians. And that was refused.

I want to make three points in relation to this. First, those watching should consider the contributions of the three senators who preceded me in this debate, because each of them—Senator Steele-John, Senator Hughes and Senator Reynolds—has made a passionate contribution in relations to this debate, standing up and fighting, in good faith, for the most vulnerable people in our community. They should be truly congratulated for the work that they've done in that regard. You can see they are still passionate about the subject. That's the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that it is very, very disappointing that in the last session of parliament we passed—or had no choice but to vote against or vote for—legislation concerning the NDIS without the benefit of this information, which was denied to us by the government. That is entirely unsatisfactory. That is not best practice. This place is the house of review and, in order to discharge that obligation as the house of review, we need the documents and the data to review legislation and review changes in programs. That obligation—that necessity—is heightened when we're dealing with the most vulnerable people in our community. That's the second point I want to make.

The third point I want to make, in closing, is for those listening. Governments can make what's called a public interest immunity claim. When an order for the production of documents is made by the Senate, the government can claim public interest immunity—that it's in the public interest that the information's not disclosed. I've outlined the reasons why I think it was in the public interest for the documents to be disclosed. But one of the public interest immunity claims which has been raised by the government is prejudice in relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Again, I want to quote from Odgers'. This is our rulebook in terms of how this Senate conducts itself. This is what Odgers' says:

Again, raising this ground, on one basis, would seem to do the apprehended harm. 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 …

Did you ask the states whether or not the information could be disclosed?