Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on its inquiry into the Gallipoli peninsula and its inquiry into government advertising and accountability. I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I want to make a few comments at this stage. The information that has been provided that I have presented today from the relevant departments is information that was not, of course, provided prior to the tabling of the reports. In October 2005, the committee presented its report into matters relating to the Gallipoli peninsula. At the time of the tabling of that report, there were quite a number of questions that had been taken on notice where answers were still outstanding, particularly from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Whilst we had this additional information provided in December, subsequent to the tabling of that report, there are still answers to questions outstanding.

In the case of the inquiry into government advertising and accountability, that report was tabled in December 2005, just prior to the parliament rising. At the time of the tabling of that report, there were approximately 180 questions on notice where there were answers outstanding. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations had 80 questions unanswered and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had 99 questions unanswered.

We have since received the additional information—the answers to questions. Whilst that is welcome, it is absolutely disgraceful, in my view, that we are getting this information after the committee has tabled its report. The departments had ample time in the case of each of these inquiries to assemble the information and provide it to the committee so that it could examine that material and those answers and, if necessary, deal with them in its report.

I have had a chance to have a look at some of this information in the brief time since it has been tabled or provided today, and some of it is information that was extremely relevant to the committee’s inquiry in both those cases. This has become almost a ritual now for this government that, where inquiries have been held, departments have consistently failed to provide answers to questions taken on notice. We see it time and time again in estimates, as we know, where we get the answers often on the morning that the next round of estimates is held.

In the case of inquiries into important issues, and these are inquiries into important issues, we get the information well after the date for tabling of the inquiry’s report has passed. I venture to say it has become a deliberate tactic to frustrate the operation of Senate committees. I have spoken about this before, and I will no doubt get to speak about it again if we ever get the opportunity for Senate references committees to conduct important inquiries in the future. That is a big if, given that the government now has the numbers in the Senate to effectively frustrate the operation of those committees. But that is something for the future.

I wanted to put on the record again that, at the end of the day, Senate references committees exist to enable senators to conduct inquiries into important matters. Just a few moments ago we were debating the issue of aged care. In what I thought was an excellent speech—one of the best speeches I have heard in this chamber on the issue of aged care—Senator Marshall pointed to the unanimous report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s inquiry into aged care. It is a committee inquiry that I participated in, as did you, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, as well as Senator Webber. That was a unanimous report. It made 51 recommendations. As Senator Marshall pointed out, many of those recommendations are extremely relevant to the issues that are now being aired in the media and in this parliament about abuses in the aged care sector.

We are still waiting for a reply from the government on that report. I believe that is further evidence of the government’s attitude, treating Senate committee inquiries effectively with contempt, and departments—which may be under instruction, I do not know—failing to provide information and answers to questions that they have taken on notice. We saw it in the inquiry into regional rorts. We know there were situations in that inquiry and other inquiries where answers or information had been prepared by the department and sent through to the minister’s office for clearance and had sat there for weeks and weeks. So it is not always the department’s fault; I will concede that. But whether it is the department’s fault or whether it is the minister’s fault does not really matter. The point is that there is an obligation, when questions are taken on notice or when departmental officials and ministers say that they will provide answers or additional information, that they do it in a timely manner so that Senate committees can properly carry out their responsibilities. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.