Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I will continue where my good friend and colleague Senator Scarr left off because this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. You have a letter released under the order for production of documents where the former president of the AAT says, 'Having regard to our meeting on Friday 25 November 2022, I inform you that today I am offering my resignation.' So something happened in that meeting that triggered the resignation, but the Attorney-General, hiding behind a public interest immunity claim, won't give us the details.

Let's look at this public interest immunity claim that the Attorney-General—quite frankly, the chief legal officer in the nation and someone who should know better—is relying on. On the one hand, he's relying on this impediment to future communications between statutory office holders and ministers. To be clear to those listening, this is not an accepted ground for a public interest immunity claim. It has never been accepted by this place. It has never been tested in the courts as acceptable grounds for a public interest immunity claim. In fact, it seems to have been made out of whole cloth. There is no mention of such a claim in Odgers'. Quite frankly, as someone who's had a fair bit to do with PII claims over a number of years, it's not one that I have ever heard of before.

The other one is perhaps even more puzzling. It claims that it would disclose deliberations of cabinet. As Odgers' makes very clear, this is a very narrow, very limited public interest immunity claim specifically about the deliberations of cabinet. To give an example, in 2016 an order for the production of documents regarding a submarine tender process was refused, but, later, that document became available, because the cabinet decision related to that document had been made. If this public interest immunity claim is truly about the deliberations of cabinet, then they have been overridden by the action of time—by the decision to make changes in the leadership of the AAT. Even if that was the claim, the effluxion of events means that that claim would lapse with time, as it clearly now has with the resignation of the former head of the AAT and the putting in place of a new head. We have a tissue paper of claims by a government and, particularly, by an Attorney-General who should know better but who is hiding behind claims of public interest immunity. At the same time, he is championing this Labor government as one that has the virtues of transparency and openness. It clearly doesn't live up to its own rhetoric. There is clearly something to hide here, and the Senate should demand that these documents are released in full with no redactions apart from those designed to protect members of the Public Service—certainly with no redactions that are designed to protect ministers or the Attorney-General.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)