Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to general business notice of motion No. 50 from Senator McKenzie, agreed to by the Senate on 25 October 2022, for an order for the production of documents.

The senator's request related to correspondence between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The government claims public interest immunity over documents relating to the senator's request on the ground that disclosure of such documents would cause prejudice to the relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Specifically, disclosure would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with the state government on this and future infrastructure funding arrangements.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or lack thereof.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! I'll take that interjection from my good colleague from South Australia, Senator Ruston. The Senate performs an incredible accountability mechanism on executive government. It doesn't matter whether you're in the opposition, in the government itself or on the crossbench: the processes, procedures and conduct of this chamber are critical for Australians to have confidence in the operation of the executive part of government. On 25 October, our Senate voted and required the minister to table the documents regarding a project in the Hahndorf township. That was 3½ months ago. The minister responsible, Minister King, claimed public interest immunity on the basis that releasing the documents would damage relationships between the Commonwealth and the states.

Again, on 23 November, the Senate rejected that public interest immunity. It wasn't the opposition; it was the Senate chamber rejecting that. On 28 November, Minister King once again claimed public interest immunity on the same grounds. This response by the minister representing Minister King is an insult to the Senate.

I would also like to say thank you to those senators who joined with the opposition in the interests of accountability and transparency. We don't always agree on public policy, but we do agree on public accountability. I can understand a minister from the other place, such as Minister King, may not fully appreciate the important role of the Senate, but the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt, does, or should, understand the importance of the Senate. The response he has given on behalf of Catherine King here today is an insult to the Senate and to our form of government.

It's absolutely embarrassing that Minister Watt had to come in and claim public interest immunity because somehow the relationship between the Albanese Labor government and the Malinauskas Labor government would be damaged if Minister King had to comply with the order of the Senate about the delays to a critical road project in South Australia. What is there to hide? Everyone knows the Hahndorf project has been delayed and that the funding has been cut by $45.5 million over the forward estimates. That was all public in the October budget. It's been asked about in Senate estimates. It's a public fact. The release of the documents between the Commonwealth and state government relating to this project is not going to change those known facts, but it may provide further clarity to the community that's been impacted by the funding delays and answer questions around what challenges exist in delivering the project.

Minister Watt should be ashamed to stand in this place and admit that he can't convince Minister King to make these documents available to the Senate and to actually respect the will of the Senate—not the opposition, not the shadow minister, but the Senate in and of itself. He should exercise that seniority by expressing in no uncertain terms to the minister how important it is to our democracy more broadly that the minister for infrastructure comply with these orders of the Senate. The Senate has not made this decision once or twice; this is now three times. It is just blatant disregard.

This is how they're going about their promise of transparency and accountability. Every single place you turn, these guys do not want to be upfront and accountable to the Australian public. They attempted to cut a week of estimates in this chamber, and next week we will be able to exercise oversight on behalf of Australian taxpayers. They also withheld the release of budget tables for infrastructure projects. They refused to take ownership of funding cuts and delays on road projects, road safety funding and regional economic development programs, and they have failed to deliver answers to Senate estimates questions on notice in a timely manner.

In my own area of responsibility, there are still 34 questions tabled in the October-November estimates which have not been answered. That was 3½ months ago. I've been there. I know where the answers to the questions are because the Australian Public Service in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development will have drafted the answers in a timely manner and will have shot them up to the minister's office for them to okay them. Do you know where those 34 answers will be? Sitting on the minister's desk, with her refusing to release them publicly because she knows the truth will damage the reputation of the Albanese government.

The former coalition government committed to deliver the Hahndorf township improvement and access upgrade project in partnership with the South Australian government. It's a $250 million project of which the Commonwealth would contribute 80 per cent of the funding. That's $200 million. It is critical to safety and the efficient movement of product.

