John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, can I say in speaking to this motion that you would be aware that, prior to the dinner adjournment, I did speak on the question that these reports be printed. In order to assist the Senate at that time, I accepted the offer made by Senator Colbeck, the parliamentary secretary, that this matter be dealt with by putting the question that the reports be printed, which was agreed, and that a motion in this form would be moved. I do not want to delay the Senate too long on these issues, but I do want to complete my remarks in relation to some security issues.

I was pointing out a little earlier that we now have a situation where over 7,000 photographic pass holders are able to use their passes to retract the retractable bollards that surround Parliament House. I was making the point before the break that this was never the original intention when the bollards were proposed. The original idea was that very few pass holders would be able to access the slip-roads at Parliament House by using their photographic passes to retract the bollards. Something happened between the original planning and the putting in place of the current regime.

I want to stress again, as I did before the break, that everybody in this building ought to be concerned about the security of the building and particularly of those who work in the building—and when I say ‘those who work in the building’, a very small proportion of those are senators and members of the House of Representatives. A lot of staff work here, and we have a duty of care towards them. So I think there are real concerns in relation to the number of security passes that can retract the bollards.

I would like this evening to request in these circumstances that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives engage both the Protective Security Coordination Centre and ASIO, if that is appropriate, for a further security assessment of this situation. I think it is a real worry that we have spent $11.7 million on security works around the building and over $2.2 million on the bollards themselves yet more than 7,000 photographic passes can be used to retract those bollards—and, of course, from time to time these passes go missing.

You have to see this issue in the context of other changes that are occurring around the building. The first and most obvious of those, of course, is the conversion of Parliament Drive to a one-way road around the building. It is going to go anticlockwise around the building. Thanks to evidence extracted at the estimates committee, we now know not only that it will be anticlockwise but also that special arrangements are being put in place for the Prime Minister so he does not have to take the two-kilometre journey around Parliament House that every other Australian has to take. The exit road at the ministerial wing is going to become an entrance road and the entrance road is going to become an exit road so the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone will not have to go the whole two kilometres around Parliament House. So much for Mr Howard as a man of the people! He is even starting to behave like a President of the United States of America.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Emperor Howard!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like an emperor. He is aping the sort of behaviour that you expect in other countries.

But the key thing I want to speak about today is something that ought to concern every senator in this chamber, and that is the issue of staff safety in this building. It has been an issue for a long time. It has been an issue that I know many senators from all sides have taken a genuine interest in. I believe that we have a massive problem with safety for staffers who work in this building. We really have a developing shambles around the building at the moment, with traffic chaos and what can occur with drop-offs and pick-ups from taxis and the like, as well as the security concerns that I know many people share.

No matter what measures have been put in place by the Department of Parliamentary Services, the reality is that we have still got a situation where staff are standing outside this building, often at 9 pm, 10 pm, 11 pm or midnight, in the dark and wandering deserted underground corridors in sub-zero Canberra temperatures—and it is just not good enough. We in this building, the senators and the members of parliament, have a duty of care for the people who work for us and those people who work in this building more broadly.

It is not good enough to adopt an ‘I’m all right, Jack’ attitude. Senators can either drive themselves, as I do, or be picked up by Commonwealth cars. We are very fortunate to be in that situation. But, because of the bollards on the slip-roads and the new arrangements in relation to traffic, our staff and other staff in this building have to go to pick-up points on either side of the building. There is one outside the Senate door and there is one at the so-called point 1 in the public car park. These are unfamiliar surroundings, where staff tell me they feel very uncomfortable, they do not feel safe and they do not feel secure—and we have to do something about this. We can do a lot better in protecting and defending the interests of the people who work in this building. We have a responsibility to look after them. We do not want to see people sacrificing their personal safety because of these poorly thought out plans around the building. It is simply not good enough.

Senators from both sides of the parliament are particularly driven by a proposal that originally emanated from Senator Ray. He came up with a plan to use the senators car park as a pick-up and drop-off point. I think that would work very well. I am yet to hear a substantive argument against it. I would hope that that is going to be reassessed. I would hope that the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee will look at this issue as a matter of urgency. I think the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee should meet before the winter recess to discuss this situation, which is still unsatisfactory, in relation to the safety of people who work in this building.

