James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

At its core, what we're discussing here are two elements. The first is another broken promise from Labor, which I will come to shortly. Secondly, it is a breach of the separation of powers, because the executive should be accountable to parliament. I will deal with both of those issues in turn. One of the characteristics of this government has been its propensity to make promises, from quite outlandish ones to quite sensible ones, particularly before the election, when they were attempting to garner the support of the Australian people, and then they break the promises.

We should not forget that the Prime Minister said that if you make a promise and a commitment you have to stick to it. Ironically, he also broke that promise. Remember, they promised to cut electricity bills by $275. Labor and Prime Minister Albanese said that 97 times before the last election. They promised cheaper mortgages. We have had 10 interest rises impacting on people's mortgages since the election—another broken promise. Remember the promise of no changes to super? Broken. Lower inflation—broken. They weren't going to touch people's franking credits—broken. They said industrywide bargaining was not part of their policy in relation to industrial relations—broken. They said they'd do their bit to assist real wage increases, and they broke that promise also. They said they weren't about raising taxes, and they broke that one numerous times. They said they would cut the cost of consultants and contractors, and they broke that promise.

The promise we're discussing here this morning is the promise that they would be an accountable and transparent government. They have broken that promise. No doubt Minister Shorten and his staff, sitting in the blue carpet wing of this building, think this is all a bit of a laugh. They're probably sitting there, watching the screen, giggling away at opposition senators and minor party senators raising our concerns about the approach of the government. They probably do think it's a big laugh. It's not.

Quite sad and quite juvenile are the answers that were given. They're not even the answers you'd expect from a first-year politics student or indeed from one of the students who occasionally come into the gallery upstairs here, whether they are from year 6, year 7 or later in high school. It appears that the minister's office have maybe gone to Wikipedia or used ChatGPT to find answers, thinking: 'How can we snub our noses at the Senate? How can we disrespect the Senate?' With their answers to the questions asked by my colleagues, they have actually snubbed their noses at the people who are affected by the issues.

You have heard from colleagues with a range of political views across this chamber about their concerns with how the NDIS is operating and has operated. We do disagree along that particular spectrum, but we all want answers from the government. We got an answer to a question on notice—in particular, the one that was asked by my colleague Senator Jane Hume—that is just so rude, so patronising. It's just wrong that any parliament, that any elected body, would be treated in such a manner by members of the executive in relation to answers that are put on notice.

For those that don't understand, a question on notice is like a take-home exam. You get the question and you've got a period in which to answer it. For questions on notice you've got up to two weeks, sometimes four weeks—whatever it is—but the government is always late with its answers. You're not doing it on the run. It is an opportunity for the opposition to ask serious questions and for serious answers to be given. (Time expired)