|
senate vote 2018-03-27#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-04-05 15:29:17
|
Title
Documents — Future Submarine Project; Order for the Production of Documents- Documents - Future Submarine Project - Order for the Production of Documents
Description
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 775 standing in my name for today, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the future submarine project, before asking that it be taken as formal.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-03-27.182.2) introduced by SA Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Centre Alliance), which means it succeeded.
- ### Motion text
- > *That—*
- >
- > *(1) The Senate notes that:*
- >
- >> *(a) on 12 February 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, for the Australian Industry Capability Plan submitted by DCNS (now Naval Group) to the Department of Defence in its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP);*
- >>
- >> *(b) the order followed a lack of clarity as to the minimum level of Australian industry involvement expectations of Government for the Future Submarine Project;*
- >>
- >> *(c) on 15 February 2018, the duty minister tabled a letter in response to both orders for production claiming public interest immunity and stated that release of the document would:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) affect the commercial interests of Naval Group, and*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) adversely affect Australia's international relations, and advised the Senate that the Government was awaiting the outcome of an Information Commissioner Review into freedom of information (FOI) exemptions claimed over the same document;*
- >>
- >> *(d) it was conceded by government in 1992, that the fact that a freedom of information request for information has been or could be refused under the FOI Act is not a legitimate basis for a claim of public interest immunity in a parliamentary forum;*
- >>
- >> *(e) on 25 June 2014, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that declining to provide documents or answer questions on the basis that an FOI request has been made for the same information is an unacceptable response, is not supported by the FOI Act and shows a profound lack of respect for the Senate and its committees;*
- >>
- >> *(f) a Senate claim of commercial confidentiality must be carefully advanced and claimed narrowly so as to recognise the public interest that lies in openness and transparency on this very important project;*
- >>
- >> *(g) the claim that the release of the documents will affect international relations is not properly made out and is flawed (and has not even been advanced by the Department of Defence as a concern in the Information Commissioner Review) because the document which is the subject of the order is a document of a French-law Public Limited Company, not a document of the French State; and*
- >>
- >> *(h) orders for the production of documents are a key Senate tool used to ensure effective oversight of Government, and must be responded to by Ministers with utmost consideration, care and accuracy.*
- >
- > *(2) The Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 10 May 2018 to make a statement, of not more than 20 minutes, addressing why the Minister:*
- >
- >> *(a) has advanced a claim showing a profound lack of respect for the Senate;*
- >>
- >> *(b) offered a broad confidentiality claim that does not correctly balance the public interest in knowing what DCNS promised, in respect of Australian industry involvement in our largest ever Defence project; and*
- >>
- >> *(c) has advanced a claim that releasing the document to the Senate would affect Australia's international relations knowing that this claim is inconsistent with the position of her own Department.*
- >
- > *(3) Any senator may move a motion to take note of the Minister's statement, and any such motion may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all other government business until determined.*
<p>Through you, Mr President—could you expand on that? We haven't seen anything.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Patrick, you are seeking leave but no amendment has been circulated. Is it simple to explain?</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>It is. I'd like to amend the motion by omitting in paragraph 2 the words '28 March 2018' and substituting '10 May 2018'.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>So the amendment is to paragraph 2, to change the date with respect to the minister being required to attend the Senate to make a statement from 28 March, being tomorrow, to 10 May 2018. Is leave granted for Senator Patrick to amend the motion?</p><p>Leave granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I move the motion as amended:</p><p class="italic">That—</p><p class="italic">  (1) The Senate notes that:</p><p class="italic">  (a) on 12 February 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, for the Australian Industry Capability Plan submitted by DCNS (now Naval Group) to the Department of Defence in its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP);</p><p class="italic">  (b) the order followed a lack of clarity as to the minimum level of Australian industry involvement expectations of Government for the Future Submarine Project;</p><p class="italic">  (c) on 15 February 2018, the duty minister tabled a letter in response to both orders for production claiming public interest immunity and stated that release of the document would:</p><p class="italic">     (i) affect the commercial interests of Naval Group, and</p><p class="italic">     (ii) adversely affect Australia's international relations, and advised the Senate that the Government was awaiting the outcome of an Information Commissioner Review into freedom of information (FOI) exemptions claimed over the same document;</p><p class="italic">  (d) it was conceded by government in 1992, that the fact that a freedom of information request for information has been or could be refused under the FOI Act is not a legitimate basis for a claim of public interest immunity in a parliamentary forum;</p><p class="italic">  (e) on 25 June 2014, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that declining to provide documents or answer questions on the basis that an FOI request has been made for the same information is an unacceptable response, is not supported by the FOI Act and shows a profound lack of respect for the Senate and its committees;</p><p class="italic">  (f) a Senate claim of commercial confidentiality must be carefully advanced and claimed narrowly so as to recognise the public interest that lies in openness and transparency on this very important project;</p><p class="italic">  (g) the claim that the release of the documents will affect international relations is not properly made out and is flawed (and has not even been advanced by the Department of Defence as a concern in the Information Commissioner Review) because the document which is · the subject of the order is a document of a French-law Public Limited Company, not a document of the French State; and</p><p class="italic">  (h) orders for the production of documents are a key Senate tool used to ensure effective oversight of Government, and must be responded to by Ministers with utmost consideration, care and accuracy.</p><p class="italic">  (2) The Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 10 May 2018 to make a statement, of not more than 20 minutes, addressing why the Minister:</p><p class="italic">  (a) has advanced a claim showing a profound lack of respect for the Senate;</p><p class="italic">  (b) offered a broad confidentiality claim that does not correctly balance the public interest in knowing what DCNS promised, in respect of Australian industry involvement in our largest ever Defence project; and</p><p class="italic">  (c) has advanced a claim that releasing the document to the Senate would affect Australia's international relations knowing that this claim is inconsistent with the position of her own Department.</p><p class="italic">  (3) Any senator may move a motion to take note of the Minister's statement, and any such motion may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all other government business until determined.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>On 14 February, the government made a public interest immunity claim and noted that the Information Commissioner is also conducting a separate review of a freedom-of-information request for the same documents. The government maintains this position and does not believe that a further statement to the Senate by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry is necessary at this time.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>The process of the Senate seeking to inform itself and the process of citizens to gain access to information through FOI are very different. Some of the public interest immunity and FOI exemptions are similar—I concede. I note that they do have different thresholds, but they are definitely separate processes. Refusing to table documents on the grounds that a decision on FOI is still pending is not appropriate. I also note that the public interest immunity claim of the minister—that is, damage to international relations—is in disagreement with her own department.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>The Greens will be supporting this motion. We support increased transparency across the board but particularly in relation to matters of defence. We would say that we probably have a philosophical disagreement with the Xenophon party in the sense that we'd actually like to see the documents and the logic behind having these very expensive submarines in the first place. But, nevertheless, we will support the intent of this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that motion No. 775, as amended, be agreed to.</p>
|