Labor Government

Opened the debate

Lambie argued that the government had abandoned its promises of transparency, citing increased refusal rates for freedom of information requests and longer processing times. Lambie contended that the government was misusing amendments to orders for the production of documents to characterise legitimate scrutiny as fishing expeditions. Lambie asserted that the Senate’s power to order documents is a critical accountability tool that should not be restricted to cases where other processes have failed. Lambie criticised the government for blocking access to information and treating senators with disrespect.

Government response

Chisholm argued that the volume and nature of recent orders for the production of documents constituted an unprecedented abuse of the Senate’s powers. Chisholm stated that the government had complied with the highest number of such orders in a single term during the previous parliament. Chisholm contended that many requests were unreasonable, sought publicly available information, or imposed impossible timeframes on public servants. Chisholm maintained that the government’s amendments were necessary to highlight this misuse and protect the integrity of the scrutiny process.

Opposition response

Duniam argued that the government’s claim to transparency was contradicted by reports from the Centre for Public Integrity, which labelled the administration the most secretive in history. Duniam stated that alternative avenues for information, such as questions on notice and freedom of information requests, often resulted in redacted or unhelpful responses. Duniam claimed that the government’s repetitive amendments to document orders wasted significant parliamentary time that could have been used for other business. Duniam concluded that the government was failing to uphold its election promises regarding openness.