Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Scarr:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Labor's broken promises & woeful transparency as evidenced in Senate budget estimates hearings.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

I rise to speak in relation to this matter of public importance, and it is a matter of great public importance—namely, Labor's broken promises and woeful transparency as evidenced in the Senate budget estimates hearings. I've got pages I could speak to. I have absolute pages of this stuff. I have over 21 pages of this.

I must say, Senator Brown, I was searching for some references to you on the pages, and I haven't been able to find any. Or perhaps I'm just too polite and I've cast my eyes over them and moved to the next example.

But let's go to the first example I've got here in relation to what happened at estimates. For those in the gallery, we should explain that estimates are an absolutely fundamental process. They are fundamental to the role of this Senate chamber in terms of being a check and balance on executive power. It gives us—all senators, including the crossbench—the right to ask questions in relation to any matter which involves government expenditure, and that's just about anything, so it is a very, very important aspect of this Senate chamber discharging its responsibilities as a chamber of review.

The first point is the Defence budget cuts. Under questioning from Senator Birmingham, it was discovered in estimates that Labor has actually cut $1.5 billion from the Defence budget. One of the things that those who have not seen estimates before should delight in on their first interaction with the estimates process is that those in the government will try and come up with every single synonym for the word 'cut'. There might be 'reprofiling'. There might be 'reallocation'. There are all these words instead of 'cut', but, if there is less expenditure on a program tomorrow than there was today, that's a cut. That's what's happening in Defence. They cut $1.5 billion from the Defence budget. Not only that but the questioning by my good friend Senator Birmingham revealed they're still looking for another $1.8 billion of cuts. The poor Department of Defence. Not only has it had $1.5 billion cut from its budget but it actually has to go out and find an additional $1.8 billion in savings. That's in a high inflationary environment. That's in an environment where there are supply chain constraints and there is geopolitical uncertainty. It's the worst possible environment in which to be expecting our Department of Defence to actually have to make these sorts of cuts.

This is my second example. I actually sit on the legal and constitutional affairs committee. This is a classic estimates scenario. The government announces something, and then they work out, 'Gee, we were meant to go through a process before we announced it.' So they go through the process after they've announced what they were actually intending to do. This is in the context of the release of the Solicitor-General's advice. What happened in this context is the Solicitor-General gave some advice. The Attorney-General's Department's guidelines for briefing the Solicitor-General note:

Opinions of a Solicitor-General are confidential … The Office of Legal Services Coordination and the Solicitor-General's chambers must be consulted before any opinion of the Solicitor-General, or a former Solicitor-General, is provided to a person or body outside the Australian Government …

They must be consulted first. What happened? The Prime Minister made an announcement which was reported in the media at 2.31 pm on 22 August that the advice was going to be released. When did the consultation occur? The first time the Office of Legal Services Coordination heard about it was at 3.51 pm. So announcement, 2.31 pm; but consultation in accordance with the good governance procedure, 3.51 pm.

Third example—I've got pages of this stuff. It's like an episode of Utopia. I've got pages of it. The third example—I'll have to go through this one quickly and leave my colleagues to pick up the other examples. On Tuesday morning in the economics committee, Treasury secretary, Dr Steven Kennedy, confirmed under questioning from my good friend Senator Jane Hume that despite regularly briefing former prime ministers one-on-one about emerging economic issues, Prime Minister Albanese has not requested any briefing with the Treasury secretary on inflation. Not one briefing on inflation. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm actually rapt to speak to this matter of public importance, and I thank my good friend Senator Scarr, who I have the highest respect and regard for as one of the really intelligent, better operators on that side of the chamber, for it.

Let's take a walk through Senate estimates. For my sins in a previous life, I think I've just done my 53rd estimate round. I don't know what I did wrong to get to 53, but anyway! Senate estimates, as Senator Scarr said, are very important. They're an opportunity for the crossbench and the opposition to go through the budget and ask questions about it, and we want them to do that. I know when I've been in opposition that's what we've wanted to do.

