Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

but I do believe, Senator Farrell, he should be exercising prudence and sound judgement when it comes to people in his office that are exercising those functions.

This is a very important point because officials from across the Australian government work to support executive government, absolutely—like Senator Farrell in the ministries that he has—but they also exist to support the work of the parliament. If they didn't have that requirement they wouldn't appear at Senate committee inquiries when we inquire into legislation and references. They wouldn't appear at Senate estimates hearings if they didn't exist to support the work of the parliament. They support the work of the parliament through their respective ministers—that's absolutely true—but what we heard from Senator McAllister was that the government has decided to hold itself to a standard that's the same as the previous government. If that's the case, why wouldn't Australians have re-elected the previous government?

It doesn't actually quite fit because on 16 august 2022 the now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, gave Australia a commitment. He said that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. That was his commitment to electors and he is reneging on that. He is reneging on it through the experience of coalition senators with his first economic officer, Dr Chalmers.

There is plenty of time for improvement. There will be another estimates process in February next year, another one in May, perhaps one later next year if there is no election. But I want to put this particular point on notice. It is a very important one. If officials in the Treasury are listening to this contribution this afternoon, they should take pen and paper and write this down. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters is an official document. Paragraph 4.15.1 says:

While it is appropriate to take questions on notice if the information sought is not available or incomplete, officials should not take questions on notice as a way of avoiding further questions during the hearing.

Just recently, I asked officials of the Treasury some questions about a matter only to discover after that that some people had already been appointed to a panel of inquiry, that a meeting had been already organised. In my questions to Treasury officials, they presented the situation as not yet complete. As the secretary in the Treasury knows, I am not shy to write to him directly asking for a significant improvement in these matters.

So, I go on. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters, paragraph 4.15.1, goes on to say:

If officials have the information, but consider it necessary to consult the minister before providing it, they should state that as a reason for not answering rather than creating the impression that the information is not available.

That is very powerful. When we come to the estimates process in February and again in May—Senator McKim, I am happy to show you the documentation—the taking of questions on notice is not permissible if officials know the answer. I am going to seek the Senate's cooperation that, in opening statements at Senate estimates process, this particular paragraph 4.15.1 is stated at the beginning of the estimates process so officials understand very, very clearly that it is not within their remit to take questions on notice if they know the answer to the question.