Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

My contribution will be a little bit shorter than that contribution and maybe not as entertaining. This government does take the matter very seriously, unlike, perhaps, those in opposition who try to make the debate entertaining. It is a serious matter. What the government have said in respect of many of the questions that have been put on notice is that we are coordinating a response across portfolios. Some of them are complex and some of them are quite lengthy in character and will require some additional time to be able to provide detailed responses to them. And that is, in part, in addition to what I said—and I think I said that earlier as well. It is within standing orders and within Odgers as an appropriate response to the question.

The normal course of events—and perhaps it is worth while responding to this—is that, to provide what I would call ‘notice’ from Friday till Monday to provide these responses, this government has been responsive and has provided many of those that were in the pipeline to be tabled. The usual course, though—and the opposition perhaps failed to recognise this even when they were in government—and which I then followed in any event, is to indicate that there are a range of questions that have been unanswered and to give the government an opportunity to provide the answers and to ensure that those questions are answered, rather than bring them in here at the earliest opportunity and trail them through this place to seek to make politically opportunistic points.

This government has taken the matter seriously and as we speak is providing responses or indications that they are in the process. We have not sought to make cheap political points about this, because, unlike the opposition, this government does take it seriously. The opposition has failed to appreciate that it is appropriate for me as Manager of Government Business in the Senate to represent other ministers here so that they can do the usual work that they do. It is inappropriate to complain about that when we are representing, and can represent, other ministers in this chamber.

It is a silly point to make that others, because of their absence, are somehow different from those who are here. Senators on this side take their role seriously across the board. Some have been available to be able to provide that and some others, I suspect, had appointments that could not be altered and they needed to deal with those. The usual course, in any event, is for one minister such as me to deal with all of them en bloc. That is not unusual and that is the course this government has taken because many of your questions were not only to individual senators but across portfolios to all ministers. Therefore, given the way that you have asked the questions themselves, it does in fact suggest that the way we have been dealing with it—and that is to coordinate a response and for one minister to deal with the response—is not an unusual process.

So I find it disappointing that the senator has made criticism in that vein. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to the whole debate and, in fact, misplaced. Of course, what this government has also done is sought to introduce quite reasonable concepts of ministerial statements in parliament explaining decisions and has looked at a raft of transparency measures including the acceleration of tabling of the questions on notice. We have also looked at other transparency measures such as a lobbyist registrar, abolition of the ministerial committee of government, communication of twiceyearly tabling of advertising expenditure to prevent a range of occurrences, tabling of the Members and Parliament (Staff) Act annual report and merit based selection for employment of agencies. We have done a range of things that the previous government failed to do and failed to acknowledge that they had any need to do to ensure that there was transparent government. This government is transparent and able to provide this type of information to also get rid of what—for the opposition when they were in government—were effectively jobs for the boys. They would not provide information about how their selection process went ahead.

What this government has been able to do in the short time that it has been in government is take these matters and transform Australian government into one that takes transparency seriously and one that tries to provide timely information. What the opposition have failed to acknowledge in this debate today is that the questions that were asked were huge and complex. What they have also failed to acknowledge is that this government has taken its role seriously and not only provided responses today but continues to commit to provide responses—unlike the previous government, the Howard government, which did not take its role seriously, would not have had the number of ministers here to respond to Senator Ronaldson, would not have even deigned to provide an explanation as detailed as I have provided, as I have provided on behalf of Senator Sherry and as Senator Evans has provided, and would not have even deigned to ensure that there would be responses. That is evidenced by what Senator Evans read out, which was that the number of questions that continue to remain on notice, 3,482, gives you a sniff of what the previous government was like when it was in government and how it treated the opposition. And 415 questions on notice were never answered. That is an indictment of the previous government.