DOCUMENTS

Senator PAYMAN (Western Australia—Australia's Voice Whip) (09:04): 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.