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

I refer to the notice of motion from Senator McKenzie, agreed by the Senate on 26 October 2022, for the order for the production of documents, order 55. The senator's request relates 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.

I might just say in anticipation of Senator McKenzie's response, given her responses over the last couple of days to similar matters, that the approach the government is taking on this matter is no different to the approach taken by the former government when these sorts of circumstances arose. I think it is highly ironic that Senator McKenzie, of all people, should be talking about transparency of funding.

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.

I rise, once again, to take note of the minister's pathetic response to a request from the Senate—not from the opposition, not from me as a shadow minister, but from the Senate, this chamber. Senators of a variety of political persuasions joined together to say they wanted to understand the decisions of the federal budget, the arrangements that the Commonwealth has with various state and territory governments around infrastructure funding and the cuts and delays that have typified the infrastructure funding in the latest budget. All the Senate was asking was for the government to give us the details. That's what this chamber is all about. It is actually about holding the executive government to account. That is all we were seeking to do.

Once again, the Labor Party has taken the lazy approach to accountability and transparency and has popped in and said, 'Yes, we know the Senate has ordered us to do this, but it would damage and prejudice relations with state and territory governments.' What I find incredible is that one of the promises that the now government made prior to the election was that the relationships with states and territories would be better with them. Let's face it: they're all Labor governments. They're all in the same tent. The argument they put was they would be able to get along better with state and territory governments. Now they stand here saying that they can't even release the details of correspondence about billions of dollars of Commonwealth taxpayer funds for infrastructure projects with the states and territories because it would prejudice those relationships. If Albanese and Palaszczuk's relationship is going to be prejudiced by fessing up to the cuts, delays and agreements they've made on projects in Queensland then we're all in trouble.

Is the relationship of Premier McGowan, the Labor Premier in WA, with Labor Prime Minister Albanese going to be prejudiced because they are going to suddenly admit to things that are on the public record in terms of cuts and delays in West Australian infrastructure funding? Premier Malinauskas is another Labor premier. I very much doubt being open and releasing the correspondence between the South Australian Labor government and the federal Labor government around the cuts and delays to South Australian infrastructure programs that are all on the public record thanks to the budget will prejudice that relationship. If so, I think we've got a few problems. Similarly, Daniel Andrews is the newly elected Labor premier in my home state of Victoria. Would the relationship with the Labor Albanese government be prejudiced if they fessed up and said, 'We did agree to give you $2.2 billion with no oversight and no Infrastructure Australia examination of the veracity of the suburban rail loop, and we will cut those projects and programs that support rural and regional communities and the communities of Lilydale, Narre Warren and Berwick'? I was on the ground with Aaron Violi and Jason Woods only the other week, looking at the cuts that have been agreed between the Victorian state Labor government and the Commonwealth Labor government to critical projects on the ground in suburbs and regions in my home state.

It is a complete disrespect of the Senate and of accountability and transparency that this government said they would bring. It's absolutely appalling, but it's not surprising. On 26 October last year, the Senate required that the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government table the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the minister to any premier, chief minister, Treasurer or minister of a state regarding requests for, or approval of, Australian government funding for projects or programs in their October budget.

The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that further disclosure of the information would harm the ongoing relationship between the Commonwealth and the state government. And then, on 23 November, the Senate said: 'You know what, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister? That's not good enough. We do not accept that public interest immunity claim.' Then Catherine King, the infrastructure minister, on 28 November last year, maintained the same public interest immunity that had been rejected by the Senate.

The thing is, when you make these public interest immunity claims around prejudicing the relationship between the Commonwealth and a state or territory, you've actually got to check with the states and territories if they have a problem with it. You can't speak for states and territories and assume that they agree with you. You will find that out soon enough, as government. You cannot assume that you have their approval or their disapproval. I would be asking the Prime Minister, the minister responsible, to come back to the Senate and put before us the fact that they have actually written to these chief ministers to ask if they mind.

We're talking about projects in the budget that are public. What have you got to hide? The amount of money, the projects that are being approved, the ones that have been cut and the ones have been delayed—that's all public. It had to have been agreed with state and territory first ministers because they're the ones that build the projects. They're the ones who are actually in charge of how those billions of dollars are being spent in their jurisdictions. So it begs the question: What have you got to hide, Labor?

We've just sat through the formal motion section of our agenda and seen the Greens, the crossbench, the National Party and the Liberal Party all sit and vote for openness and transparency about the tabling of documents relating to key government decisions. And Minister Watt comes in here and critiques the opposition for this, for our voting record. Well, I tell you what, it wasn't much different to our voting record when we were in government. We backed the OPD claims when we were in government, against our own government ministers. I'd like to see the same level of commitment to integrity, transparency, accountability and the role of the Senate from this executive. But it's all a bit Labor, isn't it—the culture, the little hush-hush, backroom deals: nothing to see here.