I'm on the rural and regional affairs and transport committee. We have two portfolios. Regional development, transport and infrastructure is one; the other is two days of agriculture. These are two very important portfolios for this nation. I want to hear senators ask questions, so prior to Senate estimates—just so the gallery and anyone listening know—I'm glad we're broadcasting—the Senate legislation committees meet a month or six weeks before estimates and we ask senators: 'Which agencies and which parts of the department do you want? Who do you want to hear from?' We don't hold back. We say, 'Just tell us who we'll have.'

We try to manage the time we have, so we set an agenda. It's very fluid because years ago brainiacs in this joint thought they were so intelligent they brought forward a motion to allow senators to talk all day, question all day, ask the same tedious, repetitive questions all day with no regard to time limits. This infuriates me. We see it. This is what happens. We get a list of witnesses, and they come. And I am sick to death—I sit there, trying to manage the program as the chair. When I say to my colleagues—my committee used to be one of the most collegiate committees in this building. Unfortunately, in this parliament it's one of the worst. That's not a scourge on members of the opposition; it's just the odd senator who comes in and disrupts.

We have people who travel from interstate because the Senate has informed them that they will be appearing at whatever time it may be on this day, give or take half an hour, hopefully, or whatever it may be. This time I got to the stage where I'd keep walking up to my colleagues and saying: 'We've got people from interstate. You've got them sitting here. Are we going to get to them?' It's not my business, because unfortunately the brainiacs thought it was a great idea to let senators dribble crap—sorry! I withdraw that! Senators dribble on all day about things that have nothing to do with the budget. I ask, 'Can we at least tell those people from interstate we are sorry we have wasted your money; we've got you to book airfares and get cars to get here and get accommodation or whatever it may be.' I don't mind if we don't get to them, so long as I can say to them and say, 'Look, I really do apologise, but the opposition still wants more time to ask the same damned questions that they've been asking for the last three hours.'

But this time around there wasn't even the decency to give me the opportunity to say to the witnesses, 'We're not going to get to you.' There was one agency in particular. I said: 'These people were supposed to be on at 12 o'clock or 12.30. It's now 4.30. Are we going to get to them?' These three gentlemen from this RDC had to catch an airplane back to Narrabri, I think it was. They had flown from Narrabri to Sydney, down to Canberra the night before so that they didn't get caught in fog or anything. They wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to address all the senators' concerns about taxpayers' dollars being spent. No! You know what I got? I got one of the opposition senators, whose not even a full-time member of our committee, who sat there and said, 'Well, we're here to 11 o'clock.' So what? How rude was that? All they wanted to do was get a taxi out and get to the airport, so they could get the flight back to Sydney to catch their late night flight back to Narrabri. And the rudeness from that senator, who I've unfortunately had in my committee for the last two or three rounds of Senate estimates, couldn't even be decent enough to deal with people.

So I'm really glad that my dear friend Senator Scarr gave me the opportunity to raise this, because it really irks me. And some on that side will say, 'You did it to us.' Well, you know what? Not me. I always sat there, as the deputy chair in opposition, and said, 'We won't get to these people. I'll let you know so we can let them go.' At least I had the decency to do that. (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that's only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they're in government it's an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they've show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings.

I've got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I've got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it's a little rich, don't you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, 'Transparency is a word that's only shouted from the opposition benches.' Once in government it's all quiet.

Let's have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it's done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that's what matters to Labor.

What was Labor's response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers.

Let's look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor's answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced.

What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document.

Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That's not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He's attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches.

Now, we've had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We're chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let's not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister's desk waiting for a final sign-off. That's why many of the questions on notice don't arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency's answer is their evidence; it's not for the minister to change. None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're talking about broken promises. I want to first touch on the whole aged-care issue, which I think is worth noting. We were promised that there would be nurses 24/7 in aged-care homes by, I think, June 30 this year. That hasn't happened. The minister, Anika Wells, isn't prepared to actually state or even give a figure on the number of aged-care centres that do have full-time nurses. I'm personally not in favour of the policy; my view is that if someone is sick they should go to hospital. I think it makes it very confusing when you've got aged-cares centres acting as nursing homes as well. I think there needs to be a clear delineation, and I accept it's not an easy thing to solve. But that was a promise that was made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor government, and it is a promise I don't think they are serious about keeping. The least that they could do—as I spoke about this morning—is give us a figure on how nurses are in aged-care centres on a full-time, 24-hours-a-day basis, so that we can gauge the performance of the Labor Albanese government. I think it is very disappointing that the aged-care minister, Anika Wells, won't answer that question. That's one thing we could talk about in terms of broken promises and accountability.

