Senate debates

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Budget

Consideration by Estimates Committees

3:28 pm

Photo of George BrandisGeorge Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

They are, as I will make apparent to you. This is what Senator Sinodinos can have been asked to do under paragraph (5) of standing order 74:

(5) If a minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, or if a question taken on notice during a hearing of a legislative and general purpose standing committee considering estimates remains unanswered after the day set for answering the question, and a minister does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided:

(a) at the conclusion of question time on any day after that period, the senator may ask the relevant minister for such an explanation; and

(b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation; or

(c) in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister‘s failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr this afternoon has not availed himself of the procedure provided for by subparagraph (5)(c)—that is, a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation—but rather that the Senate take note of the explanation, which is not subparagraph (5)(c), Senator Carr, as you have just interjected, but paragraph (5)(b). So you have taken the procedure under standing order 74 subparagraph (5)(b). And that asks us to consider the sufficiency of the minister's response or explanation of the failure to provide an answer. Senator Sinodinos has done so, Senator Carr. Senator Sinodinos, who is the minister with responsibility for this area involving the CSIRO, acknowledged in the explanation that he provided to you that there are some questions that are overdue.

The first point to be made is that it is not at all uncommon. It is the most common thing in the world for answers to questions taken on notice to be overdue. I am not saying that that is not a failure to comply with the requirements of the standing order—it is—but it is also a very commonplace thing. Although I do not have the statistics to hand, I can assure you, Senator Carr, because I did look at these statistics some time ago, that this government's record in complying with time lines for questions taken on notice—questions placed on notice with the Clerk and, more importantly, estimates questions—is much, much better than the record of the previous Labor government. And if I may say so, Senator Carr, it is much better than your personal record when you enjoyed ministerial office.

Comments

No comments