Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes that the Government has refused to provide an answer to question on notice no. 671 regarding act of grace payments without properly raising a claim of public interest immunity; and

  (b)   orders that there be laid on the table by noon on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, all information about:

     (i)   the number of act of grace payments approved by the Minister since 24 November 2007 where the department recommended against approval, and

     (ii)   the reason for approval, the date of approval and value of each of the above act of grace payments.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move an amendment:

Paragraph (b)(i), omit "2007" substitute "1996".

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate. I do not have any objection in principle to the amendment that has been moved by Senator Bob Brown. Incidentally, the amendment was not communicated to me as the mover of the motion before the Senate sat today. For the information of the Senate, this matter arose during Senate estimates and it relates to the specific issue of the respon­sible minister approving act of faith payments when acting against the advice of the department. The question on notice had been on the Notice Paper for more than 70 days by the time the government finally provided an answer which was not to provide an answer. Effectively, the government said, 'Well, we're not going to answer that question,' which is, of course, why I have moved this motion today. The scope in time which Senator Brown has moved in his amendment is so large that I suspect the government will take that as another excuse as to why it will not be able to comply with providing the information that was originally sought. We have been trying to seek this information for the last 75 days now. Perhaps the Greens could move a separate motion along those lines if they are genuinely interested in information going all the way back to 1996. I am concerned that the government is going to use this as an excuse in the context of workload not to provide any information at all. Maybe the Greens could think about a more reasonable time frame—perhaps going back three or four years prior rather than going back 11½ years. But on that basis I would argue against the amendment, just because it actually prevents us from getting the information we have now been trying to get out of this government for the last 75 days.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Brown's amendment to the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:49]

(The PRESIDENT—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.