The other thing that I found very annoying was the release of the National Cabinet minutes. The current Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, said that he would release the minutes of National Cabinet. He used that to wedge the Morrison government. I myself was never a fan of National Cabinet, and I also thought the minutes should be released when we were in government. Yet again, this is a case of saying one thing in opposition and another thing in government. I think this is another example of where the Albanese government—it's not a hard thing to do. I'm sure these meetings aren't that detailed or it's that difficult to have a secretary in there to take the minutes, yet they refuse to release the minutes. Why is this so hard? Why can't we have greater transparency about what goes on between the federal and state governments? The federal government pays billions of dollars a year in transfer payments to state governments, and I think we have a right to know how this money is distributed, the reasons behind that and the wrangling.

We can move to the cost-of-living issues. Of course, we never saw power prices decreased by $275. As a matter of fact, they are up by about $700, as at the last budget. Just last week, we saw the energy retailers saying that they're going to put up energy prices again, coming into the new financial year, by between 28 to 30 per cent. That is enormous. It was another reckless statement, given that there is a massive energy transfer from reliable and cheaper baseload energy to renewables.

Here is another broken promise or lack of transparency. In an earlier set of estimates, I asked the acting environment minister, Senator McAllister, just how many kilometres of transmission lines we need to reach 82 per cent of renewables by 2030. The department couldn't even answer that question. They have no idea how many kilometres of transmission lines are needed to reach 82 per cent of the grid. I think it's absolutely absurd that you're going to legislate to get to a 43 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2030. To reach that you've got to reduce baseload energy or get renewable energy up to 82 per cent of the grid, and you can't actually say how many kilometres of transmission lines you need to do it. At least get some idea and have a plan. I can't even get a plan out of the Albanese government.

I'll say one last thing. This isn't necessarily a broken promise or an issue of transparency, but I will have a crack at the Prime Minister because he had a crack at me for moving a motion to get the RRAT committee to have a look into the regional banking inquiry. This bloke doesn't even know me. He doesn't know anything about my past or my passion for regional services, and he's dared me into saying that I won't do anything for regional banks. Well, let me tell you right here, right now, that I'm going to be pushing for an old-fashioned public bank. Paul Keating sold the CBA. I want a new public bank. I want a state government insurance office or a federal government insurance office, and I want the Commonwealth government to offer interest-free bonds in lieu of superannuation. I'll hold him to it.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would genuinely like to thank Senator Scarr for the opportunity to talk about transparency. 'Transparency' is a word that no-one would use to describe those opposite, the previous government. It is absolutely laughable that the opposition even thinks about bringing a motion into this chamber with the word 'transparency' printed in it. Whether it was sports rorts, car park rorts, overpriced land rorts or overpriced water buybacks, or whether they were hiding behind whiteboards or manufacturing colour coded spreadsheets, those opposite have absolutely zero authority to come into this chamber with a motion about transparency. These are the people who had a prime minister who, we know—now we know!—secretly appointed himself Minister for Health; Minister for Finance; Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; and Minister for Home Affairs. And, of course, he appointed himself Treasurer as well, just to round it off! How is that for transparency? How's that on the transparency index of those opposite?

We are still uncovering the dodgy dealings, the rorts and the cover-ups of the Liberals' time in government. Only this month did the National Audit Office find that the Morrison government deliberately breached federal grant rules in administering the $2 billion Community Health and Hospitals Program. The audit found that the funds were used in a way that failed ethical standards and also exceeded legal authority, using taxpayer dollars as if they were Liberal Party dollars, yet again.

Our government is still cleaning up the mess that has been left by those opposite. After more than a year in government, we are in fact still answering questions that were placed on notice and are outstanding from the previous government. That is their record on accountability to this chamber. For our part, a total of 6,733 questions were asked on notice to this government, the current government, following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in February, and we have already answered all but 11 of those. That is 6,722 questions answered. For those playing along at home, that's 99.8 per cent of questions answered. I'm pretty happy to stake my reputation and say that this is a much better compliance rate than that ever achieved by the Morrison government.

