Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hanson-Young moving a motion to take note of documents tabled by Senator Cash in relation to an order for the production of documents concerning border protection.

What a pathetic display we have just seen. Not only do they not even respond to the order for the production of documents as required twice now by this place; they then want to shut down all discussion in relation to it. This is a government absolutely obsessed with secrecy and spying and covering up, with not letting anyone in the public know what is really going on. Of course, all we need to do these days is read the front page of the Jakarta Post to find out what a screaming success this government's border protection policy 'operation secret boats' has really become. This government is obsessed with secrecy.

We know that the minister has not been able to answer the questions and put forward the documents that this place has asked for. The Australian people have a right to know how many boats have been turned back on our high seas and how many times Australia's brave personnel—our Customs personnel, our Navy personnel—have been put at risk because of this government's reckless 'turning back the boats' policy. Why is it that a boat can arrive in Darwin Harbour and we hear nothing from our government about how long that boat was there, who was on board and exactly what the government is going to do about it? How did we find out about that boat? It was because the people of Darwin could see it with their eyes—it was there, in plain sight. The government like to pretend that if they do not say something, if they do not tell people the truth, perhaps the incidents never actually occurred.

We know why the government does not want to be upfront with the Australian people or, indeed, with the parliament about these issues. It is because they know their policy is a sham, that 'operation secret boats' is nothing more than a media strategy. There is no information about what is going on in terms of boat arrivals. We know boats are not being successfully turned back. We know boats are not being bought from Indonesia because the Indonesians would not have it. Despite the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection being asked about that in the chamber, in the other place, only two hours after saying he could not answer because it was an operational matter we then had the chief of this entire military led response, the lieutenant-general—because isn't it good to send out the military when you are dealing with poor refugees on rickety wooden boats—saying, 'No, we haven't bought any boats because Indonesia doesn't want us to.' This is the pathetic nature of this government in relation to being upfront with the Australian people and respectful of the parliament's right to scrutinise government policy.

I know that the reason this minister does not want to talk about these things is because, deep down inside, they are ashamed at their policies. They know they are hurting people. You cannot sit by anymore and pretend that the detention of children is not harmful, that temporary protection visas are not inhuman. You cannot pretend that being cruel and selfish is going to make refugees who are fleeing war and persecution any safer.

We know the facts. We have been here before. Under John Howard's government, people were consistently held in wrongful detention. Children's lives were destroyed. And here we have it happening all over again, and yet we have a government so desperate to cover up, so desperate not to tell the Australian people what is going on, that they prefer just to use the military and the word 'operational' to hide behind. This minister has to take responsibility for this policy and stop palming it off to the brave men and women in our armed forces, who should be left to do their jobs with dignity and with respect because they know that turning back boats on the high seas is not just unsafe, dangerous and risky; it is also in breach of Australia's obligations when it comes to the laws of the sea.

This government's policy is a total sham. The only reason this minister does not want us talking about this today is that the government is scared as hell that the truth is going to get out. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the order to produce documents, this government has complied with the order. We have provided a substantial amount of information in relation to the resolution that was passed by the Senate. If I could assist the Senate in understanding, the government also tabled additional information in relation to the material that had already been tabled. I also advise that, in the original documents we tabled, the government offered to provide the opposition and the Australian Greens senators and members with a confidential briefing delivered by Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, commander of Operation Sovereign Borders. To date, the opposition has taken up our offer and the shadow minister has received a confidential briefing from Lieutenant General Campbell. I advise the Senate, however, that no member of the Australian Greens has accepted the offer of a confidential briefing, despite the offer remaining open.

The government, as I said, has complied with the order for production of documents. In relation to the other documents for which the order calls, the government has clearly articulated in considerable detail the reasons as to why we do not believe it is in the public interest for these documents to be tabled. I note that Senator Carr will probably be speaking after me. For Senator Carr's benefit, I just remind him that his party, when they were in government, failed to comply with orders for the production of documents—not partly complied but failed to comply—on over 75 occasions.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to support the motion to suspend standing orders, I make an observation to the

Bear in mind that I was not aware that this was going to come on at this time and I have had to rush from my office to try and make head or tail of this, but that is essentially how I understand the circumstances of this question. When I look at the document, it is a most extraordinary document indeed, because it is a document that claims public interest immunity from answering questions for this government. That is equally an unusual event and a serious event. If the government is to claim public interest immunity, the standard practice is to explain why, not just to sneak around with a document, float it about and then run off.

What we are detecting here is a pattern of deceit that has emerged since this government was elected. This was a government that, in opposition, chose to go on every news program it could find, on every day of the week, and explain what it thought was happening on the high seas. There was not a moment when a shadow minister or an opposition spokesman would not feel the need to explain what was going on, in their opinion, on the high seas. But, upon coming to office, it now becomes a question of executive secrecy. So we went from a situation where everyone had to know, every minute of the day, about the movement of people seeking refuge in this country to a point where no-one in this country is to know. We have a circumstance where, at estimates, the government hides behind a military uniform and seeks to avoid responsibility by suggesting that no questions will be answered until a Friday briefing. You go to a Friday briefing and journalists find: 'We can't answer that. You'll have to wait till next Friday.' It is a most extraordinary set of arrangements, whereby a government seeks to hide behind the military and do exactly the opposite to what they did just three months ago.