I visited the township of Hahndorf recently, with my assistant shadow minister, Tony Pasin, and saw for myself one of the most iconic villages in South Australia, from a tourism perspective, with B-doubles driving through the main street, turning dangerously in corners where families were crossing the street. International visitors and fabulous products from Riverland, from right around South Australia's regions and even from, in my home state, the Mallee come through there. This is a much-needed project because someone is going to get hurt if it is not built.

There's one long road through that busy Hahndorf village, with a single lane each way, and the car parks are also always utilised. This project is long overdue, and it was meant to be completed in 2025-26. So, fair enough, Labor governments have decided they'll kick this one into the long grass, but public interest immunity is an important aspect of our democracy. I want to quote to the chamber what Senator Gallagher said on 2 December 2021 about the process that governments should adopt in complying with Senate determinations around public interest immunity. Senator Gallagher said:

The Senate passes it, and then requires the documents to be provided or the minister to come and make a statement. The documents are not provided. And then the minister comes and makes a statement, which is basically to say what they said originally to the question on notice!

She then said:

The thing is: when you are in opposition and you are trying to do this, we will remind you of this …

'We'll remind you of the proper process that should be done by ministers in complying with orders of the Senate.' Well, you've had multiple opportunities on this particular topic, and you have failed at every juncture.

I will quote Senator Gallagher again, from 17 March 2021, that this is a 'lazy approach' by the Labor Party and a 'misuse of the public interest immunity claims process'. I agree, Senator Gallagher. I agree with Minister Watt's absolutely pathetic attempt here today to provide transparency around this project.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a joke to him.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an absolute joke. I would call on Senator Wong, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to have a bit of a hard chat with ministers in the other place about respecting the chamber here in the Senate and the determinations that it's made in the interests of public transparency and accountability.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I associate myself with the remarks that have already been put on the record by Senator McKenzie in relation to this disgraceful exhibition of a lack of accountability by those opposite.

The questions that this chamber should be asking the minister, in coming in here and claiming a public interest immunity on the basis—if you will believe it—that it may damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia, are: what are you hiding, Minister? What is your government hiding? What is the South Australian government hiding? Does the South Australian government know that you're actually impugning them, in your decision not to provide this information, suggesting that they too are somehow involved in a cover-up about a project that is being funded entirely by taxpayers' money from both my home state of South Australia and federal taxpayers? It's $250 million. It's a quarter of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money and apparently nobody has the right to see any information about the arrangements that are being put in place in relation to this particular project. One would have to assume that there must be something to be hidden here, because you would think that a government that was prepared to commit this kind of money to a project would be proud to tell the people of Australia, proud to tell the people of South Australia, what they were investing $250 million in.

The reality of the decision today by the minister to come in here and claim a public interest immunity on this project is that it insults not only this Senate but every single member of this Senate and the fact that this Senate has actually voted for this information to be released. It insults the parliamentary process that we all come in here for and hold so very dearly. Those opposite are all well and good to get up there and talk about parliamentary process when it suits them, but right now, when it doesn't suit them, all of a sudden parliamentary process apparently doesn't matter anymore. So you also insult parliamentary process. Do you know who the people are that you're insulting the most by doing this? You're insulting the people of Hahndorf. The people of Hahndorf have long waited to have a remedy applied to their town. It has caused them massive inconvenience and exposed them to potential accidents and fatalities.

As Senator McKenzie said, I come from South Australia, and I was only in Hahndorf last week with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. We sat in the main street of Hahndorf for a few hours, talking to the locals, and watched what went up and down that street. There were B-double logging trucks backward and forward while tourists were there trying to enjoy the amazing ambience of that community. I think the people who should be most insulted by the response from the minister today are actually the people of Hahndorf.

You have to then have a look underneath all this. Why would the government be seeking not to provide information about this project? We respect the public interest immunity system. There are times when there are reasons why information shouldn't be made public, and we absolutely respect that. But the minister has failed to even come into this place and give us any explanation as to what kind of information is contained in the correspondence that exists between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia that would actually be considered by their legal team to jeopardise the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia. If there is, I think the minister can come in here, present that and prove that in a reasonable explanation. I'm sure those on this side and others in the chamber would accept that. But to come in here and just say, 'We are not going to tell you anything about the expenditure of $250 million, $200 million of which was promised through the process of this particular parliament,' is really just saying there is no transparency. This is a government that apparently was elected on transparency and accountability, but there is no transparency and no accountability. They just don't care.

