Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

When I listen to the Minister for Finance, I think the argument about the questions that I have asked for, which are, I think, 166 days overdue now, is essentially that the government has had a lot of questions asked of it—more questions than previous governments. I would submit that some of the explanation for that is that we've never had a government that has been so intent on not answering questions.

Many of the questions that I've asked that are now 166 days late could have been answered in the estimates committee, but they weren't, because this government's approach to transparency and accountability is to have public servants appear and, if there is anything that it is not in the government's interests to answer, have them take it on notice or find another way not to answer the question. There is a problem with the openness of this government, which now has a consequential effect on the number of questions that are being taken on notice, which now the senator, who is leaving the chamber, has used as an excuse to say, 'We're overworked.'

It's right that the Senate should not only get a reasonable explanation—other than, 'Sorry, we came to work and we're really busy and we haven't gotten around to it,' which was essentially Senator Birmingham's submission to the Senate—but demand that this information be provided. You are the government. You are responsible, as the guardians of hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds. You are making decisions on the nation's behalf. There are senators in this place elected to hold you to account. You answer those questions. You don't come in here and cry fake tears, saying you're a bit busy and you haven't got around to it. That is a completely useless explanation.

Prime Minister and Cabinet, which answers to these questions would emanate from, is the worst offender in my experience. The Prime Minister's right-hand man, the butler who runs to serve his every need when the bell gets rung by the Prime Minister, leads that department, and that is the standard they set. They take things on notice and then have no intention of answering to the Senate. That forces us to come in here and expose them and embarrass them, and I still don't think it'll matter to Mr Gaetjens or his crew, because that is the leadership that, under this Prime Minister, is shown about accountability, honesty, transparency and responsibility to the parliament and accountability to the parliament, not just to executive government. When PM&C are led like that and behave in this way, why should any other department be any better? It's clear they get rewarded.

We're heading into estimates next week. Let's see how many senior public servants, who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, turn up and don't have information available or 'aren't able to take that question right now; we'll get back to you', knowing full well that they can take 100 days or longer because there is no consequence and because they're rewarded by the leadership for doing that. That's my prediction of what will happen, and that's why we're here now, using up precious time in the Senate to make the point that this is unacceptable. That's why you just had those contributions from Senator Keneally and Senator Patrick, and I associate myself with the comments Senator Patrick made as well, because they were spot-on. I think what this government hopes is that this explanation, 'Oh shucks, we got to work and we're a little bit busy,' will keep it at bay until the election. You can see what's going on. But after eight years of this type of approach these institutions, these conventions—the parliamentary practice that has developed over time and enshrined these processes as part of our democracy—are getting chipped away at. It's important that we stand up for them and important that we call it out. Even if Mr Gaetjens isn't going to answer my letter asking him where these answers are, even if they come to estimates next week and refuse to answer, it is important that the Senate stands up, calls it out and tries to protect it.

When you whittle away the Public Service, as this government has done; when you whittle away the FOI Act, which this government has done and continues to attempt to do; when you disempower the Auditor-General, as this government has done, in punishment and retaliation for the audit reports that it puts out on the government's rorting of grants schemes; and when you start wearing away the integrity processes of the parliament, there will be consequences for our democracy and our access to information. That is what we are standing up for. That is what is happening here. My questions 1356, 501 and 519 to 531, asked at March Estimates 2021 might not seem much, but the fact that this is a systemic approach to dealing with questions on notice is about whittling away those parliamentary practices, the scrutiny role of the Senate, because it suits this government. That's exactly what it's doing. They've done it to the Auditor-General, they're doing it to the FOI Act, they're doing it to the way they deal with OPDs in this place.

It's all pretty obvious. Maybe, taken on their own, people don't see that it's that big a deal; but put it all together and there has been an eight-year-long assault on the scrutiny and accountability functions of the parliament. That's why we're raising these points today. It's not about an overworked government; it's about a secret government. It's a government that will do anything it can to keep information away from the public eye regardless of the fact that it is paid for with public dollars. If it's not in their political interests, they will withhold access to that information. That's why we're raising these points today.

The issues that are covered by my questions actually relate to a lot of questions around the matters surrounding Ms Brittany Higgins and the role of the Prime Minister's Office. There is a whole range of questions now that it didn't suit the Prime Minister to ask at the time and it doesn't suit him to answer them now. But the option available to the department is to provide an answer—for example, 'We are not in a position to provide this answer because there is a police investigation ongoing.' They could do that, but they don't bother doing that either. It's just a blanket refusal to respond to reasonable questions asked of officials. It suits the government to have this approach, I have no doubt about it. But we must stand up, we must ask for reasonable explanations, and we must demand that officials attend estimates with the answers to these questions; they are 166 days overdue.

I hope that, when you guys are on the opposition benches, you will seek to protect these conventions too but that you won’t have to fight so hard because you would be working under a different arrangement with a government that actually understands and respects these practices. So I don't accept Senator Birmingham's explanation in any way that this is just because they've got a lot of questions. They've got a lot of questions because they don't answer the questions when they're required to show up, and they don't provide the information they should provide without having to take it on notice. For example, the Doherty modelling that we spoke of yesterday. Why hasn't that been released? Why do you have to put in an FOI request and questions on without notice and questions on notice about accessing that information? There's a little saving on the count of questions on notice for Senator Birmingham. You could cut them down right now if you actually start releasing the information that you should release in the public interest. You should answer the questions that are being asked. Senators should be treated with respect and be able to fulfil their responsibilities for their roles in this parliament, including holding this government to account. That's what this is about.

To Mr Gaetjens: I hope I do get a response to the letter that I wrote. I'm looking forward to receiving all those answers to questions on notice that are now 166 days overdue before estimates meet on Monday. There is no reasonable explanation that I will accept about why these questions have not been answered and why they shouldn't be answered on time by close of business tomorrow afternoon, other than you are just wilfully obstructing the work of the Senate. You've had plenty of notice. You were reminded of the obligations in a letter. As per the guidance around this standing order, you were reminded again today that we are interested in the answers to these questions. I look forward to receiving them by the end of this week.

Question agreed to.