Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I wasn't sure, given the hard marker, what would happen with this, but I thank the opposition for the opportunity to talk about the government's performance in answering estimates questions on notice. I make the point that this government is still answering questions on notice that the Morrison government never answered. There are more than 300 questions placed on notice outstanding from the previous government. A total of 6,733 questions were asked on notice to the current government following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in February. We have provided answers to 5,543 of these. That is 82 per cent. I will give those numbers again. I note Senator Hanson-Young today and yesterday spoke about transparency. There were 6,733 questions asked, and 5,543 of these have been answered. This is a better compliance rate than the Morrison government achieved.

I make this point, and I'm happy to engage with senators about this directly. I encourage senators to consider the impact of questions which are particularly voluminous or orders for production which are particularly voluminous. I can say to senators that I know in my own portfolio that the diversion of resources of public servants to answer questions on notice that are very wide ranging, very wide in scope, is challenging. I made the point that Senator Whish-Wilson asked a question where my department spent 290 hours complying with a Senate order. Fourteen people across a period of several weeks were required for the question, and it diverted attention from the delivery of high-priority climate and environment related policy advice, multilateral engagements, development assistance programming as well as finalisation of material for the federal government.

I can't speak for all ministers, but I can indicate to the chamber that I am always happy to provide briefings to the opposition as required and, in fact, we offer them regularly. We are also happy to work with senators who put in place very-wide-ranging inquiries to try to narrow the scope so that the interests of transparency on a particular issue can be resolved but perhaps without the sorts of hours that I've described in relation to my own department's answer.

Responding to the Senate is a legitimate part of government. I've been here for some 20 years. I regard the transparency of the interrogation—that's probably the wrong word—or the questioning of executive government that this chamber enables to be an important part of our democracy. I would ask senators to be mindful of the volume and nature of requests, as that impacts on the government's ability to respond to them. I'm happy to have further discussions with opposition senators or with Senator Cash, who moved this motion, as required, but I would make the point that, in terms of estimates questions on notice, obviously it would be better if it was 100 per cent, but I venture that a rate of 82 per cent plus—this was obviously drafted for me last night, so questions may have been answered in the time since—demonstrates a government that is seeking to respond to a great many requests from the Senate. I thank the Senate.