James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of Senator Pocock and congratulate and thank him for pursuing this OPD and continuing to pursue the government's noncompliance with the Senate's orders. This is an issue of gross hypocrisy by those opposite, who, as Senator Pocock correctly pointed out, when they were on this side of the chamber were incredibly vocal about the importance of transparency, and not just that, but they promised to do better. They promised to be the most transparent government ever, promised to uphold the standards of the chamber and important integrity and transparency measures like FOIs and orders for the production of documents.

It has led independent respected institutions like the Centre for Public Integrity to conclude that this government is objectively, measurably far worse when it comes to transparency than the government that they replaced, the Morrison government, of which they were so critical. That's a comparison that I know the Prime Minister would be particularly sensitive to, because he was highly critical of former prime minister Morrison when it came to transparency. But, as the Centre for Public Integrity has shown in their recent report, the Morrison government complied with 48.7 per cent of Senate OPDs in its final term, whereas the Albanese government complied with only 32.8 per cent of OPDs in its first term. I confidently predict that in this term they will do even worse, if these first few months are any guide.

As the Centre for Public Integrity warned, these actions suggested a 'deliberate effort to avoid scrutiny'. The Centre said:

The Senate is being blocked from fulfilling its constitutional role of holding the government to account. This trend is dangerous for democracy.

That's right. And it is not just hypocrisy on the part of the government in general but, I'm sorry to say, by Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, in particular. Again, as Senator Pocock pointed out, when Senator Gallagher was in opposition, when she was in a different position, she had a very different view when it came to the question of whether cabinet documents were, carte blanche, exempt from being provided under OPDs or whether indeed governments were required to specify when a document could not be provided. Senator Pocock already quoted, and I want to add to the record as well, that as chair of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, on which I served with Senator Gallagher, she made the following remarks in the second interim report of the committee:

The disclosure of the deliberations of Cabinet has achieved a measure of acceptance as a basis for claiming public interest immunity. However, such claims must be accompanied by sufficient detail to enable the committee to determine the specific merits of each claim on a case-by-case basis.

Each claim must establish that disclosing the particular information requested would reveal Cabinet deliberations and cause harm to the public interest. It is not adequate to refuse to provide information merely on the basis that the information has a connection to Cabinet.

That is what the government is attempting to do in this case.

Senator Wong has been vocal about this issue in the past. In fact, on something that is in some ways more sensitive, when a matter went to cabinet and was considered by cabinet she objected to it being withheld, in 2005 at a Senate estimates hearing:

… questions about the timing of cabinet discussions have been routinely asked and answered in estimates hearings and elsewhere and that it is difficult to see how the claim for immunity in this case could reasonably be made. In light of the advice, I ask again for the occasions on which the Welfare to Work package has gone to cabinet between February and these hearings.

Odgers ' is clear on this, precedent is clear on this and those opposite were clear on this when they were on this side of the chamber, but they are not now.

It is particularly odd that they are so reluctant to release the Briggs report, given that, in the State of theservice report 2022-23, provided by the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Dr de Brouwer said, on page 91 of that report:

The review's final report to the Government is expected to be published in late 2023.

That is almost two years ago now that the government committed to the release of the Briggs review.

We are left to wonder, we are invited to speculate: what is the reason they are refusing to release this document? Perhaps it is because one of their recent Public Service appointments made no attempt whatsoever to comply with best practice when it comes to Public Service appointments—one that is so outside the bounds of normal Public Service appointments and recruitments that this government would be very reluctant for it to be compared to their own report recommending best practice. I suspect this is an issue which we are all going to continue to have to pursue for some time.