Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion moved by Senator Faulkner in relation to taking note of the various reports of estimates committees. I want to briefly speak about the report tabled in respect of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. I am pleased that Senator Abetz is in the chamber at this time. Perhaps, as the minister responsible for the position of the government before that committee, he might take into account the report from the committee and the advice provided by the Clerk as to the department’s failure to answer questions in that estimates committee.

One of the issues which arose on a number of occasions before this committee was the department’s refusal to answer a range of questions but particularly questions in relation to timing of information being provided to the minister’s office. The position put by the department on a number of occasions was that the answers, if they were given, would contravene section 13(6) of the Public Service Act. This was raised on a number of occasions by a particular person in the department, and that position was not deviated from or qualified by the minister or the departmental secretary, Dr Boxall.

As a result of that, advice was sought from the Clerk on a number of occasions. A more comprehensive advice has been provided, and it appears at appendix A of the committee’s report. What is clear from the Clerk’s advice is that the department’s refusal to answer a number of questions from opposition senators in that estimates hearing is contrary to or inconsistent with the practice and procedures which have been adopted in relation to estimates committees for some time.

I raise this issue because I hope the department and Minister Abetz—as he is in the chamber—might actually have regard to the advice of the Clerk. I will refer to a couple of issues that have been raised by the Clerk of the Senate in the advice. In relation to section 13(6), the Clerk makes the point that that section of the Public Service Act cannot be breached by an officer providing information to a parliamentary committee. This is a matter that was canvassed extensively in the early nineties. In fact, in Senate debates in December 2003, Senator Minchin said:

A general statutory secrecy provision does not apply to disclosure of information in parliament or any of its committees unless the provision is framed to have such an application.

The Clerk goes on in his advice to make the point:

It is most surprising that any officer of any department should still be referring to the possibility of being in breach of a statutory provision by providing information to a parliamentary committee.

In other words, it is quite clear from the Clerk’s advice, I suggest, that the objection, as it was so framed, which was raised by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has no basis in the legal position, in the procedures of the Senate and in precedent.

I also want to make the point that a number of questions were related to timing issues—that is, when advice was provided to a minister’s office or when something was considered by cabinet et cetera. Opposition senators took care, because we understand the limits of what has generally been accepted in estimates committee questioning processes, not to ask what the substance of the advice was. The questions were focused primarily on timing—when certain things were considered. These are questions which have been asked and answered in estimates committee processes for many years. Yet again before this committee, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, with Senator Abetz present, declined to answer a range of questions as to timing. I want to make this point by repeating the Clerk’s advice:

Mr O’Sullivan and the department contended that information about when answers to questions on notice were provided to ministers’ offices falls within the prohibited area ...

The Clerk goes on to say:

It is to draw an extremely long bow to claim that such information falls within the category of advice to government.

We on this side of the chamber make the point, which the Clerk also refers to, that questions as to timing of provision of answers to questions on notice or other matters have been regularly asked and answered in estimates committees for years. We make the point that in the recent hearings similar questions were answered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. One wonders why it is that, in the estimates committee in which Senator Abetz is representing the government, all of a sudden this precedent falls away and is not followed. We are in a situation where questions which have been asked and answered are objected to and not answered by the government. I am not sure why Senator Eggleston has his arms wide open over there. Perhaps he agrees with me so much.