But the thing that is most concerning to me as a South Australian and as somebody who takes a great interest in the region of the Adelaide Hills, particularly in this instance, is the promises that were made no the people of Hahndorf about dealing with an issue that would improve accessibility and connectivity of the roads in that area—and we know that they are significantly lacking—and also to improve road safety for everybody who is impacted by the proposal.

The proposal was to take the traffic off a particular road, which is the main street through Hahndorf, Mount Barker Road, and redirect it in such a way that heavy vehicles would bypass the town. That is what the project restriction was, and everybody in the Adelaide Hills breathed a collective sigh of relief when the project was announced. However, on 27 Septembers last year, the South Australian transport minister, Tom Koutsantonis, completely blindsided the town of Hahndorf by coming out and saying that the intention was to scrap the much-awaited bypass and interchange at Hahndorf, leaving a massive hole in the benefits that were proposed to be delivered by this project.

Hahndorf is absolutely united, almost to a person, in the desire to have the heavy traffic removed from that road. Anybody who has done anything in infrastructure would understand that it is very, very rare that a town would seek to have traffic bypassed from its main street, because in many instances it will have a commercial impact on that town. The people of Hahndorf see that this will have a positive benefit to them. They believe that the heavy vehicles going up and down their main street is actually a deterrent to the main, core business of that town, which is tourism. However, in his decision to scrap the long-awaited bypass for Hahndorf, the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Koutsantonis, said that it was after public consultation with the people of Hahndorf that they had made the decision to scrap the bypass, because the people of Hahndorf didn't want it. I wonder whether Mr Koutsantonis bothered to speak to the Hahndorf Business and Tourism Association, who speak on behalf of the businesses and the tourism operators that exist in that main street. To quote them following the announcement by the minister, the proposal that's put forward by the government, who claim that it's somehow going to solve the problem, will not: 'The upgrade that has been proposed will not solve traffic issues on Hahndorf's main street.'

In the absence of understanding why the minister is choosing not to provide the information as to what is going on here, and given the fact that the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has made the decision that they are not going to continue with the project as originally announced and celebrated by the community, one could only imagine this is a protection racket that is being run here, because what is now being proposed is going to cost less than the $250 million that was previously allocated. That is a quote that's come from the minister in South Australia.

They are scrapping the most substantial component of the development, according to the people of Hahndorf. They're doing it on the premise that the people of Hahndorf don't want it, and yet the people of Hahndorf are on the public record as saying that they do want it. And then today we see the minister walk in here, hand on heart, and tell us that the reason they're not providing this information is that it would damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the South Australian government. I would contest that the reason this information is not being released today is that it will damage the relationship between the South Australian government and the people of Hahndorf, and it will damage the relationship between the Commonwealth government and the people of Hahndorf.

Those of us who are somewhat more cynical would suggest that the member for Mayo, Rebekah Sharkie, who has been a very strong advocate for her community of the Adelaide Hills, is no longer of any value to those opposite, 'So no longer are we going to provide any support to the community of the Adelaide Hills; what we're going to do instead is run a protection racket for the South Australian government.'

We have no transparency about where this money is going to go. Is it just disappearing back into general revenue? We have no transparency about what the South Australian government is required to do in the expenditure of taxpayer funds that have been allocated to it by this particular parliament. Instead, today we see the minister come in here and basically ignore us. It may only be a small thing, but, after the minister dropped his PII claim in this chamber 15 or 20 minutes ago, he didn't wait for Senator McKenzie—the first person to respond to his requirement to be in the chamber—to say one word before he upped sticks and walked out the door. He has not listened to one word we've had to say. This is so disrespectful.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Liddle, on the same matter?

