Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise, following from Senator Faulkner’s motion, to take note of the report on estimates of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will note that something a little unusual has occurred in the delivery of the report which was tabled this afternoon. We have had to take the unusual step of providing a set of additional comments. This eventuates from the Senate estimates hearings for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 31 May and 1 June, which, I have to say, showed the hubris of this government and the abuse of Senate process that has become the norm. It has just infiltrated into our chamber—the chamber that we have cherished—and we now have a system where the abuse and hubris of this government has become the norm and the reality.

The intent or import of that additional comments section of our report goes to the fact that Senator Santoro, the minister who has been given the responsibility for representing the government at Senate estimates for Health and Ageing, was actually not present for, I would say, most of the hearings. You would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is not possible to be accurate in allocating an absolute time period, but it is our view that for probably more than half of the time in the hearings the minister was not present.

Those listening might say, ‘Isn’t that a blessing in disguise?’ But I have to say that, if one has respect for this place, the operations of scrutiny and the Senate, surely one would understand why it is important to have a minister attend a hearing. As I said, it shows a contempt for Senate processes and a complete lack of understanding of the role of the estimates committee and of the Senate itself. We know that Senator Santoro has in fact never been elected to this place. He is an appointee. In fact, he is the only minister never to be elected. So he goes down in history for that fact. Maybe that is some explanation for why he so completely misunderstood—and maybe that is generous—why you in fact need to have a minister present when you are conducting estimates hearings.

I have to say that, for Senator Santoro, being in this place is not about policy, good governance or Senate scrutiny; it is about numbers. We know that Senator Santoro is the factional heavyweight in one brand of the Liberal Party in Queensland. Tonight I make the suggestion that it might be relevant that there were hearings on 31 May and 1 June. We remember that the reason that Senator Santoro sits on the front bench on that side is because his name is not Brandis or Mason. Given all that, we should not be surprised that he has no understanding of why he should at least attend the estimates hearings. His experience in the Queensland state parliament would not have been much of an education. Budget estimates in that place go for about half a day and they are very tame events. In fact, until the early nineties, we did not even have them until the Labor government was elected.

What is of concern to us—and we have reflected this in our report—and should also be of concern to the government, is Senator Santoro’s facile attempt to defend himself for why he was not present. If I am verballing you, Senator Santoro, please correct me. He essentially said, ‘There was no point in being there.’ He said that he is the Minister for Ageing and really could not answer questions for the minister for health. In fact, his actual words were:

Yes, I could have been here and maybe I could have given some answer relating to policy direction, but, in reality, that answer really is the prerogative of the minister for health.

I bring Senator Santoro’s attention to the document that sits in the desk in front of every senator who sits in this place. On the back of the page it says: ‘Senator the Hon. Santo Santoro, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing’. That is your job, Minister. That is what you are there for.

We do not expect that you will know all the detail, but when we are asking a question of an official and the official says, ‘I can’t answer that question because that is a policy decision of government,’ it is appropriate to refer the question to the minister to give some indication of what the thinking of the government was in making that policy decision. That is your job. That is why you are there. But maybe that is why you were not there. You do not want to answer those questions and you do not want to be in that place, but, I am sorry, we have a right to ask those questions on behalf of the community and you have a responsibility to be there. In fact, there is a resolution to that effect that says that officials cannot answer questions of policy, and that is read out at the beginning of every Senate budget estimates committee hearing.

The second defence that Senator Santoro raised as to why he was not present for the many hours of the hearings of the Department of Health and Ageing was that the officers had advised him that he did not have to be there. I find that quite extraordinary. The easiest defence for anyone in a position of power is to blame their staff. I was astonished that the minister took that option when I questioned him about why he was not there. He actually said that the advice from the officers was that they thought, ‘If you would like to do so’—that is, do some of your work—‘in the comfort and with the support of your office, you might be doing yourself a favour from an operational point of view.’ I am astonished and I am quite sure that that was not the advice that he had received from his department.

I know that ministers are very busy people. We are all busy people, but ministers are especially busy people. I also know that Senator Minchin, for example, is a very busy person, but I understand that Senator Minchin sat for two full four-day weeks for the estimate committees at which he represents the government, and he was there for most of the time. We do not demand that you are there for every second of every hour. We have allowed it in the past—you can go out and make an urgent phone call. We have that with Senator Patterson over the years. She would be out in the corridor having a quick chat to somebody and then she would be back in there, just in case a policy question was asked or she needed to show the leadership that, in fact, government is elected to show. But, Senator Santoro, you were not there. You did not even bother. Senator Patterson did not only the two days for Health and Ageing but the two days for FaCS, so she did four days and sat there all the time. If that is good enough for Senator Patterson, surely it is good enough for Senator Santoro to do it for two days.

As I said earlier, Senator Santoro said he was busy in his office, but, remember, that week of the Senate estimates hearings was the week of the demise of The Nationals in Queensland. That was the week of the rise of the New Liberals in Queensland, albeit for only a couple of days. We know that Senator Santoro’s motivation in this place is to be here to be the numbers boy for a faction of the Liberal Party in Queensland. He is not here to worry about policy documents or the care of older Australians; he is here to raise the numbers and he is on the front bench because of that. We know that because of his extraordinary elevation so quickly.

He said he was a busy boy. He then told us that there were 400 pieces of correspondence that he had to sign. He said that he had to review three cabinet submissions. I am sorry—do that in the estimates hearings so that you can at least contribute to the process. The fact that Senator Santoro is a novice minister is no defence. If Mr Howard is going to promote his factional ally, his friend, his numbers boy, a senator who has never been elected, surely it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to at least train him about the responsibilities of a minister of the Crown.