When he made his public interest immunity claim, the minister also referred to when they were in government and to tactics used by previous governments. You know what the Labor Party said about any set tactics? They told us all how it'd be so much different under them and that governments should be providing the documents, that ministers can actually take it on notice and that the role of the Senate should be respected. Senator Gallagher, on 26 February 2020, said:

This chamber has significant powers available to it to hold government to account, but, in order to do that, all non-government senators have to stand together and work together.

It happened today, and I look forward to those documents arriving from the relevant minister in response to Senator Hanson-Young's OPD request. Senator Gallagher then said:

This disregard for the Senate that is being perpetrated, I think quite knowingly, by this government must be responded to.

You have to be gobsmacked at the level of hypocrisy. Not only is this government backflipping on 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets for the referendum and backflipping on diesel fuel rebates they are completely turning themselves 180 degrees on what they said they would do when they were in opposition, and it is very, very concerning.

The problem for the minister and the executive in the government is that their own secretary, in Senate estimates, talked about the letters between state first ministers and the Commonwealth, around the funding cuts and delays and agreements on infrastructure projects, and he admitted that he wanted to put them up on the department website once he received them. If the secretary doesn't think there's anything to hide, I don't know why the minister does. (Time expired)

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

cGRATH () (): I don't think I've ever seen anyone in this chamber move as fast as Senator Watt did, just before. He scuttled out of this chamber like a rat up a drainpipe. I think he was still pausing his contributions, and he was out the door.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, we have a point of order. Minister?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure it's against the standing orders—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to talk about when a senator enters or leaves the chamber.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if that's your point of order, I believe that that has been routinely raised on both sides of the chamber. If that's your point of order, I don't find that there is a point of order.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask him to withdraw his description of the minister, without—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the chamber, I withdraw.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McGrath. Senator McKenzie?

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

On the point of order: the minister, when he was in here, made a personal reflection of me. It is a personal reflection that previous presidents have ruled on. It's passing strange that the minister feels that he needs to resort to personal attacks than deal with the matter before the Senate, which is the Labor Party's refusal to be open and transparent.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, if this is a point of order, the minister raised the point of order. Senator McGrath has withdrawn. I would call on Senator McGrath.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is fascinating is that the minister spent 55 seconds—not even a minute—avoiding scrutiny. I would not want to breach standing orders by pointing out the correlation between the minister's departure from this particular chamber and its resemblance to a rodent escalating up a drainpipe, because that would be against standing orders, and I have not done that.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, you are testing my patience.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not want to test your patience.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've already withdrawn that comment once and an oblique—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I made the point that I was not alluding to that. What is interesting is that we have a Labor Party who, before the election, did this great 'conga line dance', to quote one of their former leaders, around Australia, talking about the importance of transparency and accountability. But since the election—similar to their promise about reducing power bills by $275, by the way—they have not mentioned transparency or accountability. Indeed, it's like this negative black hole, where certain words go into the Labor Party lexicon and then disappear. It's like a negative dictionary—the words aren't in the dictionary; there's just a white space there.

We have a Labor Party in power who, before the election, said, 'Yes, we want increased transparency and accountability.' When they get into power, they sniff those leather chairs of power and they allude to the pheromones that are floating around the place and they decide, 'This is brilliant. We can avoid any scrutiny. We've got billions of dollars of taxpayers' money—not tens of thousands or tens of millions or hundreds of millions; we've got billions and billions of dollars. We're going to use it as our slush fund and we're going to go around Australia and—guess what?—we're not going to be accountable for it.'

When this chamber, this house of review, tries to—not tries to but does—pass resolutions and says to the executive of this country, 'We want some accountability, we want to know how and where and why this money's being spent, and we want these documents,' what does the Labor Party—the giant 'light on the hill' that talks about accountability—do? It's not a light on a hill. It's a bonfire of accountability. It's a bonfire of transparency. This so-called accountable government is anything but.

What we've seen this week is the Senate at its best. We've had everybody from the Greens to the coalition to other crossbench members come together to say to the executive: 'We want to know something that's going on here. We're elected. We're elected by the people of Australia. So, you people, you ministers, deliver on your promises. Show some accountability.' This is what this chamber has done not just this week but in previous weeks.

What we've seen since the election is the Labor Party government become a closed shop on accountability and transparency. That is shameful, it is hypocritical and it is disappointing. It is so disappointing that the Labor Party would not only treat this chamber with such disrespect but also treat the taxpayers of Australia with such disrespect. What we are talking about here is the expenditure of public funds, and when we talk about public funds, we're talking about money that comes from taxpayers. I know there are some in this chamber, particularly those on the left side of the economic pendulum, who believe there are things called magic money trees, that money comes out of a cash machine which little pixies fill up each day, but it comes from taxpayers. It comes from people who work, who start and run businesses, who employ people. It comes from people who want to go and work for people who run businesses. It comes from the workers of Australia. But, no, we don't want any accountability there! Nah. Because this is now one giant slush being run by the Labor Party.

