Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today pursuant to standing order 74(5) to ask Minister Carr, representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to 105 questions—I am happy to detail them—asked on notice to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the additional estimates hearings in February 2011.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Barnett, I cannot call the minister you have directed the question to because he is not present in the chamber.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to be here and answer the question.

I am speaking about 105 questions of 355.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you ask the minister?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did I give the minister the courtesy? Yes, I did. I rang the minister's office personally this morning. Not only that, I emailed the minister personally this morning. His office responded to my office personally this morning. Minister Bowen was fully aware of exactly what was coming through to the Senate at exactly this time after question time today. What has happened? The minister has not even advised, perhaps as a courtesy, Senator Carr, so I am not reflecting on Senator Carr. Frankly, it is a disgrace. These questions were not just asked by coalition senators; they were asked by members of the crossbench as well, so it is a reflection on the entire Senate and the entire parliament.

What are the sorts of issues that we were asking about at Senate estimates? They were about people-smugglers, visa applications, asylum seekers, humanitarian programs, terrorist groups, detention centres, escape from detention centres, abuse allegations—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Critical issues.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well-noted, Senator Abetz—children in detention, un­accompanied minors, community detention, security clearances, the cost of maintaining detention centres and the spending of taxpay­ers money. Does the minister think and believe that these matters are not worthy of his response? Is it right and proper that there be many questions relating to this, not just from us? We have every right and entitle­ment to ask the questions; we are obliged to ask these questions and we have a respons­ibility to ask them. The minister has the responsibility to come back to the Senate and advise it of the answers in the due time. When were they due? They were due on 8 April—a five-week delay. Do you think this is just a one-off for this minister? No, as Senator Cash has well noted and highlighted before. In the October budget estimates, what happened at that time from this exact same minister? Those responses were due by 3 December. When did the answers come back to the 445 questions? As Senator Cash remembers well, they were not tabled until 10 February—a two-month delay. Is this just a one-off? No, it is not. It is very clearly a systemic problem. He is treating us with contempt. If he is treating the Senate with contempt, then he is treating the Australian people with contempt. I see Senator Carr is here and no doubt he will have an answer shortly. We will hear what he has to say. So 600 of the questions have been unanswered since February.

Is he up to speed in his portfolio? Is he across his brief? Has he lost control of our borders on behalf of the government? I hear a ringing in my ear that the answer is yes. Have there been budget blowouts in this portfolio? Yes, we have seen that just this week. Clearly, there is a problem in this portfolio area. Is it the minister?

We are all aware that the Prime Minister has said there is going to be a new wave of openness, of transparency and of freedom of information. We cannot get the information in accordance with standing orders. It is not happening. In October last year, was the annual report available on time? No, it was not. It was due on 31 October and tabled on 15 November.

As a senator for Tasmania, I have had personal experience of writing to the minister in regard to the ban on holy books—the Bible ban, as it were—which has now been overturned by the government. I wrote to him for clarification on 28 October 2010. Listen to this: I followed it up with a courtesy letter seeking clarification on 12 January. Not only that but I wrote to the Prime Minister personally in March this year to say, 'Please follow up and talk to your minister and ask for a response.' When did I get that response? I raised it in the Senate just two nights ago, on Tuesday. I said that this was not good enough and you are treating the Senate with contempt. The answer was delivered today, six months late. For this minister, it is not a one-off. This is systemic across the portfolio. He is showing disrespect; it is insulting behaviour. He is patronising the Senate and the Australian community. He is showing demeaning behaviour and disdain for the people in the Senate. If he is doing it to us, he is doing it to the Australian people. Clearly he is not across this portfolio and he has a number of responsibilities to this place. I ask that he treats not only us better but the Australian people better.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek clarification. Did Senator Barnett say to the Senate that he personally rang my office. Is that the claim?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, your repping minister.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, I thought there had been a claim made about ringing my office. It was to Minister Bowen's office. I am pleased to hear that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you had stayed in the chamber, you would have heard that.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I had known to stay in the chamber, I might have heard it.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is an assertion made that a senator has rung my office and that I am showing disrespect to this chamber, I reject it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he did ring your office.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who rang my office?

