David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the coalition's amendment to the government's motion this morning, and I move:

"Omit 31 December 2025", substitute "24 November 2025".

This is so there are some parliamentary scrutiny and consequences for noncompliance. It's also so that the report isn't dropped out on Christmas Eve, buried as governments are known to do—put out the trash when Australians are busy doing other things. There's a growing number of people concerned about what is promised by major parties in opposition and what is delivered in government. Transparency is one of those issues that cuts to the core of it. Today's motion is a concern, given the Senate has very rightly rejected the government's claim of cabinet in confidence and, I believe, has done that in line with Odgers'. I think it would be worth reading from Odgers' Australian Senate practice.

Odgers' on page 665 says:

There has been a tendency for governments to claim that anything with a connection to cabinet is confidential. A claim that a document is a cabinet document should not be accepted; as has been made clear in relation to such claims in court proceedings, it has to be established that disclosure of the document would reveal cabinet deliberations. The claim cannot be made simply because a document has the word "cabinet" in or on it.

I simply don't see how a document that was prepared with the intention for public release—when Minister Gallagher said that the government would release it, there were no caveats. There was no 'subject to cabinet discussions' or 'subject to whatever else there was'. No; this is something that is clearly in the public interest and will be released. Now we're being led to believe that releasing this document would somehow reveal what's happening in cabinet. It seems totally implausible, and I think the Senate should continue to reject this claim and force the government to release this document.

During the Morrison government, Minister Gallagher chaired the select committee on COVID-19. Looking at the report recently, I saw that the committee during its time was continually stonewalled by claims from the former government of cabinet confidentiality, so much so that the committee dedicated a whole chapter of their report to this issue. I think it would be useful to actually quote from that report as well. It says, with regard to claims of cabinet confidentiality:

… 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 …

Minister Cash's claims make broad, general statements that it is 'longstanding practice' not to provide information relating to Cabinet and that Cabinet's deliberations should be 'conducted in secrecy'. Minister Cash's claims also rely on a general statement that disclosure is not in the public interest as it may impair the government's ability to obtain confidential information and make related decisions.

To cut a long story short, the committee chaired by Minister Gallagher urged the Senate to reject claims of cabinet confidentiality being advanced by the then government on the basis that (1) they were vague in nature, (2) they did not provide enough detail to determine whether cabinet deliberations would be revealed and (3) they did not provide information to determine the harm that would be caused if the documents were released. We are confronted with the exact same circumstances today.

I'll quote Minister McAllister, at the time Senator McAllister, on 25 August 2020 on the Morrison government:

This is a government that is allergic to transparency. It's a government that won't respond properly to questions in this chamber. It's a government that won't respond properly to freedom of information requests. It's a government that drags its heels on providing documents when they are ordered to be produced in this chamber

You have to see the frustration of crossbenchers who are sent to this place to represent our state or territory and ask questions and we don't get answers—when we have OPDs supported by the entire Senate and we get nothing out of the government. It surely can't be a surprise when the crossbench tries to escalate things and say: 'We're actually the Senate, the house of review to hold the government to account. Let's actually do that.' That's what we heard from Labor when they were in opposition. Now we see compliance rates on OPDs at an almost all-time low. We see insane redactions when you're seeking advice—redactions of talking points for a public event. How is that something that we should allow to continue? I thank the Senate on this for actually drawing a line in the sand and saying: 'No; we voted for this OPD. We voted for the compliance and attendance motion. We've gone through every step of what we should do in this chamber, and now we've added consequences. It is disappointing to have a motion that potentially lets the government off the hook from actually doing what's in line with the standing orders of this chamber. I find it very hard to support this motion. As I said, I'm moving an amendment to the opposition's motion to bring forward that date. I think this report does require scrutiny and I remind the chamber that it seems the only reason why this report was commissioned was that the member for Mackellar in the other place, Dr Sophie Scamps, gave the government a heads up she was introducing a bill on the Monday to end jobs for mates. On the Sunday, out comes Labor with their independent review, totally gazumping the member for Mackellar's introduction of her bill. It's hard not to be a little bit cynical when you have that sort of timeline and then two years pass where the government is sitting on a report. In the meantime, as I've said in this chamber before, there are all sorts of former Labor politicians copping some pretty sweet gigs. They may very well have had the experience and expertise for those jobs, but how are we to know? After two years, you've got to get suspicious. I will be supporting the amendment, but I will not be supporting the government's motion this morning.