We are delivering a higher standard of integrity, a higher standard of transparency and a higher standard of accountability in government. We are upholding a standard that the opposition never even got close to, never even got into the room with and never even imagined getting close to. We are the government who have legislated a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will commence operation in July this year. The former government's proposed integrity commission—everyone will remember—was so weak it wouldn't have been able to commence its own independent inquiries, and it was never even introduced into the parliament. The model was described by legal experts as a body not designed to stamp out corruption but to help cover it up—to help cover it up!

Now, for the first time in a decade, in Transparency International's corruption perceptions index Australia's ranking has risen to 13th, and I reckon we can do better than that. Under the Liberals, Australia's rank fell 11 places to 18th—the worst result of any OECD country and the worst result in our nation's history. Transparency International directly attributes Australia's dramatically improved ranking to our government's landmark National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are being accountable at Senate estimates as well. During the budget estimates referred to in Senator Scarr's MPI, question after question was asked and answered—questions about our budget, a budget that is delivering for the Australian people. It was scrutinised. There were over 100 hours of questions across eight different committees. We are proud of our record of transparency and we stand by it. (Time expired)

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to transparency and the lack of transparency of this government. I think it's comical that this government thinks that it's being transparent. I think it's acting like most governments act. Former Senator Patrick said that all governments engage in a level of secrecy, perhaps too much secrecy. What we see on a daily basis is the frustration of freedom-of-information requests, the frustration of orders for the production of documents and the frustration of proper answers to questions on notice. That is the basic situation. It is very hard to get information out of this government.

Of course the government has engaged in spending that has required it to raise new taxes. The consequence of the new taxes is that there is a process that departments have to go through. Oppositions conduct the business of trying to get to the bottom of how the new taxes have been constructed and consulted on. I've often called this government the government for vested interests, because its main focus is on the vested interests of its fellow travellers—the class-action law firms, the big super funds and the unions. You see ministers working through the laundry list of the things that are important to the unions and the super funds. We saw it yesterday with Minister Jones announcing a policy on financial advice. Minister Jones has prioritised the interests of super funds over the interests of people.

The government works through the consultation processes, usually in secret, with its favourite vested interests, which are usually the unions. It might be on pattern bargaining or on stripping transparency from super funds. They work through these processes in the dark. Our job is to try to work out how they drafted the bill, who was in the room, who provided advice and whose business model it suits. When you are a government for vested interests everything is about grifting for your favourite vested interest you work for.

In the case of the super issues, we all know that Minister Jones's first act as the minister was to strip transparency from the super funds so that people couldn't see how much of their money was being sent off to the unions. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom, decided to roll back that regulation, but more broadly the government has had to fill its fiscal holes with new taxes. One of its new taxes is the franking policy. Of course the Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no changes to franking and then in their very first budget in October announced that there would be two changes to franking—one on off-market buybacks and another one in relation to capital raising.

The capital raising one is very interesting. We asked a number of questions on notice and we pursued the Treasury department to work out how this policy had been costed and modelled. After an extensive process of obfuscation we found out that the modelling was in 2016 when there was some activity that the tax office was concerned about in relation to capital raising and the issuance of franked dividends. Today, according to the Treasury department, in 2023, there are no nefarious activities happening in relation to capital raisings and the payment of franked dividends. But the modelling is from 2016, and it is alleged to have raised $10 million. So how could the modelling today be the same? Obviously, the modelling can't be right, but we only know this because we had to go through an extensive process of questions on notice, FOIs and orders for the production of documents, and I acknowledge the Greens' role in ensuring the orders for production of documents were approved and information was provided. But it is hard to get information about how policies have been developed, who has been involved in developing them—which vested interest—and how it has been modelled. These are central questions that face all oppositions, and I would say that, in this first year of opposition, it has been a very difficult effort, but we remain committed to holding this government to account. And I believe it is now time to report that my time has expired, and I shall sit down.