Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I would ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to 145 questions on notice from the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education which were asked at the May budget estimates hearings. I understand they are now seven weeks overdue.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I undertook to do when Senator Carr raised this matter for the first time on Thursday, I pursued the matter with the minister’s office and I have been provided by the minister’s office with the following explanation.

As is usual practice in responding to questions on notice arising from the Senate estimates process, the department is preparing responses for all senators, not just Senator Carr. Those responses vary in length and complexity. It is frequently the case that responses are submitted to the Senate across the full time period between the estimates sittings, including up to the day of the next sitting. The responses continue to be prepared and will be submitted to the Senate as soon as they are available.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I have been seeking answers to 145 questions—of which, I understand, 69 were asked by me—outstanding from this estimates committee. That is 84 per cent of the total number of questions that have been asked by this committee at the May budget estimates. It defies all possible credibility that the government can say that the failure to answer questions is on the basis that there is opportunity for the government to answer these questions up until the first day of the next round of estimates.

The date for the answering of questions was 27 July. That was of the date set by this chamber. It was a date that passed nearly eight weeks ago now. It is not exactly a stringent timetable. Of the 172 questions which were asked on the day of the estimates hearings, not one question was answered on time—not one question! As of last Thursday, three months after the hearings, 15 per cent had been answered; 145, or 84 per cent, remain unanswered. Of course, to make matters worse, legitimate inquiries to the committee have been stonewalled, as we saw here today yet again. The Minister for Education, Science and Training’s representative here was asked to read out a highly contemptuous response by the minister’s office. Committee staff seeking information are simply told that no timetable for answers can be provided and that all answers are being considered. We ask the simple question: considered by whom? By the minister’s office?

We all understand that we are facing the prospect of an election. It is quite clear that this is a minister who does not want to have this parliament receive answers to legitimate questions taken on notice by the department back in May. Of course, this is not the first time this has happened. There was one particular question on non-government school funding, EOA8. Not only did I ask on the day and was given advice that the information would be provided on the day; I asked again at the time of consideration of the bill in this chamber nearly three months ago and I was told at the time by this minister at the table that every effort would be made to follow up that answer. I do not dispute Minister Brandis’s bona fides on this question. He did give an undertaking in good faith, but it is quite clear that Minister Bishop has a contemptuous attitude towards the Senate and towards the Senate estimates processes.

If we look through them, we will see that these are straightforward questions. There is no issue here about complexity. What is abundantly clear is that the government is seeking to hide information. We are seeing the government floundering around on questions relating to the Australian technical colleges: the CSIRO’s operations, its commercialisations, its IP royalties; the government’s latest attempts to conclude its somewhat tawdry history in regard to the radioactive waste dump; and many others. I do not believe that the department is stalling for time. I think that this department has understood the importance of these questions. We have engaged constructively with this department over a very lengthy period of time. I am therefore obliged to conclude that the problem here is with the minister and the contemptuous attitude that the minister has to responding to legitimate questions from the Senate.

Either way, whether they are from the department or the minister, the Senate is entitled to these answers. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training to make further efforts to encourage his colleague to answer these questions before other motions have to be considered by this chamber.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr should not infer from anything that I have said that anyone is stalling. What I have said on behalf of Ms Bishop, whom I represent in this chamber, is that the preparation of the answers is proceeding and that many of the questions taken on notice are very complex ones.

There are two obligations, not one. Senator Carr would have you believe that there is merely an obligation to respond in a timely fashion. There is, but there is also an obligation to respond accurately and thoroughly. Sometimes a thorough and accurate response to questions taken on notice will take some little while. Senator Carr, with respect, you should not draw an adverse inference against the minister merely because the answers are still in preparation. Nor can you infer from anything I said on behalf of the minister that there is a reluctance to answer the questions. I have told you that I have pursued the matter with the minister. I cannot add to that. I thank you for acknowledging my bona fides in the matter, but you should not, Senator Carr, doubt the bona fides of Ms Bishop either. All of us as members of parliament, either of this chamber or of the other place, acknowledge our obligations to the parliament as paramount and those obligations will be fulfilled in due course.

Question agreed to.