MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (17:10): I'm honoured to stand up this afternoon to support my Western Australian colleague Senator Matt O'Sullivan's matter of public importance: The Albanese Labor Government has failed its own integrity test and is hiding behind a culture of secrecy, spin and broken promises. For those that have been watching or listening to this afternoon's debate, they would have come to the same conclusion that I have: the government in the Senate has no friends.
The crossbench senators, the Australian Greens and the coalition are speaking with one voice about the lack of transparency and the pursuit of secrecy that the Albanese Labor government now resorts to. Secrecy has a parent, and it's called hubris. When hubris starts to set, governments think that they can act in ways contrary to the commitments they gave the electorate prior to their election.
Anthony Albanese's commitment to the Australian people was very, very clear. He said he would lead a government that was committed to transparency and secrecy. In just six months, the Centre for Public Integrity has issued a report card on the performance of the government in regard to six critical metrics when it comes to transparency in our system of government.
There are names for countries that operate in secrecy. They're called Russia, North Korea, Iran and the People's Republic of China. This government is setting itself on a course—just six months into its second term—which seeks to allow itself to govern on secrecy and a lack of transparency.
As Senator Anne Ruston mentioned in her contribution, we've had a very, very powerful demonstration of that just this week in regard to the government's incoming government brief that was provided to Minister Chris Bowen by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. If time allows, I'll come to that point. Why is it that the government thinks it needs to start operating with greater levels of secrecy?
Why is it that the government doesn't think it can be as transparent as it thought it could be when it gave that commitment at the last election? The answer to that is very, very obvious. The government has committed to housing construction targets, which can't be fulfilled.
He wants to keep them secret. The government has committed to bringing electricity prices down. The evidence is they are not coming down—in fact, the evidence is that they are going to go up.
The government committed to emissions reduction targets, which are not going to be fulfilled. These are all examples of why, in the heart of government, they want to now lean on secrecy and lean on a lack of transparency because they know that the rubber is hitting the ground and that their performance, whether it be in energy, emissions, the economy, housing or health, is starting to catch up with them.
What were those metrics? What were those six metrics that the Centre for Public Integrity identified? Five of the six the government failed on.
Those are not my words. The Centre for Public Integrity said that the Albanese government got an F on five out of six of these metrics: metric No. 1, safeguards; metric No. 2, transparency; metric No. 3, limits on undue influence; metric No. 5, strengthening the public service; and metric No. 6, supports for institutions. But what did the report actually say?
What were the words that the report contained that demonstrate the government's poor performance? The report said there were 'serious integrity challenges' and that the government must reset the course. The report said that there were serious steps backwards in regard to transparency in our system of government.
On the issue of cronyism, what did the report say? The report said: The Albanese Government has made little progress on one of Australia's most pressing integrity reforms: ending the culture of "jobs for mates" in public appointments. They are not my words; they are the words of the Centre for Public Integrity.
We had a situation this week where the government relied on the wrong advice and denied the parliament the opportunity to see the incoming government brief. It was all on the record. It was a serious—whether it was a conspiracy, we will soon find out.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): The time for the discussion has expired.