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course it's on the public interest immunity claim on the basis of the relationship between the South Australian government and the Australian government. What about the relationship with the people of South Australia? What about the residents of Hahndorf? What about the motorists that use Hahndorf? What about the visitors to Hahndorf? Of course I want to speak on this matter.

Every day, the more than 3,000 residents of the Adelaide Hills town of Hahndorf are grappling with 11,000 vehicles that use their main street. There are almost 500 heavy vehicles among the congested traffic, frequently grinding the street to a crawl. We're talking logging trucks and livestock trucks. We're not talking about the little ones. We're talking about semitrailers in a congested main street full of pedestrians and tourists. I was there about two weeks ago with Senator Ruston, and I was stunned, watching the trees in the tree lined street being smashed by these trucks driving past, trying to manoeuvre their way amongst the traffic, the pedestrians and the public transport—the buses—parked on the sides of the road. I was sitting at a cafe on the side of the road and I was horrified, waiting to hear a bang. The poor residents, visitors and truck drivers must feel that every time they turn into that stretch of road.

Around 36,700 vehicles use the Mount Barker interchange on the South Eastern Freeway each day. That's not a small number. The statistics clearly point to ever-increasing traffic congestion and safety concerns, and show in fact that there have been about 45 accidents in the past five years.

What also should not be missed is how vital this town of Hahdorf is to the South Australian economy, with an estimated one million visitors each year. This economic tourism injection adds to the congestion and safety concerns, yet the solution has been scrapped. The $250 million Hahndorf Township Improvements and Access Upgrade Project announced by the Morrison government and the South Australian government in 2020—on an 80-20 funding basis—is now not going ahead. We have no real explanation for that.

In a hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 28 October last year I asked what was happening with the project. I was told, 'The project will be proceeding as always planned'—yes, 'as always planned'—and that the federal government was awaiting a final report from the South Australian government. Yet on 27 September last year the South Australia government announced that they had scrapped the project. Well, that does not add up; nor does the response we were given just a few minutes ago. Obviously, the federal department's answer was wrong. It had already been axed. Labor's left and right hands don't know what's going on.

The Hahndorf community action group, which is large and very active, is stunned. It is worth noting that Hahndorf is not within a federal or state Labor electorate. Could it be that Labor, both federal and state, don't have the needs of Adelaide Hills residents as a priority? There doesn't seem to be any transparent or valid reason for the project to be axed, certainly not a transparent or valid reason that any of those residents, drivers, locals or tourists would accept as reasonable. A petition to reinstate the bypass project has more than 1,700 signatures, and it's growing.

We know this is bad news for Hahndorf and for all Adelaide Hills residents, as the interchange upgrade would have reduced congestion, improved safety for road users and improved connectivity between the freeway and Mount Barker and other Adelaide Hills towns. This would have helped thousands of motorists who travel to and from the CBD every day. The congestion is still there and the road accidents will continue.

Currently, even the website of the SA Department for Infrastructure and Transport clearly admits the problem. It says that without new infrastructure—it's still up there on its website—and upgrades in and around Hahndorf it's likely traffic and freight will continue to increase and traffic collisions are likely to increase. It says:

When you go up to the end of Hahndorf, even on a weekday, it sometimes takes maybe 15 or 20 minutes. You're down to about five to 10 kilometres an hour getting through that stretch.

Do you know what? The other day I sat in my car on South Road, which is a major arterial road in South Australia. The project to help ease the congestion there, in the seat of Boothby, has been delayed again. The price of that build has gone up. It's a similar story. We don't care that people sit in traffic ambling along at 10 kays an hour for kilometres. Who cares about people getting to work? Who cares about people who are running a business getting from one point to another within a reasonable time frame? That's money lost to them. That's what happens when you don't focus on infrastructure improvements.

Hahndorf residents will now get an upgrade of the main street. The congestion will remain, the risks will remain, and I say that's simply not good enough, and nor was the explanation for not providing the answers.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)