Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Hansard source

It's always a privilege to be able to make a contribution to the matter of public importance. I thank those that have made a contribution to this debate. Any time we have a conversation about transparency and openness it's a good thing for the Australian public, and I am happy to be able to engage in this debate.

I have taken away a couple of points from the debate that I want to share with the room—in light of thanking those members who have made a contribution. We, as an opposition, need to make sure that we keep a light on the government. We need to make sure that the overwhelming numbers within the Australian Labor Party that exist in this chamber, which were so overwhelming and celebrated as a great victory—I think it was Lord Acton who once said:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think that was back in 1887. It has stood fast for that amount of time. With the numbers that are in this place, it is incumbent upon us, as an opposition, to shine a light when the light cannot get in. I come to the dispatch box on behalf of our fourth estate, who are raising this discussion, this matter of public importance, as a real concern. If those members in this house are genuine, they will have the conversation with the people who wrote their speaking points to revisit this.

In opposition, Labor promised to shine a light on politics and bring back accountability, but now it's rolling out the biggest attack on freedom of information that we have seen as a country in 15 years. The Albanese government wants to introduce what the previous speaker has referred to as a 'truth tax', charging fees on an FOI request that should be made public. I thought the previous speaker made a very valid and salient point about vexatious freedom of information requests, particularly if they were made by an anonymous party. I would agree. If they're anonymous, they're not going to put their name to it and we don't know what it's for, I wouldn't be giving them any credence. But, for those bodies that sit up there and are asking questions that should be made available, I would ask genuinely for the Australian Labor Party to reconsider their position. Plans to roll back scrutiny and normalise the use of fees for freedom of information are the latest in a series of attacks on transparency and accountability. It's the biggest attack on freedom of information in over 15 years, as I just mentioned.

Since assuming office, Labor has presided over a massive spike in freedom of information requests and a massive spike in their refusals. They've pioneered widespread non-disclosure agreements on stakeholder consultation. I was not aware that we had ever participated in that type of activity in government. I will stand corrected, but, for the public record, governments having non-disclosure agreements with working parties coming into open forums is just beyond the pale. They've produced a secret manual which they've circulated to public servants on how to give acceptable answers in estimates and repeatedly flouted Senate orders on the production of documents. They've limited parliamentary scrutiny through changes of standing orders. There's nothing wrong with that; that is the privilege of government. But don't come in and be the virtue of all things transparent when debate is being shut down and bills are being sent to the other place while we continue to debate what we'd hopefully think would be an outcome. They've slashed staff for those parliamentarians tasked with holding officers in government to account, and they've ignored the report of the parliamentary inquiry into access to information.

This is a real issue for the Australian Labor Party, and I would suggest that, while we agree on all things transparent, you revisit this for the sake of our nation.

See this speech in context