Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by acknowledging the longstanding interest that Senator Lambie has in the substantive policy question that this order for the production of documents relates to. I also want to acknowledge the senator's longstanding advocacy on questions of transparency. We take our disclosure and transparency obligations seriously, and we comply with our obligations. In this case, I'm advised that the government is not in a position to provide the documents that have been requested. The Minister for Communications has outlined in correspondence to this chamber that the government claims public interest immunity over the requested documents. If disclosed, it would both disclose and pre-empt the deliberations of cabinet.

There has been a longstanding acknowledgement of the issues that arise from the disclosure of documents that relate to the deliberations of cabinet. Indeed, former senator Birmingham previously advised the Senate in March 2021 of the following:

As is well recognised in the Westminster system, it is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations to ensure the best possible decisions are made following thorough consideration and informed discussion of relevant proposals within cabinet. It is not in the public interest to disclose information about the cabinet's deliberations, as it may impact in the future upon government's ability to receive confidential information and to make appropriately informed decisions impacting upon the Australian community.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I feel sorry for Senator McAllister having to read this pretty pathetic explanation from the government about why they continue to keep the Australian public in the dark and why, rather than acting on the promises they have made to reform gambling advertising in this country—as they promised to do—they are refusing. This government made promises. They upset the gambling lobby. They upset some of the big corporates in the sports world, and now they're crab walking away from their commitments. This parliament acted collectively to hand down an historic report over 18 months ago from a committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy, and it said overwhelmingly that, if we want to stop the harm that gambling is doing to families, we have to stop the promotion of the harmful product.

That report called for a full ban on gambling advertising, and we've seen parliaments act on other reports in relation to other dangerous products, like tobacco. At the time that that report was handed down—a unanimous report backed by all sides—the Prime Minister at the time and other members of the government stood up and said they would act on these recommendations to reduce the harm of gambling advertising and that they would do it in this term of government. We're standing in the chamber today debating this topic on what might be the third-last day before the next election. The government has run out of time to act on gambling advertising reform. They have run out of time to deliver on their promise.

Now they want to justify keeping the public in the dark about their secret deliberations. I'll tell you what's secret—cosy lunches, dinners and fundraisers with gambling lobbyists. You don't want the public knowing what you're really up to. You don't want the public to know what you've done with your spine. So you come in here and pretend that, for some reason, there is a legitimate excuse for public interest immunity. There is no excuse for this. I put to this Senate that we should reject this public interest immunity claim. It's bollocks. It's a political excuse, not a real excuse. It's about doing the dirty work of the gambling lobby. It has nothing to do with the public interest. When ministers come into this place and claim public interest immunity, they should do so in the full knowledge and intent of what is in the best public interest. Keeping the public in the dark and telling the community that the promise that you made no longer applies is not a public interest immunity excuse. It's pathetic. I urge my fellow senators to reject this public immunity claim. It's rubbish. It is a sad, sad sign of government that, whenever the tough questions are asked, instead of answering them and instead of being upfront, you pull out the public interest immunity claim. I tell you what's in the public interest: stopping the harm of gambling advertising and acting in these next three days to get something done. We could wipe the Senate agenda for tomorrow and Thursday and get it done. That would be in the public interest. This is not.

Question agreed to.