I am concerned particularly for my own personal staff, who face these same issues on a daily basis. It is not unique to my office. It is not unique to senators. It is not unique even to senators and member of parliaments. This is a real concern, and we have to do something about it. We have a responsibility to do something about it. I urge the President of the Senate, Senator Calvert—and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, if he can be convinced to act—to act on these issues. Let us get a newer security assessment of these bollards, which can be retracted with 7,000 passes. We do not want to run the risk of the bollards issue turning to bollocks! We do not want that to occur. We want safety around the building. (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion moved by Senator Faulkner in relation to taking note of the various reports of estimates committees. I want to briefly speak about the report tabled in respect of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. I am pleased that Senator Abetz is in the chamber at this time. Perhaps, as the minister responsible for the position of the government before that committee, he might take into account the report from the committee and the advice provided by the Clerk as to the department’s failure to answer questions in that estimates committee.

One of the issues which arose on a number of occasions before this committee was the department’s refusal to answer a range of questions but particularly questions in relation to timing of information being provided to the minister’s office. The position put by the department on a number of occasions was that the answers, if they were given, would contravene section 13(6) of the Public Service Act. This was raised on a number of occasions by a particular person in the department, and that position was not deviated from or qualified by the minister or the departmental secretary, Dr Boxall.

As a result of that, advice was sought from the Clerk on a number of occasions. A more comprehensive advice has been provided, and it appears at appendix A of the committee’s report. What is clear from the Clerk’s advice is that the department’s refusal to answer a number of questions from opposition senators in that estimates hearing is contrary to or inconsistent with the practice and procedures which have been adopted in relation to estimates committees for some time.

I raise this issue because I hope the department and Minister Abetz—as he is in the chamber—might actually have regard to the advice of the Clerk. I will refer to a couple of issues that have been raised by the Clerk of the Senate in the advice. In relation to section 13(6), the Clerk makes the point that that section of the Public Service Act cannot be breached by an officer providing information to a parliamentary committee. This is a matter that was canvassed extensively in the early nineties. In fact, in Senate debates in December 2003, Senator Minchin said:

A general statutory secrecy provision does not apply to disclosure of information in parliament or any of its committees unless the provision is framed to have such an application.

The Clerk goes on in his advice to make the point:

It is most surprising that any officer of any department should still be referring to the possibility of being in breach of a statutory provision by providing information to a parliamentary committee.

In other words, it is quite clear from the Clerk’s advice, I suggest, that the objection, as it was so framed, which was raised by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has no basis in the legal position, in the procedures of the Senate and in precedent.

I also want to make the point that a number of questions were related to timing issues—that is, when advice was provided to a minister’s office or when something was considered by cabinet et cetera. Opposition senators took care, because we understand the limits of what has generally been accepted in estimates committee questioning processes, not to ask what the substance of the advice was. The questions were focused primarily on timing—when certain things were considered. These are questions which have been asked and answered in estimates committee processes for many years. Yet again before this committee, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, with Senator Abetz present, declined to answer a range of questions as to timing. I want to make this point by repeating the Clerk’s advice:

Mr O’Sullivan and the department contended that information about when answers to questions on notice were provided to ministers’ offices falls within the prohibited area ...

The Clerk goes on to say:

It is to draw an extremely long bow to claim that such information falls within the category of advice to government.

We on this side of the chamber make the point, which the Clerk also refers to, that questions as to timing of provision of answers to questions on notice or other matters have been regularly asked and answered in estimates committees for years. We make the point that in the recent hearings similar questions were answered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. One wonders why it is that, in the estimates committee in which Senator Abetz is representing the government, all of a sudden this precedent falls away and is not followed. We are in a situation where questions which have been asked and answered are objected to and not answered by the government. I am not sure why Senator Eggleston has his arms wide open over there. Perhaps he agrees with me so much.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In amazement!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amazement? He agrees with me so much as to the government’s arrant disregard for precedent in this place. I will finish on this point. Either the department and/or the minister in this committee are blatantly disregarding the procedures of the Senate and the precedent of the Senate or they seriously misapprehend what is appropriate to be asked and answered in estimates committees. I am going to give Senator Abetz the benefit of the doubt rather than suggest that he is blatantly disregarding precedent, and I will say that there obviously was a serious misapprehension on his part and on the part of the officers of the department.

