Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in relation to this matter and raise my concerns regarding transparency. I want to touch on some of the points that both Senator Steele-John and the minister made. Firstly, Senator Steele-John, I acknowledge and deeply respect your ongoing advocacy with respect to these matters. The example you gave of the participant being off the system and then having to go through numerous appeal procedures to get back onto the system is deeply disturbing, to be frank. I hope that person is doing okay. It shouldn't come to that.

I also acknowledge the responsibility that Senator McAllister has with her new portfolio. I note her comments with respect to the new portfolio. I note that she recognises the gravitas and the weight of the responsibility of this portfolio. I also note her comment about engagement with those with lived experience in dealing with the system. I also note her reference to the introduction of the NDIS, and it should be noted that the NDIS was implemented with the support of all parties in this parliament. The coalition certainly supported the introduction of the NDIS and supports the ongoing sustainable operation of the NDIS. There's no question about that.

But what the minister didn't touch upon is what goes to the heart of this matter, and that is transparency. This is one of the largest—if not the largest—social benefit schemes that the Commonwealth legislates and manages. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are impacted by this scheme directly, and millions are impacted indirectly. When you have a scheme of such magnitude, it is incredibly important that there's transparency around fundamental aspects of the scheme, and there can be nothing more fundamental than the financial sustainability of the scheme.

The Senate, in discharging the obligations of its role, sought documents that go to the heart of that financial stability. Yet all we've faced is roadblock after roadblock, constructed by the Albanese Labor government to prevent giving the Australian people, through the Senate, the information they deserve with respect to the financial sustainability of this scheme. This isn't about the senators. This is about us discharging our role on behalf of the Australian people, as the house of review and an upper house, to keep the executive accountable. That's what this goes to.

As Senator Ruston said, the latest research, including a report issued by the Centre for Public Integrity entitled Still shrouded in secrecythat's what the report says: 'still shrouded in secrecy'—indicates that there has been an appalling lack of transparency on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. I want to quote some of these figures, which are quite shocking in many respects and are in this report: the compliance rate for orders for the production of documents has fallen to 32.8 per cent—less than one in three! That's the current performance rate. It's materially less than that of the previous Morrison government in the 46th Parliament. It's fallen from 48.7 per cent to 32.8 per cent. It's collapsed. If you go back a number of decades, it used to be 90 per cent—90 per cent of the orders for the production of documents called for by the Senate, by a majority of the senators sitting in this chamber representing a majority of states. Senators from across the political spectrum, representing all the states and territories, have called for this information, yet the government denies providing that information, on the basis of parliamentary interest immunity.

There's no transparency as to why the release of these documents would, in some way, compromise federal and state relations. I previously asked: 'Did you ask the states whether or not you could release the documents?' I would have thought that would be the first thing you'd do. I've asked, 'Is there any problem, in terms of the states releasing the documents?' They won't even answer that question, so how can they make a substantial argument on parliamentary interest immunity?