Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer provided by Senator Farrell.

We were told it was all going to be so much better. We were told they were going to hold themselves to a higher standard. We were told endlessly how terrible the previous government were, and we heard Senator Farrell attempt to do that just again. But it turns out that it was all just talk.

It was all talk from those opposite that, indeed, there are 22 overdue questions on notice from the Prime Minister alone already—22! Senator Farrell likes to remind this chamber that the previous government was in office for nine to 10 years. Now he comes in and says, 'And there were 128 questions that were overdue from that time frame.' Well you've only been there, as you like to remind us, Senator Farrell, for some few months, yet you've already racked up 22 to the Prime Minister alone that are overdue. It was all talk. You have broken your promises to this chamber.

Let's look at what some of those promises were. Senator Watt said just last year in June:

We deserve answers and transparency. It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions.

Well, why then is it that Mr Albanese, through Senator Farrell, is now trying to negotiate around whether or not he complies with the standing orders in terms of answering these questions? Remarkably, Senator Watt was still going on with some of these claims. Even in question time today he said:

… there can be no doubt whatsoever as to this government's commitment to transparency, in contrast with the abhorrent and wilful ignorance of transparency that we saw for 10 years under the former government.

Apparently there is doubt as to this government's commitment to transparency. Despite what Senator Watt was saying in question time today, despite the fact he claimed that adhering to these standing orders was not negotiable, the government is walking away from them.

Of course, it's not just Senator Watt. Senator Ayres, reflecting directly upon me in the role Senator Farrell just referenced, said back in November 2020:

It is high time Senator Birmingham signalled a change in approach, in terms of accountability and ministerial accountability in this place, from what we've seen in … a stoic refusal to provide timely responses to questions on notice …

Senator Ayres was there with Senator Watt arguing for timely responses. Now here they are lining up the excuses.

Senator Mariel Smith, in quite an honest and reasonable contribution very early on in her time here, said:

I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days.

That, presumably, is why the standing orders are there: within 30 days. Labor senator after Labor senator used to say it should be within 30 days. Now, of course, they're failing in that regard.

Even those no longer with them—it's always nice to reflect on former senator Keneally, who could put things very directly:

… standing orders require the government to answer questions on notice and to answer them in a certain time frame. It is not a technicality to avoid accountability. It is your responsibility as a government to be answerable to this chamber. It is the responsibility of the government to be accountable to the questions posed by senators, and it is your responsibility as a government to conform to the standing orders. The standing orders require the government to answer questions posed by senators, including on notice.

Various Labor senators, present and past, arguing very clearly that they believed questions should be answered within the time frame of the standing orders and that they would hold to a higher standard in that regard. This is a government that knows how to grandstand. We can see that, from everything. They know how to grandstand. But they are already showing themselves to be incapable in the delivery—grandstanding, yes; delivery, no. Guess what? It's not just the 22 questions to the Prime Minister that are overdue; there are in fact 117 questions to the new government that are already overdue—117 questions that the government have racked up in various places and already are determining are not possible for them to answer. So, despite all these grand claims that we have seen about answering questions on time, this government has shown itself to be hypocritical in that regard.

They're not just hypocritical in terms of this area of accountability. There are numerous areas of accountability in which this government is showing that it is not living up to the rhetoric that it took to the election, to the rhetoric that it deployed in this chamber previously or indeed to the claims that it still tries to make about itself. Take the ministerial standards. The new ministerial code of conduct was unveiled with great fanfare by the new Prime Minister. And yet, then, it became apparent that his ministers had neither read the code of conduct nor ensured compliance with the code of conduct. The unveiling of the code of conduct came some time after the ministers had been sworn in. The ministers were sworn in, and then the code of conduct was unveiled. You would assume that ministers had been informed of it before it was publicly released. You'd certainly hope that's the case. Subsequent to that, at least three ministers have been forced to change their interests after it was publicly revealed they were in breach of the new code of conduct. The NDIS minister, Mr Shorten, the local government minister, Ms McBain, and the assistant trade minister in this place, Senator Ayres, all had to go through and make changes after the public disclosure of their breaches to the code of conduct.