Not once when we were in government—I asked this direct question at estimates—was the advice tendered by the officials that providing information to the public about people seeking refuge in this country was aiding and abetting people smugglers. That is the claim: if you ask questions, you are treacherous to Australia because you are aiding and abetting people smugglers. Basic, standard information that this parliament has had a right to expect and has received for many years now becomes a matter of high public policy and defence security. So what we are talking about here is not about public interest immunity, it is about whether the government thinks that the confidence of the Australian public will undermine the integrity of Australia's migration program. For political reasons, not security reasons, the government is hiding behind a claim of public interest immunity. I think it is appropriate that the Senate does suspend standing orders to allow the minister to give a proper explanation of what this scurrilous document is really all about. The minister should make an effort to answer simple questions put by the Senate and stop treating the Senate with such contempt.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been reading Enid Blyton's Magic Faraway Tree to my little boy recently. He really likes the Land of Topsy-Turvy. This land is a place where people walk on their hands, they wear hats on their feet—it is a place where everything is upside down. There is also the poem Topsy-Turvy Landby HG Wilkinson:

The people walk upon their heads,

The sea is made of sand,

The children go to school by night,

In Topsy-Turvy Land.

I think we have entered some kind of bizarre political version of topsy-turvy land, because in this topsy-turvy land transparent, open and accountable government means that you keep billboards with the tally of boat arrivals when you are in opposition and then you refuse to disclose any details about boat arrivals when you are a government, even when you are ordered by the Senate to do so. In this bizarre version of topsy-turvy land honest government means making a clear commitment about school funding when you are in opposition in the middle of an election campaign, and when that is over you go back on your word. In this version of topsy-turvy land clear, calm and methodical government means you convene late-night crisis meetings to make sure you can try and clean up the mess that is the fallout from your broken election promises.

In this version of topsy-turvy land your response to a budget emergency is to cut revenues like those provided by the mining tax and the fringe benefits tax on novated car leases. In this version of topsy-turvy land government debt is such a bad thing that one of the first things you try and do is raise the debt ceiling by $200 billion. In topsy-turvy land you show your commitment to science by cutting funding to CSIRO and by not appointing a science minister. In this land you campaign with your daughters to show your strong commitment to women and then you appoint one woman to your cabinet. In political topsy-turvy land you show your commitment to the free market by scrapping a market mechanism to tackle climate change and then you start writing cheques to big polluters. You show your commitment to the free market by floating the idea of nationalising Qantas and continuing big subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

In this version of political topsy-turvy land you are so concerned about people drowning at sea that you force our Navy to engage in risky operations that put their lives at risk. You spend years politicising climate change and then you accuse others of political opportunism when they point out the bleeding obvious, that extreme weather events will get worse if we do not act. In political topsy-turvy land you are so committed to small government, to reducing the influence of state power, that you refuse to allow gay couples to marry. And in this political version of topsy-turvy land being a good Christian means locking up young kids indefinitely in offshore prisons and it means denying a woman and her newborn access to decent medical care.

Some people would use other, less kind, words to describe the behaviour of this government in its first few months, particularly when it comes to the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. They would call them hypocrites, they would call them secretive, they would call them cowardly. Whatever language you want to use, we have entered some sort of bizarre political twilight zone where people walk on their hands and wear hats on their feet.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have now witnessed is an extraordinary abuse of process within the Senate. We have a minister who has refused a return to order but, more importantly, has continued to ensure that the information that the Senate has requested will not be provided in any shape or form. That is what this minister has effectively told the Senate. When you go to the requirements, it is about fundamentally the accountability of a minister within this house. Without accountability in this house, what we have is a minister who can do anything, hide anything, and ensure that information is not made available to the Senate.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like your decision to stop the protein supply to Indonesia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash can smile and joke about this but this is a very serious matter and I encourage the minister to take this more seriously than she is now taking it. If you look at the claims that can be made under public interest immunity, it is not about ensuring that the government of the day can hide behind a claim of public interest immunity but about their having to put up the claim and not undermine the Senate's accountability mechanisms. The accountability provision, public interest immunity, specifically says that a statement that information or a document is not published or is confidential or consists of advice to or internal deliberations of government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from disclosure of the information or document is not—I underline not—a statement that meets the requirements of paragraphs 1 to 4 of section 8 under the standing orders. What we have is a document which claims public interest immunity but does not specify in any way, shape or form the harm that might come from the release. It is like the sails that Senator Cash waves about while saying, 'Look at this; this the harm.' You have to actually specify the harm with some degree of specificity to say why that information should not and cannot be provided. There are certainly grounds where that can be made out. There are also alternative grounds where committees can take in camera evidence and the like.

Ultimately, it is about ensuring that the ultimate place for accountability rests in this chamber and not in the bowels of government or in ensuring that you can drive a political argument by hiding behind a public interest immunity claim. In the claim, you have to specify the nature of the harm. In your reasons you have talked more broadly and, in part, fulsomely about great harms but not the special harm or specific harm that could result from the release of certain information that the government has in its possession.