Opposition senators: Senator Barnett, this morning; that is what he said.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He rang Bowen's office.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So perhaps you would like to withdraw, Senator. Perhaps you should withdraw.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Carr!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Typical ignorance from a person like you—complete ignorance.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

We will not continue until there is order. Senator Carr, you will address your remarks to the chair and not across the chamber.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President. I reject any suggestion that I have shown contempt towards this chamber. I have always taken the Senate estimates very seriously. I understand that questions have been raised concerning a significant number of questions that were asked in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Commi­ttee, at which I represent the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. In fact, 357 questions were asked with many subparts, which were taken on notice by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship at the additional budget estimates hearing in February 2011. This follows on from some 445 questions which were taken on notice at the budget estimates hearing in October last year. I am advised that 250 responses have already been lodged with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Commi­ttee. Again, it is an extremely high number of questions compared with the previous estimates hearing.

Many of the questions seek detailed information on a number of complex and sensitive issues. I am advised that efforts are being made to ensure that all outstanding responses to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee are lodged before the next hearing scheduled for 23 and 24 May. I am also advised that, while the Department of Immigration and Citizenship does strive to meet the committee's deadlines, it has not always been possible. Senator Barnett may well remember that in 2006 and in 2007, under the previous government, the department was not able to meet the committee's deadlines in those circumstances either.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the motion, I highlight to the Senate that clearly Minister Bowen, who is the real minister, got the message from Senator Barnett and did not send it on to Senator Carr. Whether or not he was setting Senator Carr up because they are in different factions, I do not know. But it is a condemnation and it is typical of the arrogance of this government that the senior minister in the other chamber gets a message from the Senate and then chooses not to tell his representing minister in the Senate chamber. It says a lot about the Labor government and their lack of respect for the parliamentary process, although perhaps I am wrong on that. Perhaps I am more correct when I say Minister Bowen just wanted to set up a factional opponent.

Question agreed to.

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

Pursuant to standing order 74(5) I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions AET-3, AET-6, AET-11, AET-13, AET-19, AET-22, AET-26, AET-28, AET-65, AET-71, AET-75, AET-76, AET-80, AET-82, AET-90, AET-92, AET-96, AET-97, AET-134, AET-137, AET-145, AET-146, AET-160, AET-168, AET-172, AET-176, AET-178 and AET-180 asked during the additional estimates hearings of the Economics Legislation Committee in February 2011; why answers have not been provided to questions SBT-58, SBT-61, SBT-69, SBT-83, SBT-141, SBT-231 and SBT-234 of the supplementary estimates hearings of the economics committee held in October 2010; and why, furthermore, answers have not been provided to questions BET-61 and BET-336 of the budget estimates hearings of the economics commi­ttee in June 2010.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Wong to respond, I understand that Senator Fisher has questions for the same minister. It may expedite things if we have Senator Fisher first, and then I will ask Senator Wong to respond.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I asked the former Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong, for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to nine questions on notice asked during additional estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in February this year.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for the con­venience of having both senators ask me questions on these issues sequentially and I also thank Senator Eggleston and Senator Fisher for the courtesy of advising me ahead of time. In relation to Senator Eggleston's questions, I am advised that of the 844 questions that Treasury received through the various estimates to which he referred there are only 55 outstanding. Whilst I acknow­ledge that there is a deadline for the provision of these answers, I would suggest to the opposition that they consider the very large amount of work that Treasury receives as requests for information from—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Doing a carbon tax, dumping a carbon tax, doing a carbon tax.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike Senator Abetz, I have some regard for the public servants who serve the government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We will not proceed until there is order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, I think anybody would recognise—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The senators asking the questions were heard in silence. I ask senators to pay the same respect to the minister.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, of 844 questions from the various estimates to which Senator Eggleston referred, Treasury has responded to all but 55. I will certainly endeavour, on behalf of the Treasurer, to have those provided as soon as possible. My advice is that we anticipate it being in the very near future.

I ask the good senator to recognise that these are the same officials who have worked on the federal budget. As he would recall from his time in government, that is a very labour-intensive process. As someone who has been part of that process, I can vouch for the fact that very long hours and very many weekends are worked by public servants in the preparation of the federal budget.

