Senator MARGETTS (4:40 PM) —This has been an amazing argument today. If I could paraphrase what Senator Faulkner has just presented to the Senate, he admitted with his quotes that `We were bad but you are worse' in relation to the presentation.

Senator Faulkner —I don't think I ever used that word.

Senator MARGETTS —I know. Senator Faulkner did not actually say that. I am paraphrasing it in my own words, but basically he read out several rather serious criticisms of his own government in relation to the release of documents. Basically he is saying that the standards of this government are worse than the standards set by Labor when they were in government. That is a great concern because I believe that certainly by the end of their term of office the Labor government were showing considerable contempt for the Senate. I do recall several debates in relation to those very issues in this chamber. So, if that is the case, it is something to be concerned about.

What are we talking about in relation to the power of executive government? The minister has mentioned 12 documents held back for what he calls `public interest immunity'. However, the minister also says that he believes it is in the public interest that the mine should go ahead. How do you translate that? Public interest immunity may mean that those documents may be detrimental to the mine going ahead. Well, isn't that interesting? The first part of the minister's presentation expressed his outrage at what he thought the information might be used for.

I would like to remind honourable senators, through you, Mr Chair, that the minister has forgotten that any document tabled in this chamber, because of the ability to be tabled, can be used by anybody. It can be used if necessary, I guess, across the Sydney Harbour Bridge if so desired. If there is a desire for the community to obtain information and if there is a reasonable reason for that information to become available, it is irrelevant what members of this parliament are planning to do with it. It is also irrelevant what members of the public plan to do with it. It is not the place of the executive to make decisions about access to documents based on what people are planning to do with that information. That is not, I believe, the prerogative of executive government. If that is considered to be the prerogative of executive government, I am afraid this ministry has already forgotten what they are supposed to be involved in with the separation of powers.

It is not supposed to mean that a minister can decide what is right or wrong for the parliament, for senators or for the public based on information that is in this parliament or that is made available through this parliament, unless what is made available is dealt with illegally—and then of course we have criminal laws to deal with those issues. So if what we are saying is that the minister for the environment has become a proponent of mining, then we are saying that it is his opinion that in the public interest he should withhold any information which will be detrimental to the thing which he has considered to be good—and that it equals the public interest if the interests of the environment minister equal the interests of the mining minister and he declares any documents which may harm his purpose in allowing the mine to go ahead to be against the public interest.

I think there is a very serious problem here. We know that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been very limited in what it considers to be legitimate reasons for withholding documents. How dare a minister come into this place and suggest that—for reasons of what he considers to be the use or potential use of those documents—he will consider that releasing those documents to the public and to the parliament is against the public interest? How dare he? How dare he thumb his nose at that basic, simple level of accountability?

Whether or not the mine can be administered in a safe way is, of course, an issue of high dispute. But we cannot have a situation where, right now, within the operation of the parliament, a government is already acting as if it is born to rule.

We already have a situation where the government are annoyed that the Senate is amending or debating any of the proposals which they come up with, as if we have not got a right to debate or amend their proposals. In the media, they are demanding changes to the voting system and to the Constitution to make sure that small parties and independents cannot voice the concerns of the community.

This is further evidence of that contempt. This is further evidence that we need to move to a strengthening of the separation of powers, not a blurring so that a minister can decide, `I don't like the way you are likely to use this information so on that basis I will declare it against the public interest to release it.' That is patently a nonsense and it is patently against the general public interest of this country.

If there is information in those documents which would be damaging to the ongoing sham approval process that this government has engaged in, then that information should be in the public arena. The right decision should have been made. If the right decision was not made, and if the documents show that the right decisions were not made or that information that should have been taken into consideration was not, whatever methods this government used to try to sway an international body—and how dare they talk about other people mentioning the international arena—against making a decision based on proper process should be out in the public arena.

Mr Acting Deputy President, this is disgraceful. On the evidence that is before me, I feel that I can support this censure motion. I take these motions seriously because they are about the basis of democracy. And contempt of democracy should be exposed.