It is so embarrassing when the ministers come in here—poor Minister Watt who spent so much time before the election attacking the previous government—and spend less than a minute, such is the disrespect that the Labor Party holds for this chamber and for the resolutions passed by this chamber. We've got 'minute man minister': 55 seconds. How shameful is that? It's so shameful, disrespecting the taxpayers of Australia, disrespecting the resolutions of this chamber, disrespecting the role of this chamber, disrespecting what we're here for. We're all here for what is good for Australia, what is good to make Australia a better place, and part of making Australia a better place is to ensure that public funds are appropriately spent and to ensure that the executive is held to account.

What we've seen since the election is this chamber pass what are called, for those who might be listening at home, orders for the production of documents, OPDs. And what we've seen is order after order get passed by this chamber, but, sadly, day after day, hour after hour, the Labor government fails to comply with those orders, fails to supply those documents, fails to uphold standards of accountability and transparency. That is tragic.

The arrogance of this government, who comes into this chamber and treats it with such disrespect, is a damning indictment of a government that, at its first-year mark, at the 365-day mark, will spend 55 seconds saying to this chamber: 'You are not important to us. The resolutions of this chamber are not important to us.' That is wrong. That is wrong because it sets the standards for what this government will fail to achieve over the coming years.

We'll see what happens in estimates next week. We're sure that in estimates next week we'll have the great and the good representing the Labor Party, sitting at the ministerial table—great ministers like Assistant Minister Brown over there, who I hope will go beyond the very low standards set by some of her colleagues and answer questions and provide documents. This is above party politics. This is above the yah-boo politics that you do sometimes see in this chamber, which is part of a vibrant democracy. This, at it's very, very core, is about this chamber living up to its promise as a chamber of review—a chamber that can hold the executive to account—because that is what this chamber does, and, when it does it, that is when this chamber is at its best.

Sadly, the other side of that coin is that we've got a government at its worst, a government that will not provide the documents that this chamber has ordered. It's not just a polite request; it actually is an order of the chamber, by the way. The Prime Minister talks about good manners. Well, Prime Minister, good manners would start with you instructing your ministers to comply with orders of this chamber. The Prime Minister says, 'We want a nicer, kinder type of politics.' Well, comply with the orders of this chamber.

Instead, the Labor Party ministers snub their noses at this chamber. They snub their noses at the people of Australia; they snub their noses at the taxpayers of Australia. They snub their noses at what this chamber does. It is a shameful indictment of the modern Labor Party and of how they treat the government of Australia as nothing but a plaything for them and their union mates and they ensure that what they get up to is done in the deep, dark, secret corners. No! Be accountable, be transparent and be the promise that you said you would be. Do what you said you would do. But, no, you're not. You're just not very good. Actually, you're beyond 'not very good'; you're rubbish! Be better! (Time expired)

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a privilege and a deep honour to follow my good friend Senator McGrath, from the wonderful state of Queensland. I'd like to associate myself with all of the remarks that Senator McGrath made during his contribution in this debate, including his reference to various types of marsupials—or animals—and plumbing.

What people, and members of the gallery, need to understand in relation to this debate is that what we're talking about here is that a majority in this chamber—and the coalition can't achieve a majority in this chamber in its own right, but the coalition, in addition to crossbench senators, Independents and the Greens—passed a resolution requiring the government to produce documents. So a majority of this chamber, across all of the parties and Independents who aren't in government, supported a motion that the government produce documents to this chamber.

Everyone sitting in this chamber has an obligation to discharge our duties to each of our states as a house of review, and we wanted to see the correspondence in relation to major infrastructure projects in the budget—the correspondence between the federal government and each of the states. That's the background to this debate, and, in order to discharge our duty as a house of review—a check on the power of the executive—we need access to those documents. And a majority of senators determined that.

A 55-second response is all we got in terms of a response to the majority of the senators in this chamber requesting those documents. The 55-second response was: 'No, because it might damage relationships between the federal government and the state government.' Well, let's look at that. If you're going to use that as a reason, I say that, at the very least, you've got to pick up this thing called a phone, ring the state governments and ask them if they have an objection. You do your best to fulfil the request of the Senate, so the first thing you do is pick up one of these things called a phone and actually ask, 'Do you have any objection if we provide these documents?' Then, if the relevant state government objects, come back to this chamber and tell us. Tell us whether or not each of the state governments rejected that request. Then each of those state governments has to be responsible to their constituents and explain why they rejected that request. That's how the system should work. But there's no transparency in relation to either (a) the documents, because the government refuse to provide them, or (b) the process. What was the process? Maybe you didn't ask the question because you weren't sure what the answer would be. Maybe the state governments would have said yes, and then you wouldn't be able to raise the argument that it might damage the relationship between the federal government and the state government. Don't ask a question if you don't know what the answer's going to be!

