Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue that we are discussing today in the Senate. It's an issue of contempt of this place. Very serious, sincere questions have been put to the minister, or ministers in this case, and we've had a very contemptuous response to those questions, which were put on notice by Senator Hume and Senator Paterson.

I try always to be very measured in my language and in the way that I approach debates. I don't try to conflate or overstate the seriousness of an issue, but I have to say that this is quite genuinely one of the most serious issues of contempt that I have seen in this place. I've only been here for 3½ years or so, but this is already the most contemptuous issue that I've seen.

Normally we see some confected outrage in debates and on issues. The contributions that have been made by my colleagues on this side and, indeed, by my colleagues in the Greens party present some very serious issues, because the questions that were asked go to very important points that matter for our national security or, in the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to people who need the services of the NDIS. It is very disappointing that the questions, the very sincere questions that were put, have been answered in such a contemptuous way.

Sometimes I feel sorry for ministers who have to come in and have the job of defending the indefensible, but I don't feel sorry for Senator Ayres in this instance. I feel he was discourteous to the Senate in the answer that he provided in responding on behalf of the minister today. He was given a tough job to do, but he could have dealt with it in a less contemptuous way. It is a poor reflection on the good order of this chamber, because as Senator Brockman said in his contribution, when these issues come up it's a matter of being discourteous or disrespectful not just to the questioner, the senator who is asking the question, but to this chamber. The good working nature of this chamber is important. We have a role to play. We are not here as individuals. We are here representing our communities. I am here, having been duly elected by the people of Western Australia, to come in here and ask questions.

Of course, as others have remarked, sometimes in the heat of battle in a debate on policy or issues there can be a bit of political to-and-fro, but this was a question that was put on notice. As Senator McGrath remarked, when a question is put on notice there is a due date, which is usually more than two weeks away. That gives the minister the chance to seek advice from his departments and his agencies to assert regard to the substance of the answer that is required by the question. I will read out the question in relation to the NDIS:

a. what is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department and any relevant agencies;

b. are any agencies or another entities within the portfolio exempt from the efficiency dividend; if so, please list them;

And it goes on with very straightforward questions requiring just a factual response. But in return, Minister Farrell, in his response, provided a very political answer that didn't mention the budget, any efficiency dividend, finances, or even the NDIS. This was a question of the NDIS minister. It didn't even go there or have anything to do with the agency. It's a very disrespectful— (Time expired)