Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Hansard source

In taking note of the matter raised by Senator David Pocock, I think that it is worth noting that we are all custodians of this institution. Regarding Senate orders for the production of documents, I note that the government says there are too many, but they are nonetheless orders of the Senate that the executive government should do its best to comply with. I have to say, that was a pretty regrettable response from Minister Wong. The reality is that the journalist was able to get more information on the same matter than the parliament; that is the reality here. This is the third such case I'm aware of in this parliament where a freedom-of-information request has yielded vastly more information, over an identical piece of information, than an order for the production of documents.

It is bizarre, at a minimum, that the government would treat the Senate with such contempt, particularly noting that the government campaigned on the basis that it would show fidelity to transparency and integrity and would be transparent. It has gone out of its way to obfuscate and cover up documents which are germane to orders for the production of documents. It has been endemic across the executive government. In past sessions we have canvassed the fact that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth signed a false document where he asserted that there were commercial-in-confidence matters subject to an order for the production of documents in relation to the Cbus super fund. Helpfully, I had filed a freedom-of-information request for the same information as a citizen, and I was able to receive more information about this matter as a citizen than I could as a senator. So the government is treating this chamber like absolute dirt. Senator David Pocock is right to be aggrieved.

In the case of Dr Chalmers filing a false letter with this Senate which claimed commercial-in-confidence information for Cbus, the Information Commissioner threw it out and said that this was lobbying. The Information Commissioner said this was really 'to achieve a change in the government's policy'. Dr Chalmers has really let his colours down by doing this. As it stands, we have another OPD over a report that the Senate has sought. Dr Chalmers said to the Senate in November 2024 that the agency known as APRA had indicated that this was likely to be protected information and therefore he wasn't going to provide it. As a result, I thought, 'We'll get some advice here', and the Clerk has said that Odgers' is quite clear: there is no arrangement here for the Treasurer to cover up this information. The Clerk says, 'The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act does not contain provisions which would constrain the Senate's powers.' In other words, the Clerk has said that Dr Chalmers has to give this report to the Senate because—and, again, he has some form here—his leader is wrong.

The Treasurer here is a repeat offender, and it seems, noting Senator David Pocock's contribution, that the Prime Minister is party to this arrangement where the executive government wants to treat this chamber, which was elected by the Australian people, with absolute contempt. It will not comply with the orders of the Senate and therefore it is prepared to treat the Australian people with contempt. After having campaigned on integrity and transparency, the government has not met that standard. It is no wonder the Australian people are deeply disillusioned with this government.