Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the chamber, and I won't take up too much time up this morning. I want to table a letter that I have written to you, President, in relation to order for production No. 10 that was passed last week explaining the government's position about why I have not been able to provide that document and also offering a briefing to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the report in camera. I've provided that to all leaders, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to that.

Leave granted.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate resolves that the order for the production of a document relating to the review of public sector board appointments processes has been satisfactorily complied with; and

(b) the order agreed to on 29 October 2025 relating to arrangements for question time no longer apply.

I want to speak very briefly to this. I acknowledge the Senate's interest in this and the important role that orders for the production of documents play in terms of a power of the Senate, and I really appreciate the discussions that I've been able to have around the chamber, in particular with the opposition and the Greens, around ways to comply whilst that document remains an active document before cabinet. In fact, cabinet is considering it presently. I am hopeful that this offer of a briefing finds that interim step until we are in a position to release that document once cabinet has finished considering it. In the letter, I have said that will be before the end of this year. I move this motion, and I seek the Senate's support for it.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion add:

(c) if order for the production of documents no. 10 has not been fully complied with by 31 December 2025:

(i) the order of the call for question time be as follows:

(ii) the Senate requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

(A) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(B) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

It was circulated electronically. Parties may not yet have it, so I'll just speak to it briefly. Our amendment to the motion outlines that if the order for the production of documents hasn't been complied with by the end of this year, 31 December, question time will revert to the order and number of questions as was stipulated in the motion that the government is seeking to overturn—15 questions per day with questions 11 to 15 being for non-government senators only. There's an additional element to the motion which requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order and that any senator may move to take note of the explanation. Any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes. It will have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than five minutes each.

While we appreciate the government's attempt to comply with an order they should have complied with some time ago, we want to put in place this measure to ensure that this transparency which we are now being told we will be provided—there will be a briefing to the committee, and I accept that. But we want that document tabled. In order to ensure that it is provided—as the government has promised it will be—and in the spirit of seeking transparency and making sure this government actually honours the promises it made not just at the last election but at the one before that, the opposition will be putting in place this amendment.

We hope the crossbench will support this, and, indeed, if the government is true to its word and will table this document by the date that they have specified, it will support this amendment as well.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this motion put forward by the government today, I actually think this is a very good discussion that we're having here this morning, because it really is focusing the Senate's mind on how we use the powers of this place, which are incredibly important to ensure transparency and accountability of government.

We're in this position because we have asked numerous times for this document. We've also asked numerous times for other documents, and there is a growing view—not just across this chamber but outside this chamber in the community—that this government is not being upfront nor as transparent as they promised to be. I think that's a problem for the government, and I urge ministers, whether they're in this place or the other, to think hard about how they want to reflect the values that they promised the Australian people at the election.

Our job in the Senate is to hold the government to account, to scrutinise legislation, to scrutinise regulation and to ask the tough and difficult questions so that the public can have certainty that the government is doing what it promised to do. It's also part of our job in this scrutiny role to try and improve the processes not just in the parliament but within the government. Is there legislation that needs to be amended to be made better? Are there government processes that need to be fixed because they're failing to deliver for the community? Is there more need for transparency in areas because the government isn't responding the way they should?

Of course, this isn't just about being on the other side of the government; this is actually about trying to deliver better outcomes for the community and for people. That's actually why these powers that we have in the Senate, which are extremely important, exist. It is up to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we can get better outcomes for people, get better outcomes from government decisions and ensure that communities are getting not just the information but the services that they deserve.

We know that the community has been increasingly worried. They were worried under the previous Morrison government, and 'jobs for mates' was an issue. There's a reason why this report was commissioned in the first place. It's because there has been a problem. There is a view that 'jobs for mates' is an issue within successive governments. That's the whole point of this report. I commend Minister Gallagher for commissioning the report in the first place. It's an important piece of work, but that is why we have insisted that it be released.

I want to acknowledge that this is a step forward. We've had quite a bit of argy-bargy in this place—some serious, some not so serious, sadly—over the last week as to how we can force the government to comply with orders of the Senate. I want to acknowledge that this is an important step forward and a way of acknowledging the powers that the Senate has—the importance of our role as a chamber that scrutinises and that can hold government to account. I also acknowledge that we referred the matter of OPDs and transparency to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure last week. We've had one meeting so far, and I think, so far, it's good. I think there is a general sense across the parties that how we manage OPDs—orders for production of documents—and how we manage and use transparency levers in this place more effectively are good. But that work is not complete.

I put it to both sides—the opposition and the government. I understand that this motion will pass today because the two of you have agreed. The parties of government have agreed—reverted back to the parties of government. But I put it to you that this broader issue of transparency is not going to go away unless we reset how the government responds to orders for production of documents, how this chamber manages that serious power and how we go through the steps of requiring transparency at various stages. I urge the government to do more to ensure that, when we ask for information on behalf of our constituents, the government give it and are willing to be transparent with their own constituents and with their own communities and work with us across all sides to do that.

