Senate debates

Wednesday, 26 February 2020

Documents

Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program; Order for the Production of Documents

10:57 am

Photo of Katy GallagherKaty Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few comments about the government's handling of this order for production of documents. It is a very reasonable OPD, seeking the Gaetjens report, which has become quite a critical piece of information in unpicking what has occurred with the maladministration of sports grants across this country by this government; also the explanation from the minister this morning, which I think is the most important matter I'd like to reflect on today.

I think this is the third OPD seeking this information. There have been a number of orders for production of documents associated with the sports grants administration. The majority of them have been rejected. Some have produced limited documents, heavily redacted. Senator Lambie moved one on 5 February and also Senator Waters. Senator Rice's OPD continues to press the government to release this report. At the moment, the government is rejecting that on some spurious grounds of public interest immunity. Senator Cormann doesn't even have the arguments to put in front of this chamber. It's just a blanket, 'No, you're not getting it, public interest immunity, cabinet in confidence, end of story.' He doesn't explain why they have taken a view that this falls within the public interest immunity test or indeed how this document becomes cabinet in confidence. We know that, in the past, previous advice from secretaries of PM&C commissioned in similar ways—through the statement of ministerial standards—has been released. But for some reason this one is being treated differently.

I think the most important thing is a broader point about the way the Senate is being treated by this government. If we look at this in relation to the sports grants, the big picture is, essentially, that we have a tabled Auditor-General's report which has found serious maladministration and political interference. We then have a government under pressure commissioning another report, from a former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, now head of PM&C, Mr Gaetjens. That report seems to contradict the findings of the Auditor-General's very extensive report. Mr Gaetjens has had access to the documents that the Auditor-General relied on. The Auditor-General has had access to documents the government had in its possession. The government has had access to all of the documents. The only people involved in this inquiry, which has been commissioned through this chamber, that do not have access to the documents and are being denied access to the documents are senators in this chamber and, through us, the Australian people.

This Senate passed a resolution that a select committee should be formed to inquire into this. The Senate has significant inquiry powers; it's one of the reasons we exist. We have the capacity, with the powers available to us, to inquire into matters and to hold executive government—particularly the excesses of executive government—to account. This government, through its denial of access to documents, is blocking the Senate from being able to do the job that non-government senators have asked it to do. Through this and the way those opposite are behaving, the government is trying—and I think this is the long game—to reduce the power of this chamber to do its job. It's perhaps best left for a speech on another day, but there are good reasons, fundamental to the health of our democracy, that the Senate has been granted such significant powers to inquire into matters and hold executive government to account. But this government is doing everything it can to weaken those powers.

They do it day by day in this chamber. They do it through their refusal to provide documents that are required, by resolution of this place, to be produced. They are doing it in their approach to question time, where they refuse to either answer questions or be relevant to the question that was asked. They're doing it in estimates committees: public servants, following their lead, don't come to estimates prepared to answer questions, or they take a lot on notice. This has to be a direction from the very top levels of the Public Service and from this government. So it's not just through orders for the production of documents; it's through every means the Senate has to hold this government to account. This government is diminishing the Senate's role.

I think we have a couple of things that we have to consider. Do we accept this? Do we accept that the government can just walk in here and give a one-minute statement, going, 'Cabinet in confidence, public interest immunity, see you later'? Do we reject it? Do we push back? Do we stand up and protect the powers that were given to this chamber at the inception of Federation and say, 'Hang on a minute; you don't have the majority in this chamber'?

This chamber has significant powers available to it to hold government to account, but, in order to do that, all non-government senators have to stand together and work together. This disregard for the Senate that is being perpetrated, I think quite knowingly, by this government must be responded to. The minute we accept that they can treat the Senate this way—denying access to documents, refusing to answer questions, taking things on notice so as to have time to workshop a more palatable answer, perhaps one that's been socialised through other areas of government to keep tricky situations at bay—those powers are diminished forever. It sets a precedent that the 46th Parliament has to be mindful of. We cannot accept this government's continual refusal to provide information—information that was commissioned outside of cabinet. Nearly every government report that is released goes through cabinet, but you can't just use that as a shield to protect you when the times are tough.

Part of what has to happen as a result of the sports rorts fiasco, I presume—maybe I'm presuming too much—is for the government to accept that what they did was wrong and that the accountability measures built into our democracy, whether it be through independent statutory office holders, independent officers of the parliament, like the Auditor-General, the Senate doing its job properly, have the powers to uncover that information and hold government to account. It's only when that happens that you will see a change in government behaviour. If we accept the way that Senator Cormann and other ministers are treating this place and treating motions in this place, then we may as well pack up and go home and leave executive government to run the show. And we know how that will end up because we've seen just a glimpse of it with what we do publicly know about sports rorts.

This really is starting to be a turning point for non-government senators to look at ways available to us to stand up and reject the way this government is behaving, because it's not just the 46th Parliament that this relates to. It's every parliament that comes after us. Those senators who have come before us have fought to protect these powers. Indeed, Senator Cormann, in a previous parliament, was one of the instigators of that through the Cormann motion, which I think Senator Watt referred to in his comments today. That is what is at stake here: an arrogant, dismissive government that disregards the Senate and the Senate's role. We cannot allow this to continue. If it's not this motion today, it will be the one that we deal with tomorrow or in a fortnight or the fact that we won't get any answers through estimates or at question time. It will just keep building, because it's already done that in the nine months since the election.

I think this is an important statement to take note of from Senator Cormann and it's also a warning—certainly from the Labor Party; I won't speak on behalf of other non-government senators—that we will not be accepting the diminution of the powers of this chamber.

Comments

No comments