Senator FAULKNER (4:56 PM) —As far as this particular issue is concerned, in the opposition's view, we have unfinished business before the Senate chamber. The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, has produced, from all reports, what can only be described as a vicious policy assault on the poor and needy in our community.

Of course, we know that Senator Newman has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. Of course, Senator Newman has engaged in a cover-up. Of course, Senator Newman has weakened government accounta bility processes by inventing new grounds for public interest immunity—grounds which should be repudiated by any responsible government and which certainly should be repudiated by this Senate.

Senator Newman now, after six weeks, has failed to front up to the Senate with her original document, which everybody knows is very different to the sanitised document that was sent to the President of the Senate on Wednesday, 10 November. Somewhere, perhaps hidden in a filing cabinet in Senator Newman's office or maybe in the Prime Minister's office, is the so-called seminal document: her plans, the government's plans, to reconstruct Australia's welfare system. These plans remain under lock and key.

The revised plans and the ongoing reference group process are the work of another minister, Minister Reith, who has lately distinguished himself as Mr Howard's fixer on this particular issue. Unfortunately, the report that we have before us does not reveal Senator Newman's blueprint for welfare, but what it does do, step by step, is reveal Senator Newman's cover-up on this issue. We know that Senator Newman wanted a cover-up on this issue from the very beginning. She wanted her blueprint for welfare to be dropped at the National Press Club, with all the nasty bells and ugly whistles that it contained. But we also know that Senator Newman was rolled—rolled by the Prime Minister. We know that she did not attend the Senate references committee hearing on 12 November because of the humiliation that she had suffered from the Prime Minister and because she refuses to be answerable for her own policy document.

We know that the Prime Minister's office rejected her initial document because, finally, the Prime Minister's office realised that it was politically unpalatable. We know that Senator Newman had to, in a humiliating way, rejig and remake the speech that was presented to the National Press Club to leave some of the nastier bits out. We know that she was forced to invent a face-saving reference group to look at welfare reform. We know that Mr Reith rewrote the policy document to make it more politically palatable. Also, we know that at the last minute Senator Newman and her office put out an outrageous letter claiming public immunity for the original document. It is for that reason I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and that the Senate does not accept the claim of public interest immunity made by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) in respect of certain documents ordered by the Senate to be produced, or on the grounds for making that claim".

The minister sends off a letter, via her chief of staff, claiming public interest immunity, firstly, for any material which informed the seminal document which could prejudice ongoing cabinet consideration and, secondly, on the grounds, to quote the minister, of `giving rise to unnecessary speculation which could confuse the public debate'. They are the minister's words. The Clerk of the Senate—

Senator Woodley —The minister is confused.

Senator FAULKNER —That is true. The Clerk of the Senate has already exposed these excuses to be bogus grounds for public interest immunity. The Clerk said of the second ground that, in the past, when similar public candour arguments have been raised, they have been given short shrift by courts. The community affairs committee hearing subsequently revealed that the original document had nothing to do with the cabinet process mentioned in Senator Newman's first ground for immunity. The cabinet process only took form after Senator Newman was rolled and humiliated by the Prime Minister. As I said before, this is unfinished business for the committee and for the Senate. Senator Newman's grounds for public interest immunity are inherently bogus. They set a very bad precedent indeed for accountability in government. To lump all material that informs a document, which may or may not have anything to do with cabinet, as basically cabinet in confidence is pure Jeff Kennett. We have got to deal with this developing and evolving trend in the Howard government before we see this excuse used again to cover up other material which the parliament and the public might have a substantial interest in. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, has already tried a variation of this approach in the Senate over material pertaining to the Federation Fund by stating that was cabinet in confidence when such material had absolutely nothing at all to do with the cabinet.

Senator Newman is just trashing proper process in this way and this chamber ought to condemn Senator Newman for that. To say a document should not be released because it might cause unnecessary speculation and confuse public debate is dangerous and counterproductive to public accountability. Public debate around an issue is perhaps confusing to some people, but that is often the case when you have something as contentious as welfare policy. This is an absurd artifice that has been built by the minister; it ought to be condemned by this chamber. It is the minister's job to argue her case before the Senate. If she cannot, she should get out of the game. This is another debate we have had today and the minister is missing in action. If the minister has confidence and pride in what she apparently believes in and embraces, she should be able to defend it. She should have the clout to argue her case in the cabinet, in the parliament, in the public arena—again the minister is missing in action.

I have got to say that this has been a very shabby episode indeed. The process has been a catalogue of failure and panic on the part of Senator Newman, but it has all been Senator Newman's own work. I have to say that if Senator Newman genuinely believes that there is virtually no substantial difference between the document that was tabled and the so-called working draft of the document that has been covered up, why doesn't she come clean? Why does she say that the first document would give rise to unnecessary speculation and confuse public debate? You cannot have it both ways. Why is Senator Newman covering up if the document is not going to give any alarm to people? Why is she saying it is confusing if it is really no different to what has been tabled? Why is it going to raise unnecessary speculation if it is really no different? This does not add up. It is a cover-up by Senator Newman, a cover-up by the government, and another effort by an incompetent minister not willing to defend herself. I commend the amendment to the Senate in the terms that I have moved it.