Skip to content
Political Tracker

17 Sept 2018 · 3:43 PM · Division 4

Great Barrier Reef Foundation

Table due diligence report
Official title
Motions - Great Barrier Reef Foundation - Table due diligence report

Ayes in the majority

This says only which side won the vote, because what Aye and No meant here depends on the exact question put in the chamber.

Aye
40
No
26
Not recorded voting
10

“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.

What was decided

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick (SA), which means it succeeded.

Motion text

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) on 21 August 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy for documents relating to the grant of $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (the Foundation), including documents demonstrating due diligence was carried out on the Foundation;

(b) on 10 September 2018, the duty minister tabled the index to a due diligence report prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor but did not table the body of the report, making a public interest immunity claim of legal professional privilege;

(c) to the extent that the report fulfils a due diligence task, it cannot be characterised as legal advice and, therefore, cannot attract the privilege – it is noted the document comprised largely information that is available online free of charge or for a nominal fee, such as company details, insolvency notice search results, media searches, ASIC personal name search results, and AUSTLII case searches;

(d) the Senate does not accept legal professional privilege as a basis for a claim of public interest immunity unless it is established that there is some particular harm to be apprehended by the disclosure of the information;

(e) in Egan v Chadwick, Chief Justice Spigelman held that "in performing its accountability function, the Legislative Council may require access to legal advice on the basis of which the Executive acted, or purported to act...access to such advice will be relevant in order to make an informed assessment of the justification for the Executive decision. In my opinion, access to legal advice is reasonably necessary for the exercise by the Legislative Council of its functions"; and

(f) as a country that upholds the rule of law, the Government must not rely on conventions, no matter how longstanding, that are contrary to established principles in law.

(2) That the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim made by the then Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy (Senator Birmingham) in relation to the due diligence report prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor, and requires the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment to table the due diligence report, in accordance with the order for the production of documents agreed to by the Senate on 21 August 2018, with any appropriate redactions where there is some particular harm to be apprehended, accompanied by a properly made out claim for public interest immunity identifying the harm.

Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate

Policies this vote counts towards

How They Vote For You uses this vote when scoring members against each policy.

Votes by party

Both bars use the same scale: number of members.
Aye
40
No
26
Votes by party as a table
PartyAyeNo
Australian Labor Party210
Liberal Party120
Australian Greens90
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party40
Independent12
National Party02
Nick Xenophon Team20
Deputy Senate President01
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party10
Liberal Democratic Party10
Liberal National Party01

How each member voted

Aye · 40

No · 26

Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.