I think I was asked questions by Senator Fisher only in relation to climate change and energy efficiency. In relation to those, of the 70 questions asked, I am advised that 61 have been answered at this point and I am informed by the minister's office that the department is working as quickly as possible to finalise the outstanding nine. I also understand that we anticipate most of those questions being available prior to the next estimates hearing.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I think the fact that there are 55 questions, as the minister says, still outstanding is quite scandalous. It is also scandalous that it took so long to answer so many questions from estimates going back a very long time. I do not think that to say the preparation of the current budget is sufficient explanation for this delay is an acceptable explanation. What this delay amounts to in effect is a contempt of the Senate and its processes. Estimates, Mr Deputy President, as you well know, are a vital part of the Senate's role as a house of public accountability. That is what the Senate estimates are there for: for the senators on behalf of the Australian people to make the government accountable for its expenditure. It is totally unacceptable that the Gillard government should treat the Senate, senators and through them the people of Australia, with such disrespect by declining to answer questions on notice for so long.

From my experience, which Senator Wong referred to, of questions not being answered, the usual real reason is that the bureaucracy has provided the answers to the minister and the answers sit in the minister's office because ministers do not want to reveal or make public the information in them in case it causes them some political embarrassment. This is just a scandal. The total number of questions which have been delayed over the last year and a half for the Treasury portfolio and the Senate Standing Committee on Economics is some 336. That is just an enormous number of questions for which responses have been delayed. That is, as I have said, quite a scandal and the government should be ashamed of itself. I hope that this will not happen again following the current process of estimates and that instead we will have questions answered promptly for the benefit of the people of Australia.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments that have just been made by Senator Eggleston. I want to make one point. Senator Wong was reflecting on the opposition in that this is somehow a criticism of Treasury. I want to be very clear, as Senator Eggleston has just said, Treasury no doubt has provided answers to these questions and Treasury no doubt has sent answers to these questions up to the Treasurer's office. It is no doubt the Treasurer, Mr Swan, who is sitting on these answers and refusing to send them to the Senate as he should do as an accountable Treasurer because he is embarrassed about what might be revealed. He is embarrassed about how the government might be seen in the public arena because people across Australia might actually understand what this government is up to.

I remind the Senate and I remind people across Australia that in the lead-up to the last election the Prime Minister did a deal on the mining tax. The Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Dr Henry, was quite happy to answer questions, but he was gagged by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have got form when it comes to hiding information from the public across Australia. We were promised that this was all going to change when the Prime Minister scraped back in because the country Independents decided to support a minority Labor government. We were told that this would be a new era of openness and transparency in government. Julia Gillard said that the sunlight would come in.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You must refer to the Prime Minister by her proper title.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, promised that she would let the sunlight in. Here of course we see that it is business as usual. It is secrecy. It is a government that is not prepared to be accountable. It is a government that has something to hide because revealing the information would embarrass the govern­ment. It is an absolute disgrace that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, would be sitting on these 55 questions and not providing answers to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that motion I point out that the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has had nothing to do for more than a year. Why couldn't it have answered the questions put to it?

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong has indicated that the department is using every endeavour to answer those questions by estimates and I look forward to that. I ask the Senate to note that answer.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to standing order 74(5)—Senator Conroy knows what is coming—I ask Senator Conroy as the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for an explanation as to why not one of the 78 questions asked during additional estimates hearings of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in February this year has been answered?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that responses to these questions are under consideration and are being carefully checked to ensure the information provided is accurate and addresses that matters raised. Preparation of some responses has required consultation with other parties to obtain the required information, which can cause some delays. I can assure the Senate, on behalf of the minister, that a high priority is being given to responding as quickly as possible to the outstanding questions.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

In moving that, let the Senate take note of that wholly unsatisfactory response, because it is hardly an explanation. I note that the majority of those questions remaining unanswered relate to water. This government has put on hold not only any reform of the Murray-Darling Basin but also any form of accountability to the Senate and the Senate estimates process about what it is doing to help the people of Australia look after the Murray-Darling Basin.

Question agreed to.

