Senate debates
Tuesday, 5 September 2017
Answers to Questions on Notice
Question Nos 298, 300, 301, 312, 313, 342, 357, 359, 365
3:29 pm
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
Another stunt by the Labor Party, because we happen to be on broadcast today. We've just had a 20-minute adjournment speech on a matter where a senator hopes to get a headline in her local media over these issues, which, in fact, if you know about NBN Co, all stem from the mess NBN Co was when Labor senator Conroy designed it on the back of an envelope in an aircraft. The whole difficulty which this government has been trying to deal with is the fact that Senator Conroy and the Labor Party could not organise a chook raffle, let alone Australia's biggest ever business.
I congratulate Minister Fifield on the answer he gave to Senator Urquhart's question. This session of the Senate is supposed to be about finding out why questions on notice have not been not answered. Senator Fifield was given some notice an hour or so beforehand, and in that hour he was able to come up with accurate details of the huge number of usually irrelevant questions asked by Labor senators at estimates, on notice and otherwise that involve the department, Commonwealth bureaucrats, in hundreds of hours of research, trying to find the answers, which, I will bet you, Madam Deputy President, the Labor senators who ask the questions never even read. That is obvious, because you go to the next estimates and they ask exactly the same questions, and the public servants say, rather embarrassingly, 'I'm sorry, Senator; we already answered that on notice, in writing.' Senator Fifield gave us statistics. Most of the questions have been answered.
I am still waiting for answers to a couple of questions that I asked of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, which finished four years ago. I put questions at estimates two years before that, and I am still waiting for the answers from Labor ministers. That was par for the course when the Labor Party was in government. But I congratulate Senator Fifield on getting so many of the answers and explaining that those that had not been able to be addressed by public servants because of the time taken would be answered very shortly.
Could I suggest to Senator Urquhart—if she is not just after a cheap headline in the local rag—that she does what I do now and what I used to do even in the term of the Labor government. If I have a serious question, a serious wish to help a constituent, I will go and approach the minister. I have done that a number of times with Minister Fifield. Different constituents have had problems that I thought his office might be able to deal with, and so I've gone to see him in his office. He is very, very helpful. If you have a serious question about the Burnie hospital, if it's a serious question, if it's something that requires immediate attention, don't try and get a cheap headline in the local rag; go and see the minister's office, and see if they can give some help.
Senator Urquhart interjecting—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
No comments