Before the next estimates round, perhaps Senator Abetz might take the time to read the Clerk’s advice, which is fairly lengthy, and discuss this matter with the secretary of the department to ensure that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in estimates provides answers that are consistent with the parameters of the procedures of the Senate and with the approach that most other departments take, and that it does not continue to refuse to answer questions as to timing on grounds which, as the Clerk has set out, are really inappropriate in terms of the basis of the objection put. I do hope that Senator Abetz takes the opportunity to inform himself about the appropriateness of these answers. No doubt this issue will arise again. I hope also that the department will take the opportunity to inform itself of the Clerk’s advice and the appropriate procedures in estimates committees.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise, following from Senator Faulkner’s motion, to take note of the report on estimates of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will note that something a little unusual has occurred in the delivery of the report which was tabled this afternoon. We have had to take the unusual step of providing a set of additional comments. This eventuates from the Senate estimates hearings for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 31 May and 1 June, which, I have to say, showed the hubris of this government and the abuse of Senate process that has become the norm. It has just infiltrated into our chamber—the chamber that we have cherished—and we now have a system where the abuse and hubris of this government has become the norm and the reality.

The intent or import of that additional comments section of our report goes to the fact that Senator Santoro, the minister who has been given the responsibility for representing the government at Senate estimates for Health and Ageing, was actually not present for, I would say, most of the hearings. You would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is not possible to be accurate in allocating an absolute time period, but it is our view that for probably more than half of the time in the hearings the minister was not present.

Those listening might say, ‘Isn’t that a blessing in disguise?’ But I have to say that, if one has respect for this place, the operations of scrutiny and the Senate, surely one would understand why it is important to have a minister attend a hearing. As I said, it shows a contempt for Senate processes and a complete lack of understanding of the role of the estimates committee and of the Senate itself. We know that Senator Santoro has in fact never been elected to this place. He is an appointee. In fact, he is the only minister never to be elected. So he goes down in history for that fact. Maybe that is some explanation for why he so completely misunderstood—and maybe that is generous—why you in fact need to have a minister present when you are conducting estimates hearings.

I have to say that, for Senator Santoro, being in this place is not about policy, good governance or Senate scrutiny; it is about numbers. We know that Senator Santoro is the factional heavyweight in one brand of the Liberal Party in Queensland. Tonight I make the suggestion that it might be relevant that there were hearings on 31 May and 1 June. We remember that the reason that Senator Santoro sits on the front bench on that side is because his name is not Brandis or Mason. Given all that, we should not be surprised that he has no understanding of why he should at least attend the estimates hearings. His experience in the Queensland state parliament would not have been much of an education. Budget estimates in that place go for about half a day and they are very tame events. In fact, until the early nineties, we did not even have them until the Labor government was elected.

What is of concern to us—and we have reflected this in our report—and should also be of concern to the government, is Senator Santoro’s facile attempt to defend himself for why he was not present. If I am verballing you, Senator Santoro, please correct me. He essentially said, ‘There was no point in being there.’ He said that he is the Minister for Ageing and really could not answer questions for the minister for health. In fact, his actual words were:

Yes, I could have been here and maybe I could have given some answer relating to policy direction, but, in reality, that answer really is the prerogative of the minister for health.

I bring Senator Santoro’s attention to the document that sits in the desk in front of every senator who sits in this place. On the back of the page it says: ‘Senator the Hon. Santo Santoro, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing’. That is your job, Minister. That is what you are there for.

We do not expect that you will know all the detail, but when we are asking a question of an official and the official says, ‘I can’t answer that question because that is a policy decision of government,’ it is appropriate to refer the question to the minister to give some indication of what the thinking of the government was in making that policy decision. That is your job. That is why you are there. But maybe that is why you were not there. You do not want to answer those questions and you do not want to be in that place, but, I am sorry, we have a right to ask those questions on behalf of the community and you have a responsibility to be there. In fact, there is a resolution to that effect that says that officials cannot answer questions of policy, and that is read out at the beginning of every Senate budget estimates committee hearing.