I understand that the Labor Party and the coalition have agreed that this is a reasonable step forward. We think it's too weak. We would prefer the document to be released as requested, but, of course, it's going to go through because the parties of government, the two big parties, have decided to sort it out. After a spat over the last week, they've decided to work it out. They're hugging it out. Look over there; they're hugging it out over there! I think, however, that the role of the crossbench in this debate over the last week has been a good one, because, for too long and so often, the major parties think that they only have to share information amongst themselves and that if the Liberal and National parties—or do I just say the Liberal Party these days? If the coalition and the Labor Party come to an agreement, it doesn't really matter what the crossbench thinks. Well, we are showing you more and more and more that we will insert ourselves in these discussions, because our constituents deserve it. They expect it, and we will use the powers we have.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's pleasing that the government eventually came to the table and agreed that it will release the report that is the subject of the motion that is before this chamber at the moment. But what we would say, in terms of the motion that's been put forward by the government, is that we will be seeking to vote separately on part (a) and part (b), because we do not believe that the government has satisfactorily complied with the order of the Senate. They have given notice of an intention to comply with the order of the Senate, but it is yet to be done. The opposition will not be in a position to be able to support part (a). However, we will be in a position to be able to support part (b), relating to the arrangements that currently are in place for question time to be revoked. However, our amendment to this motion provides the contingency that says that, if the government fails to actually comply when they have promised to do so, we will put in place the existing arrangements as they are currently in the Senate at the moment but will increase those arrangements such that the Minister for the Public Service is required to attend the chamber and give an explanation every day as to not only why they haven't complied with the original order but why they have breached the conditions or the commitment that they've given to this chamber this morning.

Whilst it is very late in the piece, I want to commend the chamber and particularly commend Senator Pocock for bringing forward this motion and working constructively with the non-government parties and members in this chamber to show to the government that you cannot be contemptuous of this place. To that end, I want to absolutely put the government on notice that, whilst this particular issue has a process with which it can be resolved that's been put on the table today and that the opposition will support, this doesn't say that the will of the chamber cannot be expressed at every other time that this government seeks to be contemptuous of this place and not provide the information that has been asked for by this chamber. We will continue to work with the other non-government members and parties in this place to make sure that we are holding the government to account and that they cannot abuse the power that they have because they are in government, because they do not have the numbers in this place when all non-government party members choose to ask the government to do something.

Can I also make sure we are very clear in relation to the amendment that has been put forward by the opposition to the motion moved by the minister, and that is that part (b), which requires the minister to attend the chamber for one hour until such time as the motion is complied with, subject to government not complying with its commitment, will take effect from next year—all sitting days next year. Part (b) of our motion applies only to that.

To Senator Pocock's amendment: the letter that's been provided by the minister says that they will release the document by 31 December, by the end of the year. We would certainly encourage the government, in responding to the concerns that have been put forward by Senator Pocock, to release the document as soon as possible. I note your letter only says by the end of the year; it doesn't say it won't be released earlier, and we would certainly encourage the government to release it earlier given that the document has been in the hands of the government now for 2½ years. The minister herself did give the commitment that she would release it, which she has now given again today. To that end, just to be clear, we will be seeking to vote separately on part (a) and part (b) of this motion today.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a brief contribution to make on the motion and the amendments before the chamber. Last week, we had an unprecedented moment in the Senate where all non-government senators chose to hold executive power to account. The juvenile response by the government in response to the order of the Senate in question time last week and in their tactics again yesterday showed that they were in no mood to actually respect the decision of the Senate. So I welcome a resolution to the request of the Senate for this document to be released, for the government to keep its word but, more importantly, to comply with an order of the Australian Senate. For all the shouting outside of parliament about the lack of transparency and the lack of trust in our institutions, it is actually beholden on all of us here to sometimes put our own political purposes and benefits aside and act in the national interest, and this chamber was purposefully set up under our Constitution to hold executive power to account. Serious and significant powers are vested in what we do here in order to hold governments of all persuasions to account on behalf of the Australian people. What we were able to do last week was start a process by which that can happen.

I recall, as I was listening to Senator Hanson-Young's contribution and the sideswipe at the major parties—insert Greens outrage—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not a major party anymore!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate your protection there from the sidelines. There was a motion before the Senate to bring Alan Joyce before a Senate committee, and the Greens voted against it over and over again. That also was in the national interest. I think it's just useful to remind people who are listening to this debate that actions and consistency of actions speak louder than words. What we've all been beneficiaries of today is this chamber behaving as our constitutional authors sought and a resolution being found that will be in the interests of the Australian people and transparency. The Nationals will obviously be supporting the opposition's amendments.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendment, as moved by Senator David Pocock, to the opposition's amendment be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Ruston has indicated that the opposition wishes to separate parts (a) and (b) of the government's amended motion. The question is that amended part (a) of the motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we don't lose time on a division, can we just have it recorded that the government supported subsection (a).

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we will put the rest of the motion as amended. The question is that part (b) of Minister Gallagher's motion, as amended, be agreed to.