Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (10:43): I rise in support of this motion to ensure that the Senate can free up some time to debate and deal with important business. It's my sense that the increase in OPDs actually reflects the nosedive in transparency that we've seen from this government. It reflects the frustration of crossbenchers and others. On some of the comparisons with the Morrison government—if we compare the last term of the Morrison government in parliament with the first term of the Albanese government, and we look at compliance rates with OPDs, in the 46th Parliament, it was— Senator McAllister: You wouldn’t call that apples with apples, would you, Senator Pocock? Senator DAVID POCOCK: I'll take that interjection. Senator McAllister interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ghosh ): Senator McAllister! Senators, come to order. Senator Pocock has the call. He is entitled to be heard. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I am very happy to take the interjection about comparing apples with apples, because I am in fact comparing the compliance rate with OPDs with the compliance rate with OPDs, which seems to be a fairly similar comparison. Under the Morrison government, it was 48.7 per cent. Under the Albanese government, it is 32.8 per cent. One of the frustrations for those on the crossbench is that, even when we do successfully move an OPD, we're often getting back this—blacked-out pages. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Pocock, you are not permitted under the standing orders, as you know, to bring a prop into the chamber. Senator McKenzie: That is a tabled document. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Absolutely, but you cannot use it as a prop. Senator Pocock, you are entitled to rely on the document and describe it, but please don't hold it up for the purposes of a visual. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Thank you, Chair, for the correction. I was just holding up a document we received back in response to an OPD, and, curiously, there were a bunch of redactions to the talking points for a public event that the minister was giving, which just seems extraordinary by any measure There is so much urgent stuff that this parliament should be dealing with. There are Australians struggling out there under housing pressures and cost-of-living pressures. Yes, we've seen this ridiculous approach to essentially double the votes that this chamber takes. I don't know if you're looking for a record number of defeats in a week or what it might be. I welcome this. I think that we should move forward. Yes, there's potentially a debate about the scope of some OPDs, but I think they are an incredibly valuable thing and an important part of the Senate. You have to ask the larger question, in the context of a government that at the same time brings forward an FOI bill to reduce transparency—an FOI bill that actually goes against a recommendation of the robodebt royal commission and actually reduces transparency. That doesn't cut it. You can't just keep pointing to the Morrison government and saying, 'Well, at least we're a little bit better than them.' Australians want better, and rightly. They deserve better. So I urge you to do better on this. We have a Senate that wants more transparency. In fact, we read in the media—and I've spoken to some of these companies—that we have local AI companies who have solutions that are ready to go and that will cut down your processing time. They can actually help you with your OPDs. It seems to me that the problem we're facing is not actually the time it takes to gather the documents but the time it takes to go through and redact the talking points for a public event. That must take a lot of time. That must take a huge amount of time and a lot of ink. Senator McAllister: Get a private company to trawl through the government record? Senator DAVID POCOCK: Well, what's Microsoft? I'll take that interjection. I'll take the interjection, quickly, from Senator McAllister. She is very happy for Microsoft, a multinational with some serious data concerns with the Trump administration, to have all of our data and all of our emails, but, when it comes to a sovereign tech AI company based here in Australia, with safeguards, that can do it offline, there are questions raised. That doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it on transparency, and it doesn't cut it when it comes to how we treat small Australian businesses. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I see you on your feet, but unfortunately the time for this debate has just expired. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.