The second defence that Senator Santoro raised as to why he was not present for the many hours of the hearings of the Department of Health and Ageing was that the officers had advised him that he did not have to be there. I find that quite extraordinary. The easiest defence for anyone in a position of power is to blame their staff. I was astonished that the minister took that option when I questioned him about why he was not there. He actually said that the advice from the officers was that they thought, ‘If you would like to do so’—that is, do some of your work—‘in the comfort and with the support of your office, you might be doing yourself a favour from an operational point of view.’ I am astonished and I am quite sure that that was not the advice that he had received from his department.

I know that ministers are very busy people. We are all busy people, but ministers are especially busy people. I also know that Senator Minchin, for example, is a very busy person, but I understand that Senator Minchin sat for two full four-day weeks for the estimate committees at which he represents the government, and he was there for most of the time. We do not demand that you are there for every second of every hour. We have allowed it in the past—you can go out and make an urgent phone call. We have that with Senator Patterson over the years. She would be out in the corridor having a quick chat to somebody and then she would be back in there, just in case a policy question was asked or she needed to show the leadership that, in fact, government is elected to show. But, Senator Santoro, you were not there. You did not even bother. Senator Patterson did not only the two days for Health and Ageing but the two days for FaCS, so she did four days and sat there all the time. If that is good enough for Senator Patterson, surely it is good enough for Senator Santoro to do it for two days.

As I said earlier, Senator Santoro said he was busy in his office, but, remember, that week of the Senate estimates hearings was the week of the demise of The Nationals in Queensland. That was the week of the rise of the New Liberals in Queensland, albeit for only a couple of days. We know that Senator Santoro’s motivation in this place is to be here to be the numbers boy for a faction of the Liberal Party in Queensland. He is not here to worry about policy documents or the care of older Australians; he is here to raise the numbers and he is on the front bench because of that. We know that because of his extraordinary elevation so quickly.

He said he was a busy boy. He then told us that there were 400 pieces of correspondence that he had to sign. He said that he had to review three cabinet submissions. I am sorry—do that in the estimates hearings so that you can at least contribute to the process. The fact that Senator Santoro is a novice minister is no defence. If Mr Howard is going to promote his factional ally, his friend, his numbers boy, a senator who has never been elected, surely it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to at least train him about the responsibilities of a minister of the Crown.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some brief remarks—and I promise other members in the chamber that they will be brief—in support of the remarks made by Senator McLucas. I was there for most of the two days of the health and ageing estimates committees and, having been in this place and participated in estimates committees for almost four years now, I was interested to note the minister’s inability or lack of will to attend the estimates committees. We have all been through arrangements where replacement ministers are offered up. In fact at one point Senator Kemp wandered into the Community Affairs Legislation Committee because he was sent to replace a minister and he wandered into the wrong committee. We invited him to sit down because we had not seen a minister for a while and we did have some matters of policy we wanted to put to the government. But unfortunately he realised that he was in the wrong place and he left, so we were back where we were.

I want to compare what happened in the community affairs estimates with what happened in the environment estimates. At the beginning of every estimates process, as Senator McLucas has said, it is outlined for all of us the questions that are appropriate to put to ministers and the questions that it is appropriate to put to officials. Ministers answer questions on policy, although if you have got a policy question in health you have got to wait now until November before you can get an answer out of the government. But if you have got policy questions on detail of expenditure or administration you have got to put that to departmental officials.

So when we decided to investigate some issues of expenditure and administration in the environment portfolio we had the great misfortune of having to deal with Senator Ian Campbell. Senator Campbell decided that not only was he a policy expert on almost everything—particularly denigrating other members of the committee—but he was also an expert on expenditure and administration, to the point where Senator Campbell seemed to think it was appropriate to take up 26 per cent of the time available in answering senators’ questions in the estimates committee. I can absolutely assure you that the policy questions did not take up 26 per cent of the time. This was Senator Campbell hijacking the debate, denigrating other members of this chamber, going off on some fantasy trip of his own about what he was going to save, when and how, rather than actually allowing the estimates process to be used the way it is meant to be used.

All members of this chamber at some point have got up and described the fact that the Australian estimates system is one of the most open and transparent processes of a democratically elected government anywhere in the world. If we have to put up with behaviour of the likes of Senator Santoro or Senator Ian Campbell, that transparency and accountability and the functioning of the democracy in this place is in grave danger.

Question agreed to.