It is a shame on you, Senator Cash, that you will not comply with the order and that you feel that you have to go that far from government to provide a document that claims public interest immunity, which is in fact not a document that actually substantiates a claim for public interest immunity. What it does is to continue the broad argument that you are a government of secrecy and that you are going to use the political weapon of secrecy to ensure that information cannot get out. It is the same as what the previous Howard government did with oil for food when it ordered public servants not to talk about matters. Again, when you go back to the period of kids overboard, we had to spend a considerable amount of time on this side finding out the true details of what went on. To date, you are putting yourself in the same shoes as that government. You are continuing the secrecy— (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the suspension. This is a government that has only been in power for a short time, but it has clearly established its modus operandi for the future. That is, one fundamentally based on secrecy and fundamentally based on holding back from the Senate, the House of Representatives, the parliament in general and the public any issue that they deem is not appropriate for the public to know about.

To do what Senator Cash did here today—simply stand up and claim public interest immunity without giving any reasons under the standing orders for why she did that—is unacceptable. Senator Cash has an obligation to outline why she is claiming public interest immunity, why she is behaving in a manner that is about secrecy and why this government is continuing to use secrecy as the basis for their operation in this parliament.

It is quite clear from what some of the media are saying that they are onto this government. James Massola maintains that the new coalition government has established an early and unwelcome habit of shutting down debates it does not want to have. On the muzzling of ministers from speaking spontaneously to the media by the PM's office, Michelle Grattan observed that it was the ultimate 'get stuffed'. Annabel Crabb asked:

If a boat is turned around, and nobody is told about, it did it happen at all?

The doyen of the press gallery, Laurie Oakes, has been particularly scathing of the abrasive and arrogant tone of immigration minister Scott Morrison towards the media when he is pressed for details on asylum seekers. Mark Kenny said:

It is jarring to see how quickly the public's reasonable expectations of probity in its political representatives has been superseded by the reflex to secrecy and self-protection in the new political class.

I go back to the issue of secrecy and why secrecy is there. Annabel Crabb said:

If a boat is turned around, and nobody is told about it, did it happen at all?

I say to Annabel Crabb: all you have to do is go back to the evidence in estimates from the Maritime Authority, who basically said that people smugglers who have access to sophisticated radios know exactly what is happening. So dragging the defence department and the military into this cover-up and secrecy is an abomination of the democratic processes in this parliament and in this country. To hide behind a military uniform, on the basis that you are not going to tell people what is happening on the basis of secrecy and operational procedures, is an absolute nonsense.

The Maritime Authority told estimates that when a boat is in trouble they put out a general call to all seafarers saying that there is a problem, that that boat should be rescued and that, under their international obligations, they should rescue that boat. I asked the question, 'When that notice goes out, does that then mean that the position of the boats and the fact that there is a problem become public?' Their answer to me was. 'Yes, it does'. Provided you have a radio and provided you can tune in and pick it up, you know exactly what is happening. So it is an absolute nonsense for the coalition to be running this argument that you need to close down information to the public, to the press and to the parliament. That is the modus operandi of this coalition. It is about secrecy. It is about arrogance. It is about saying, 'We know better than everyone else and we are not going to give any information to the parliament to let them make decisions on our behaviour.' Well, the public are onto the coalition. The press are onto the coalition. You have had a very bad start. Secrecy is no excuse. (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to briefly make a couple of comments on this motion. I have obviously arrived in the chamber in the middle of a very interesting debate but, as I understand it, we are having a suspension of standing orders debate because the government refused to allow Senator Hanson-Young leave to make a short statement in relation to the minister's response to the return to order. I would say to the government: I recall that as a minister I—and other ministers in the government, when we were on that side—allowed such statements to be made by leave quite regularly. I admit I probably allowed two or three minutes, to make sure people were limited, but it is part of the give and take of how you manage the chamber. As a result of the government's refusal to debate the issue, we have now had a lengthy amount of time spent on a suspension of standing orders debate simply to allow the senator a reasonable opportunity to make some statements in relation to this. On that basis, as Senator Carr has indicated, the opposition will be supporting this suspension. I would encourage the government to consider, perhaps, having a little bit more courtesy in how it deals with other senators in this chamber, just as governments of both persuasions have had to deal with senators across the political divide on many occasions.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may make a very brief contribution: I will support the suspension of standing orders, but I want to put that in context. It is quite reasonable that there be a suspension of standing orders in order to debate the documents tabled by the minister. I do note, however, that this relates to a series of events with respect to the order of production of documents sought by the Greens and supported by the opposition in relation to project sovereign borders—I lose track of what it is called—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Secret boats!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Secret boats, Senator Hanson-Young wants to call it; I am not quite sure if it is called that. But notwithstanding that, I did not support the Greens and the opposition with respect to those motions, and neither did Senator Madigan, because I had some genuine concerns about the operational aspects of that. However, this motion by Senator Hanson-Young is quite a reasonable one because it relates to debating the response of the government, and in those circumstances there ought to be a suspension of standing orders.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

Question agreed to.