Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

The Senate take note of the explanation.

This order of the Senate relates to a survey conducted by the ABS. On the surface, it may not seem that special, but it goes to the heart of a century's old rivalry between the executive and the legislature. We saw this dynamic play out just yesterday when Senator Gallagher, in relation to the order for the production of documents No. 110 said, 'Links were provided to the information already available online either in part or in full'. I moved OPD 110 relating to the age-assurance technology trial report, which the Senate agreed to on 27 August this year. The report was not released until four days after the order was made. So, when Senator Gallagher claimed that it was already available online, she appears to have misled the Senate, and I would invite Senator Gallagher to make a statement in the chamber to correct the record.

Turning back to this OPD, on 28 October the Senate agreed that some parts of the data which contain personal information could remain confidential. However, other sections of the data, particularly those that did not contain any personal information, should not be immune to disclosure. What is most concerning, though, is the second justification the government has offered for withholding the data. This was in a letter dated 17 September where the Treasurer wrote, 'Further, the ABS is unable to release aggregate results from the survey of income and housing 2023-24 due to serious shortcomings in the questionnaire design and data collection processes that could not be overcome.' Let's unpack these words; I'll rephrase them. Essentially, the government is saying we don't want to and, in fact, refuse to publish this data because we made a mistake. All governments make mistakes. All governments try to cover up their mistakes. It is a fact of political life.

But it is our job, not only as non-government senators but as senators in general in this place, members as we are of this house of review, to scrutinise the activities of government, to find out the mistakes that are being made so that processes can be improved and those errors do not happen again. The ABS has reviewed the failures that led to these deficiencies and identified ways to improve its processes, which is appropriate. But the cost of this survey was in the neighbourhood of $13 million—millions of taxpayer dollars spent on a survey that was ultimately thrown in the bin. Worst still, the 2023-24 survey was meant to follow the 2019-2020 edition. Because this one has been withheld, both industry and government are relying on pre COVID data to shape income and housing policy. That's just unacceptable. Much has changed since COVID, particularly in terms of housing distress. Rents and mortgage repayments are up, and vacancies are down. A lot's changed.

In a letter on 30 October, the Treasurer said that releasing the documents could mislead those using this data or these results to inform important social and economic programs and policies. The ABS itself has said the data is flawed, yet, interestingly, it has published portions of that same data. In its review, the ABS includes a graph from the 2023-24 survey showing a spike in homeownership and a crash in renters which the ABS has attributed to an overrepresentation of homeowners and the underrepresentation of renters. So the ABS can release this data when it suits, but just not to the Senate. If data can be released for review, it can be tabled for scrutiny. So long as it is clearly marked as unsuitable for statistical purposes, there is no justification for withholding it from parliament.

Australians have paid good money for this survey, and they deserve transparency. I call on the government to table all findings as soon as possible because the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If this Senate allows a flimsy claim of public interest immunity and stands by it, it would mean accepting the culture of mediocrity and secrecy that this government and this Prime Minister have been demonstrating for four years now. (Time expired.)

Question agreed to.