Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—Just after question time and immediately before the condolence motion, the Special Minister of State, Senator Ludwig, tabled a statement in the Senate concerning an order for the production of documents. It was a draft statement of reasons and draft correspondence to the Treasurer pursuant to my notice of motion No.827 dated 22 June. The minister indicated:

With reference to Senator Ronaldson’s return to order motion dated 22 June 2010 requesting the production of a copy of a draft statement of reasons and draft correspondence to the Treasurer by the Department of Finance and Deregulation provided to the Cabinet Secretary and Special Minister of State on 14 May 2010, as indicated in Senate estimates by the Cabinet Secretary … the draft statement and draft letter … were working documents, being iterative drafts.

He then went on to say:

These documents have no separate status and the final versions of these documents have been declassified and tabled in this chamber.

The question is fundamental. There is a huge question mark hanging over this government as a result of this matter. I will not give honourable senators a potted history again because we have been discussing it all week. I will not give senators a full history of what occurred, but honourable senators would be aware that the minister granted an exemption to the Treasurer for the advertising campaign for the great big new mining tax. As we all know from evidence given to Senate estimates and from information given in this chamber, that decision was made on 24 May, at the start of the estimates week. The minister refused to table that document and the accompanying ministerial statement until Friday, 28 May, which fortuitously was after Senate estimates had finished and after the Thursday morning when the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Polley, had set aside time for this matter to be debated. We then found out in the recalled Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee estimates last week that the department had provided to the minister a draft statement and a draft letter.

From the evidence given to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, it would appear that the minister apparently was able to redraft the letter to the Treasurer granting the exemption, but mysteriously he said he was too busy to redraft the ministerial statement until the Thursday or Friday morning of that week. There is one fundamental question mark that hangs over this debate today. If the draft ministerial statement had been tabled as I requested it and if it had indicated that the final statement and the draft statement were completely and utterly different, there might be a skerrick—and it would be only a skerrick—of credibility in the minister’s argument that it took him four days to redraft this ministerial statement. But wouldn’t you think, given that the credibility of the minister, Prime Minister and Treasurer were all on the line, that he would produce this draft statement and say: ‘Here, I told you so. It is totally different to the statement that I released. I was in estimates and I didn’t have time to do it’? There would be a skerrick of credibility were that to be, but by refusing to release this document the only conclusion we have left is that the final ministerial statement was identical to the draft ministerial statement. The only conclusion this chamber can come to, the only conclusion that those people who are listening to this can come to, is that it was identical, that indeed that is why it was not released until today and that indeed it puts paid to any notion of credibility about requiring extra time to redraft the ministerial statement.

This government stands utterly condemned for its behaviour in relation to this exemption. This government stands utterly condemned for its refusal to come clean on this matter. Both sides of this chamber know that that exemption was not tabled on 24 May because the Special Minister of State, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer did not want this to become public during Senate estimates and because they knew that, if this were to become public, they would have been subject to far more intensive scrutiny than they have been since. I cannot hide my bitter disappointment that the government has not taken the opportunity to clear this matter up once and for all. This is a question mark that will hang over this minister and this Prime Minister from now until the election.