A government big on rhetoric about accountability and big on rhetoric about transparency won't answer its questions on time in this chamber. Its ministers have been found to be neither reading nor complying with the code of conduct. Indeed, we also had the issue raised by the Australian Greens in this chamber today about national cabinet's release of documents. Back in opposition, the Labor Party constantly complained about the secrecy surrounding deliberations of national cabinet. Mr Albanese and others were endlessly attacking the former Prime Minister and suggesting that he was 'obsessed with secrecy' over these issues. And yet, now Mr Albanese has confirmed, after his first national cabinet meeting, that the Commonwealth has not proposed changing practices in relation to the release of documents from national cabinet. As you heard from the questions of the Australian Greens today, not only are they not proposing changes but they're continuing to defend the decisions of the former government.

I'm not necessarily criticising their decision in that regard; it's the hypocrisy that I'm shining a spotlight on—the hypocrisy of a mob of Labor politicians who endlessly criticised and railed against the former government in relation to the way it handled such matters as the release of information and yet, when they came to office, simply went and continued past practice, ignoring all that they had to say before. They are the living embodiment of hypocrisy in the way in which they are conducting themselves in this regard.

We said this about chamber management too—that's chamber management here. Again, a government that used to rail against the application of guillotines and complain about the curtailing of debate has now been more than happy to do so whenever it suits them, and not just in this chamber but, even more remarkably, in the other place. In the other place, where they have the numbers to be able to simply change the standing orders, they've done that. They've done that, basically embedding a permanent gag and guillotine in the standing orders of the House of Representatives.

So much for debate in the House of Representatives! So much for empowerment of the greater diversity of members of parliament in the House of Representatives! It now basically just takes a minister to declare that legislation is urgent. They don't have to give any reason. They don't have to say why it's urgent. They don't have to meet any other criteria in relation to its urgency. The minister just says it's urgent and then all of a sudden a range of automatic guillotines take effect. Once declared urgent a bill in the other place is subject to automatic guillotine.

The changes collapse the consideration in detail phase of the debate in the House of Representatives, meaning that any amendments, government or otherwise, are simply moved together and voted on immediately. That's not a government committed to transparency. That's not a government committed to accountability. That's not a government committed to the proper functioning of a parliament. That's the behaviour of a government that simply wants to drive through its own way without any consideration for transparency, accountability or the proper functioning of government.

What we see with those opposite is that despite all the grand and lofty promises they made during their years in opposition, despite all the great criticisms that they tried to deliver, they are ultimately failing to live up to those standards. Mr Albanese, even when he was releasing his Code of Conduct for Ministers, claimed that they were committed to integrity, honesty and accountability, and that ministers in his government will observe standards of probity and governance. Where is the integrity and accountability when ministers breach the code of conduct and have to have it called out by the media, be shamed publicly into changing the way their affairs are ordered, and then try to deny that there was actually anything wrong? You have a government that claimed endlessly that it was frustrated in the delivery of answers when they were in opposition. They moaned endlessly that the then government was failing to adhere to the standing orders. They promised endlessly that they would do better but, then when it came to their behaviour, within just a few months they have racked up 117 overdue questions across a range of different areas of public policy.

The 22 that I highlighted today to the Prime Minister were questions asked by my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator Bragg across different issues in relation to superannuation industry policy, different issues in relation to workplace relations or in relation to the administration of government. They're not particularly tricky questions. These, at the early stages of the government, you would think are relatively straightforward questions for a government to get on and answer. So how, why is it the case that this government has been unable to do so in the time that they have had? They have had these questions for 30 days and yet the clock has seen them run over and fail to do so. There are 117 across all of the other portfolios.

Deputy President, let it stand that this government is a government proven to be one who was all talk when it came to these sorts of standards pre-election. And now they're breaking their promises to the chamber, to the Australian people, to themselves even. No doubt they convinced themselves going into the election. And now they're breaking their promises to themselves as well.

They're a government who will no doubt continue to grandstand and claim that they're doing better, that they're doing differently, when in fact the proof is in the data, the proof is in the behaviour, that they're letting themselves down, they're letting this chamber down and, ultimately, they're letting the Australian people down.