Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to just reiterate the issue that has come out of the robodebt royal commission and that is being ignored here. The excuse being used is that public servants will be more likely to give frank and fearless advice. In the robodebt royal commission, one of the quotes from Commissioner Holmes was this:

Nothing I have seen in ministerial briefs or material put to Cabinet suggests any tendency to give full and frank advice that might be impaired by the possibility of disclosure …

The commissioner goes on to say that, had there not been the exemption from freedom of information, the activity would have been uncovered earlier and dealt with much more effectively. The commissioner says that raises the real question of whether the protection of cabinet documents as a class of disclosure ought to be maintained or whether when access is sought, disclosure should be given unless there is a specific public interest in maintaining its confidentiality.

One of the things I'd like to add to that is that I'm unclear as to how this will actually increase frank and fearless advice anyway. If you move from a dominant-purpose test to a substantial-purpose test, I'm not convinced that that actually would make a significant difference in a public servant's decision about what to say to cabinet. Many experts would say that frank and fearless advice is far more likely to be protected by protecting the tenure of those public servants and ensuring that they are able to speak up without fear for their jobs than by avoiding the fear that someone might find out what they have said. In fact, they might feel more comfortable if they know that they can give advice. Ultimately—it may be one or two inquiries down the track—that advice will become known, and the public will know that they did their best. I will be supporting this amendment. I think the expansion of cabinet exemptions is absolutely heading in the wrong direction. We need greater transparency. The way to rebuild trust in government is for people to understand what decisions government are making and why they are making them. I'm very disappointed that the government is putting this forward. It is not in the interests of open government.

See this speech in context