We had exactly the same issue arise earlier this week with respect to the proposed redevelopment of the Gabba cricket ground in my home state of Queensland and the potential impact on East Brisbane State School, a state school that has been in existence since 1899. My state government in Queensland, the Palaszczuk Labor government, is talking about a redevelopment of the Gabba. It was a $1 billion redevelopment. It has become a $2.5 billion redevelopment which would provide a staggering 8,000 extra seats—8,000 extra seats for $2.5 billion. I have spoken to people who have gone to that school, and I took my good friend the opposition spokesperson Senator Ruston on a tour of that school, a beautiful school, and the school community want to know the future of their school. What's going to happen to their school? They've got a right to the answers to those questions. They have a right to know. Yet all we get is a blanket refusal—not even bothering to pick up the phone and ask the state government whether or not they would object. At least, if you did that, then the people of Queensland could rightly go to the Queensland state government and say, 'Why are you objecting to that? We have a right to know.'

In conclusion, I'd also like to say that we always know when we've hit the mark with Minister Watt when he goes from dealing with the substance of the point to making personal reflections on those on this side of the chamber. I just want to say about my friend and colleague Senator McKenzie that I don't think anyone could have discharged their obligations to this place with as much decency and honour as Senator McKenzie did in the course of the last parliament. I think she met every single standard that should be expected of a minister in the Westminster system, and she should be applauded for that. With that, I thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, for the opportunity to make those remarks.

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

As a bit of a history lesson about how this chamber operates and how this parliament operates, public interest immunity is defined on our own parliamentary website this way:

Under the doctrine of 'public interest immunity', historically described as 'Crown privilege', the Executive Government may seek to claim immunity from requests or orders, by a court or by Parliament, for the production of documents on the grounds that public disclosure of the documents in question would be prejudicial to the public interest.

Now, that all seems pretty sensible to me. But the big problem that we've got is that we seem to have, at that point, deviated significantly from the process. The claim made by the minister when he came in here briefly before was that it would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Following on from Senator Scarr's contribution, I'll read to you what that actually entails: 'The information concerned belongs to the states as well as the Commonwealth and therefore should not be disclosed without seeking the approval of the states.' The obvious response to this is that the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought before the government refuses to provide the information and must be given the opportunity to give reasons why such an objection should be sustained.'

So what we've got here right now is a government who has gone, 'We have public interest immunity ability; we're going to apply it. We'll just forget about all the process that sits in between it.' As rightly pointed out by Senator Scarr, a conversation with the South Australian government yesterday and with the Queensland government yesterday, and with every government in Australia today on the grounds of this particular claim would actually have enabled this government to follow an appropriate process. You do not care about process—you do not care about it—and, quite clearly, even a convention as important as public interest immunity in this place is being completely disregarded. It's also interesting to note that you cannot claim public interest immunity—this is via a doctrine from the former Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, one of your guys, who said—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ruston, the use of the term 'you' is becoming very frequent.

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

I apologise.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you're aware of the order.

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

I apologise very sincerely. I will be more respectful.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston.

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

The advice was actually received from Harry Evans. It says that advice to the government is not exempt through public interest immunity. But it also says that working documents are not exempt from public interest—sorry, are exempt from public interest immunity. Therefore, what we seek is for those opposite and the minister to come back into this room and tell us what conversations you've had with the states and territories, what objections have been put forward by them and why these documents can't be released. Also come back into this place and provide us with any information that is outside the scope of that claim, as per the guidelines designed by the previous clerk of this place.

It's embarrassing. There are no reasons why you can't release much of this information. Firstly, the tables outlining the list of funded projects were disclosed to the Senate in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 2 December by the minister. Speaking for the minister, the department secretary, Mr Betts, advised that the minister conceded that the states and territories had adequate time to consider the budget funding tables. These tables are now also listed on the Federal Financial Relations website, for anyone to peruse. How in the world could the government justify a public interest immunity to schedules contained in letters where the schedules have already been disclosed?

This leaves the tabling of the cover letters themselves, between the Prime Minister and the ministers in the states and territories. If what we have been told is true, these letters should not be controversial and there should be no reason to withhold them from the Senate. There should be no reason for the states to be sensitive about the contents of those letters. We are talking about letters that have been discussed and disclosed by Mr Betts, the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, in Senate estimates. You guys are running a protection racket.

Question agreed to.