I rise in place of Senator Farrell in this response on behalf of Minister Anika Wells. I make the point that the comparison between OPD 321 and FOI 27-022 is not a direct, like-for-like comparison. While both relate to the same broad subject matter, their scopes are materially different.

First, the order for the production of documents sought communications involving three parties: the minister or her office, the department and the eSafety Commissioner. It was therefore directed at communications between all three parties. By contrast, the FOI request sought communications between the minister or her office and the department without requiring the eSafety Commissioner to be involved. That broader formulation may have reasonably captured a larger volume of documents.

Second, the timeframes between the two differ. The OPD was agreed to on 4 February 2026, meaning its scope was necessarily confined to documents captured up to that point. The FOI request was lodged on 13 July 2026 and therefore extends across an additional five months of records. It is reasonable to expect that a request covering a longer period may identify more documents. As a point of clarification on the number of documents referred to in the motion before us now, I am advised that the department did not identify 700 documents; it identified 90 documents that may have been in scope, with a combined page count of approximately 700 pages. That distinction is important in considering this motion.

Finally, it's also worth noting that the Senate's powers in relation to the production of documents operate separately from and are not directly comparable with freedom of information requests. As outlined in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, there is no direct correlation between the Senate's powers to order the production of documents and the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

On 4 February 2026, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents relating to the Minister for Communications's travel to New York in September 2025 with a member of her staff and a public servant. The minister's trip to New York was controversial, racking up a six-figure bill on the taxpayer's credit card for the minister to boast about the social media ban, a failed policy that four in five Australian children have found a way around.

On 4 March 2026, a response to this order was tabled in the Senate. In the response, a letter from the Minister for Communications to the Special Minister of State notes:

My department and eSafety have conducted a search of their systems and have not identified any documents that appear to fall in scope of the Order.

In July, my office lodged a freedom of information request with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts for the same documents within a smaller timeframe. The department asked for the scope of the request to be reduced and ultimately refused the freedom of information request on the basis that too many documents existed. The department's FOI officer noted that as many as 700 documents existed, with the bulk of these being emails. I note that, in response to questions on notice posed to the department about this OPD, the department said: 'Order for the production of documents No. 321 requests documents between the Hon. Anika Wells MP, Minister for Communications, and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. No documents were found within scope of order No. 321 that involved all three of the entities named in the order.' This excuse is not only splitting hairs; it is wrong.

The Minister for Communications has previously taken this phrasing—X, Y and Z—to mean 'between any two of the entities', not 'between all three entities'. For example, on page 8 of the response to OPD 37, tabled 13 August 2025, a meeting brief from the department to Minister Wells's chief of staff is provided despite OPD 37's seeking documents from four different entities, two of whom were not party to this meeting brief. On page 31 of the OPD, there is an email between the minister's office and eSafety which does not carbon-copy in any departmental email addresses.

The minister interpreted this phrasing as referring to documents between any two entities in her response to OPD 215. She interpreted it the same way in response to OPD 323. She interpreted it the same way in response to OPD 425. It makes no sense for the minister to interpret it in one way for OPD 215, take a different interpretation for OPD 321 and then go back to the original interpretation for OPD 323. Very selective there! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Minister for Housing, the Minister for Industry and Innovation, the current and previous ministers for employment and workplace relations, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence have all interpreted this phrasing the same way.

There are lots of questions that still need to be answered, and I don't accept the explanation from the minister. I will be pursuing further action in relation to this matter.

The Labor Party, and this minister in particular, have a three-monkeys approach to transparency and accountability, which is to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing. This is a prime minister who promised to lead the most accountable and most transparent government since Federation yet leads the least transparent and least accountable government since Federation. I would like to commend Senator Payman for the work that she's been doing in relation to this matter. Senator Payman, I want pay tribute to your dissection of the minister's response there.

What we heard from the minister was a word salad. It was like someone in the ministerial office had played Scrabble with a bunch of words and said, 'We'll put this up, and this'll keep the Senate quiet.' Well, it's not going to keep the Senate quiet. Minister after minister, following the lead of the Prime Minister, are using accountability measures not to release information but using FOI, questions on notice and OPDs to not release the information that has been requested by the Senate or by journalists who are requesting information through the FOI or RTI processes. This is wrong, because what it comes to, ultimately, is the use of taxpayers' money.

This minister went to New York. She paid $20,000 for business class flights just for herself. Don't forget, everybody, this was in the midst of the Optus triple zero crisis. She left the crisis behind—and she has spent the last 18 months or so doing everything possible to ensure that she, the minister, and her department do not comply with the orders of this Senate and do not comply fully with requests for information. This is a failure of accountability, a failure of transparency, and a massive failure of the use of taxpayers' money.

But we should not be surprised, because this is the minister who, in a puerile and juvenile way, was using Ooshies to explain the housing crisis when the housing crisis in this country has been caused by the economic policies of the government that she's a member of. Then the minister does another social media post this week where she wonders why people don't have trust in politicians. Well, Minister, go and get a mirror. Get it from IKEA or Fantastic Furniture, or go down to BIG W. Get a mirror and have a look at yourself. The No. 1 reason Australians do not have trust in the political system or in politicians is actually you and the government that you are a member of.

This is a government that promised to cut power bills. This is a government that promised not to make changes to the taxation system. Yet this is a government that has increased power bills, and this is a government that has increased taxes on Australians. Promise after promise is broken, and when this Senate—whether the opposition or crossbenchers such as Senator Payman—use legitimate Senate processes to ensure that the executive is held to account, the Labor Party, the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor cabinet ministers refuse to play ball. It is almost as though the Labor Party see the government of Australia as their personal plaything when it comes to spending money and when it comes to making decisions.

This Senate is the house of review. It is this Senate that is set up to hold the executive to account. The government does not have a majority in this chamber, and the crossbenchers and the opposition will work together to ensure that, regardless of the issue at hand, appropriate accountability and transparency measures are properly being used so that the taxpayers of Australia and the voters of Australia know that this government does what it said it would do rather than hide behind word salads. Senator Payman, the opposition will continue to support you in your fight to ensure that the appropriate information is released, and we're making sure that this minister is held to account.

Question agreed to.