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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either answers or an explanation.

I note the explanation doesn't give clarity as to whether all answers have been provided, and we look forward with interest to reviewing whether that is the case. It seems to set a brand-new approach or precedent to what is necessary to extract answers from the government, and I guess it is one the opposition will have to pursue now: when answers are overdue, will have to advise that we are going to ask questions about that and see whether that prompts the government to actually answer their questions.

It was quite remarkable to see that not just the 209 questions from coalition senators had gone unanswered by Services Australia; indeed, every single one of the 275 questions taken on notice by Services Australia had been unanswered prior to the question being asked of the minister's office just prior to question time—every single one of the 275. There were 209 from the coalition: 133 from Senator Askew; seven from Senator Brockman; two from Senator Davey; 40 from Senator Hume; three from Senator McGrath; three from Senator Rennick; 17 from Senator Reynolds; and four from Senator Ruston. All of them had gone unanswered. And that was not just for a day or two; the due date for these answers to budget estimates questions was 14 July. So it's not like we're asking the question on the first available sitting day after the due date; it is some 26 days that these questions had been overdue, some 26 days in which these answers had not been provided.

I am willing to take a bet that it is not Services Australia's fault. In fact, the mere matter that answers could be provided at the drop of a hat—in the space of the last hour—tells me that Services Australia had already done the answers. They had already prepared the answers. Where do you think those answers might have been sitting for the last 26 days or even maybe the last two months?

Some blue carpet indeed, Senator Brockman, but I suspect a particular piece of blue carpet, a particular piece of blue carpet occupied by none other than Mr Shorten—that repeat offender of Senate disregard, Minister Bill Shorten. It is not the first occasion that this Senate has had cause to take note of Mr Shorten's handling of answers to questions—or, in this case, the lack of answers to questions that have been provided. We have previously seen Mr Shorten provide the most outrageous of answers on the most sensitive of topics, where he is quite happy to politicise answers in relation to sensitive questions about the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, quite happy to provide partisan, political answers to very straight, factual questions on an important area of national public policy.

Do you know what happened the last time this Senate dared to question Mr Shorten and the way he and his portfolio and office go about handling answers? His response was that we should take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. That's the degree of respect shown by Mr Shorten and his ministerial office, by that Albanese government minister—as much as he doesn't like being part of the Albanese government and as much as he is very unhappy with the phrase 'Albanese government'! But Mr Shorten is showing complete disregard and contempt for the operations of the Senate.

As I said before, it's not just the 209 coalition questions that had been unanswered. There were 49 questions asked by Senator Rice that were unanswered, two questions asked by Senator Faruqi that were unanswered and one question asked by Senator Thorpe that was unanswered—all of them overdue. You know what is even more remarkable? There are two answers to questions from Senator Urquhart overdue. And Senator Pratt—I'm pleased you're here, Senator Pratt—has 12 questions that Mr Shorten hasn't bothered to answer yet. He's not even happy to answer questions from his own Labor senators in a respectful or timely way. He's not even happy to answer what are presumably the dixers—