Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the minister's response, along with my colleagues. I do concede that, as Senator Davey has indicated, the letter that has come to the chamber gives some hope that there may be disclosure. I just want to remind the chamber that the position of the Senate has always been—and I've just had a quick look at Odgers to refresh myself—that it is the deliberations of the cabinet that are accepted as being the basis of a proper public interest immunity claim. That is, it is the conversations that take place, and the reason for that confidentiality is the collective responsibility. The ability for ministers to argue across the table and for that to be held secret is in some sense sacrosanct, and I accept that. It doesn't extend to cabinet documents. The Senate has never accepted that. All too often we see ministers sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over things that it shouldn't be sprinkled over. Perhaps with the finance minister's $40 billion discretionary fund they bought a whole bunch more secrecy dust because they had to extend it to national cabinet. Even though we know national cabinet is not a cabinet, they're still definitely sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over that.

There is some hope in the letter that has been provided to the Senate. That's a good thing. I urge the Prime Minister to release this information and to do so as early as possible, because there is a debate that's taking place, and debates are always better if they're informed debates. Let's see the modelling. Let's see where everything lies rather than having everyone guess. The statements made by the Prime Minister have even caused Senator Canavan, a member of his own coalition team, doubts. I supported that. Hence we combined to move the motion in the first place.

I'll just remind senators that, in New Zealand, cabinet secrecy doesn't exist. There's something like a 30-day time limit, and then everything is released. Unless it relates to national security, it's released—and their democracy hasn't fallen over. Maybe it's time that our parliament started to consider whether or not we want to move towards adoption of the New Zealand system. It's a responsible system of government and it seems to manage okay—in fact, I'd argue that in many cases it does a lot better—through the openness and transparency that its cabinet regime offers the New Zealand people. There is an example that we should adopt there.

I'll just point out what the hard reality is. Yes, cabinet deliberations have public interest immunity. Cabinet documents do not, but, in any circumstance, the Prime Minister is authorised to release cabinet documents. He did it for the Doherty modelling. He should also do it for the modelling that is the subject of this order.