Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the housing foreign investment ban; Treasury roundtables; the integrated assessment tool and Support at Home classification system; fuel and oil shipments; Inland Rail; and tax reforms and Treasury modelling relating to housing.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement on No. 482 on Inland Rail.

I think that the response from the minister today is nothing short of disrespectful and, frankly, outrageous because it is not for the minister to decide, a minister, particularly from the other place, who obviously doesn't understand the importance of an order of production of documents from the Senate, and so to respond saying that 'that this OPD is no longer relevant'—what an extraordinary response. It is not up to ministers to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. When the senator makes an order for the production of documents, it is relevant. This document is incredibly important because the minister announced the cancellation of the Inland Rail north of Parkes on 6 May 2026 and repeatedly relied on the ACIL Allen report as justification for that decision.

If the government was prepared to use the report to justify cancelling a nation-building project, why was the report not released at the same time as the announcement? Instead, it was dropped on the morning of Senate estimates on Monday 25 May 2026 with no opportunity for senators to properly examine that report, to read it prior to Senate estimates and to develop detailed questions around that document. This is denying the Senate its due process. Senate estimates is one of the most important and powerful processes that we have for the parliament. It allows us to investigate the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' hard earned dollars. It is not a joke, yet the way this has been managed by the minister, I think, is nothing short of laughable.

The Senate, the regional communities and affected stakeholders were entitled to see the evidence underpinning the government's decision before being asked to accept it. The government cannot claim transparency while withholding the very document it relied on to justify cancelling half of the Inland Rail project. Dropping it with no notice during the Senate estimates process did exactly what it was designed to do—provide confusion and draw a veil over the decisions and very poor decision-making process. The Senate estimates process is designed to hold the government accountable, not to provide a mechanism for government to dump critical documents at the last minute, seeking purely to avoid scrutiny. This should be something that, as a Senate, we are united in our outrage about—this cavalier treatment by a minister of the Crown. Who made the decision to drop the report at such a late time? Was the timing designed to minimise scrutiny of the government's decision and reduce the opportunity for proper informed questioning? Regional Australians, and all Australians, deserve better than this kind of high-handed approach from ministers who truly disregard this process.

The letter from the minister just announcing that it is no longer relevant for this OPD is extraordinary. The order which was agreed to by the majority in this chamber states in its opening words that 'there be laid on the table by the minister representing the minister'. The fact that this was a document that was dropped in the early hours of the Senate estimates process and is now a public document does not remove the obligation of the minister to meet that requirement. It does not remove that obligation. I am perplexed as to how the ministers and the representatives of that minister in this place did not make that clear. The minister could have requested for the Senate to discharge the order in light of the document now being available. It is a sign of disrespect that this minister chose not to.

Given that the minister finds it so difficult to do her job to provide the information that is required of her through the Senate process, I seek leave to table the ACIL Allen document here in the Senate chamber—to make the minister comply with the very basic obligations that she has. I seek leave to table it now.

Leave granted.

I now draw the attention of the Senate to the ACIL Allen document that was apparently used to justify, to verify, the rushed decision of the government to cancel a project that has been at the heart of so many communities seeking to connect the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project—a project that has been many years in the making and that has seen communities commit funds, land and future projects based on the Inland Rail decision of government. I think that to see it pulled using this report, with no examination, is shocking, frankly. I won't labour the point any further, but I think the minister should hang her head in shame. I think this is another example of a government that seeks to avoid scrutiny at every opportunity, and this is just one more example of a minister who drops a report without providing that scrutiny through the Senate estimates process and then refuses to provide even the lightest touch of courtesy in responding to a Senate OPD. Poorly done, Minister—very poorly done.

Debate adjourned.