Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5) I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to over 1,700 questions on notice. I have made the numbers of the questions available to the chamber to be circulated. The questions were asked during the budget estimates hearing of the Economics Committee, in May 2014. I move:

That answers to questions on notice, the details of which have been circulated, be tabled in the Senate today no later than 5 pm.

We have an extraordinary position here today where not even the duty minister stood up to defend Mr Hockey's lack of answers to questions. Not even the duty minister could be bothered to defend a record as bad as that of 1,700 unanswered questions, which is why I have moved the motion today requiring him to meet a deadline of 5 pm. I have not done it to the other ministers, who at least made a half-hearted attempt, in some cases, and almost an explanation in other cases, to explain why they did not answer the questions that have been asked, within the time allotted. In themselves, they have appalling records, but this is the most appalling record: 1,700 questions unanswered, and silence from those opposite in this regard. No defence and no explanation. It is an appalling circumstance from this government. And it is not unsurprising from this government, where not even the duty minister could raise himself out of his seat to provide even a pitiful explanation.

But look at the record of this government. This is a government that has not answered 2,000 questions. I note that Senator Macdonald—maybe this is faint praise from me—is the only one from the coalition who attempted to provide an explanation as to why, and a commitment as to when the questions would be answered, although it was on their behalf. No other frontbencher made any attempt to commit to answering the question or to provide a date upon which they will be provided. Not one. Their only excuse, not an explanation, was to attack our record. Our record stands on its own. Our record in answering questions is a lot better than the silence from those opposite today. Mind you, though, Senator Macdonald does maybe need a lesson in procedure. The general business motion comes in at 4.30 and gets its full time until six o'clock. This is certainly not taking up general business. We will all have a good opportunity shortly for that debate.

In this instance is very important for the Senate to understand that it is not permissible not to provide a) explanations to questions asked by the Senate; and, b) if they do not provide that explanation they should at least commit in that explanation, if they do not have one, to answer the questions, and certainly answer them prior to estimates so that this place can examine the answers. On these issues, when the government were in opposition they did raise the same things. Senator Abetz said at that time:

This is indicative of a government that has no concern for the parliamentary process.

That is apposite now, as it was then.

This government has no concern for parliamentary process. It has shunned parliamentary process. It has ensured that it will play hard-ball with FOI applications. It has broken promises and lied at the election. It lied about no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no changes to the GST, and, most awful of all, we have already had now an admission from the communications minister that they did lie. They said there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS, but today we find out that they lied. There will be cuts to the ABC and SBS. This is typical of a government that does not want to provide information. It lacks transparency. It has made an art form of not answering questions that have been asked by the opposition. We say that their explanations today have been pitiful. Their explanations have not been fulsome. I recognise that all ministers cannot be here. Senator Cormann did say that he could not be here. He had urgent business. I recognise that, but you would at least have expected the sitting duty minister to provide such an explanation on his behalf. As manager, in the past, that is what I had to do, and it was done with careful words but with a commitment to answer the questions that have been asked. In this instance we have not heard one jot from that. It is an appalling record. Why? Well, I suspect nobody wants to defend Mr Hockey. Mr Hockey has made himself that unpopular. He is even more unpopular than Mr Abbott, so nobody from the other side wants to defend Mr Hockey or his record. In this place, his record speaks for itself. He has been an abysmal failure as Treasurer and the unanswered questions simply underscore this point that this minister has failed.

He has not been able to carry a budget. Months later, we are still talking about a budget. Most budgets get through and are finalised, so we can move on, within the first month or so and sometimes even less. In this instance, it is four months on and we are still talking about a failed budget. It is time for Mr Hockey to cut and run to wrap-up his budget, recognise that he made a huge failing and recognise that he made a huge mistake. He needs to call it quits, because in this instance Mr Hockey ought to take a lesson from the 1,700 questions unanswered. That is because his budget remains also unanswered.

We have had the government saying in this place that when they come into government they would be methodical, they would answer the questions on notice, they would take parliament seriously, they were treated with due deference and they would ensure that we got the information that we asked for. But what do we find? They are all talk and no action. They are all talk with very little action to fulfil those commitments. That was further underlined when you looked at Mr Hockey's budget and when he and Mr Abbott said prior to the election that there would not be cuts to education or to health and there would be no changes to the pension. All of this is unravelling for the coalition. They are not true to a word and they have not met the requirements of this place. That is why today I have asked to take note of these matters, because the extraordinary lack of attention to detail from those opposite has brought us here.

If you then go back to the primary issue, the Abbott government has still not answered 2,000 questions on notice lodged by Labor concerning some of the fundamental, basic questions about it spending on operations that we should have answered in this place. Why do they not want to answer those questions? I can proffer an answer. It is because they have got plenty to hide. They do not want the scrutiny. Their answers, like Mr Morrison's answers with Operation Sovereign Borders, is that they do not want to answer questions on this. Instead, they will flick past them for all of reasons that he might say, but scrutiny is not high on his agenda. Mr Hockey and this government are all following on the same song sheet.

It is an extraordinary circumstance that we are in. I trust that they will take note of this issue and ensure that the questions are answered in this place. That is because what we have uncovered in questions where they do answer is a Christmas party held at a burlesque bar by Peter Costello's Future Fund Management Agency. That was a dreadful waste. There was a $36,000 bookshelf for Senator Brandis. What can I say? Plenty has been said about that, but I suspect that the Attorney-General may not have learnt his lesson from that. Up to $2 million for each departmental red-tape reduction squad has been revealed. That is an extraordinary circumstances in itself, where if they did not answer the questions we would not now know that they had put together a red-tape squad. In some cases, they have not even covered the cost of the squad itself in the reduction of red tape. It should be the ordinary work of government, but they have made it into an art form.

There is over $60,000 a day being spent on taxis. $50,000 was splurged on upgrades to gym lockers. These are the issues that this government does not want to tell the public about. That is because on the other side of their persona, what they are saying is, 'We are Scrooge, we have got to be careful with our money and we have to ensure that we are savers and not spenders.' But what the questions do show is that they are spenders. They are spenders on waste and mismanagement. That is what this coalition government stands for.

Can I remind those opposite that it is a duty to take them on board and answer the questions provided. Given the time that I have taken, I will keep my contribution short. I note that I have not taken the full 20 minutes for each of the questions that I could have otherwise taken. I have ensured that I have kept it succinct and to the point, so that this government recognises their failings in this regard. Their only response to date has been to say, 'Look at them and look at us. Labor had a worse record.' That is not an explanation, it is not an argument and it is not a debate that is entertained in here. They are in government now and they have the reins. They are the executive and they should be held to account. They should manage their circumstances and they should commit to answering the questions that are unanswered.

Question agreed to.