I now ask, pursuant to standing order 74(5), the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy why answers have not been provided to questions—and I will list them in a minute—asked during the additional estimates hearing of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in February this year. There are some 271 questions: Nos 24, 26, 28-72, 83, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 109, 111—Senator Boswell may yet get to be that old—126, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 194-395, 400, 407, 408, 412, 418 and 424.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My department and its agencies aim to deliver answers to questions on notice at the earliest opportunity and endeavour to meet the committee's deadline to the best extent possible. The department and its portfolio agencies received 425 questions following the additional budget estimates hearings on 22 February. Many of these questions had multiple subparts, which meant that there were around 600 individual questions. According to my information from the Clerk, this is near a record for any department. Nearly 50 per cent of these questions required responses from NBN Co. which continues to face a significant workload.

In light of the volume of questions, the secretary of my department wrote to the committee on 1 April and advised them that due to the complexity of the information required by many of the questions he was unlikely to be able to provide answers to a significant number of questions by the due date of 8 April. My department answered 39 per cent of its questions by the committee's due date of 8 April. As of today, my department and its portfolio agencies have answered 185 questions—that is 43 per cent. While every effort is made to submit responses within the time frame provided, there are a number of factors that contribute to delays in responses. These factors include: questions that contain several subquestions or parts; questions that are often complex, for example, for technical or data collection reasons and require the responses to address a high level of detail; the coordination of inputs to responses provided from multiple line areas and/or departments and agencies; and of course there is always the factor of trying to define the stream of consciousness of Senator Fisher.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

In moving that the Senate take note of that wholly unsatisfactory explanation given by Minister Conroy, I ask: how is it that, of the 425 questions asked of this minister's portfolio by the coalition, there are still some 271 outstanding? That is like 65 per cent; that is about two-thirds. Do not leave, Minister Conroy, because you are going to leave your CEO of NBN Co. in the lurch to the defend himself. How is it that of those 271 outstanding answers, three-quarters of them are due from NBN Co.? Three-quarters of the answers are due from the body in charge of building the biggest infrastructure spend in the history of this country.

It gets worse than that. The coalition asked some 201 questions of NBN Co. and NBN Co. has not seen fit to answer one of its questions—not a question has been answered by NBN Co. Not one question has been answered by Mike Quigley, the CEO of NBN Co., who told the Australian Financial Review earlier this year of oversight that might be had of his little but very big spending company. He said:

There comes a point at which it just kind of becomes dysfunctional; every man and his dog oversighting the place.

I will tell the Senate what is dysfunctional in my view: the CEO of the company in charge of the largest infrastructure spend in the history of this country not seeing fit to answer a single question put to him on notice by coalition members of the Senate estimates committee—the very instrument of accountability of this Senate. Forget about oversight from 'every man and his dog'; what about oversight from this Senate, the members of this Senate and the Senate estimates process? The only dysfunctionality is the CEO of NBN Co. thumbing his nose at this Senate. That is entirely dysfunctional.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, very briefly, can I just ask the minister what Mr Mike Kaiser, the very highly paid government relations officer for NBN, a former Labor Party apparatchik in both Queensland and New South Wales, is doing to earn the huge salary he is receiving from his appointment—without any competition, I might add. This would seem to be something that Mr Kaiser should be looking at as the government relations man, and I just wonder if the minister could indicate what Mr Kaiser is possibly doing to justify his huge salary.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fisher be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Carr—who usually sits over there—for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1 to 87, none of which have been answered, asked during the additional estimates hearings in the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 22 February. Also, despite the fact that my learned friend over there, Senator Sterle, has also written to the minister asking for the answers to those questions, we have not received them.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, as the minister is not here, unless there is somebody on the government benches who chooses to respond, I can take this no further.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should say that Senator Carr was present in the chamber earlier, as Senator Heffernan well knows, and would have taken the opportunity to answer if the opposition had been able to concurrently present their questions to him. I am sure he is listening to the chamber and will respond through the proper processes.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide these answers.

I think it is fair to say that, if the Senate estimates process is to be fair dinkum, we need due notice to be able to give sensible responses to answers to questions on notice. It is not much good—for example, in the lead-up to the additional estimates in February—to get the answers the night before.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the morning of.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a fair go—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

and I have to say that Senator Sterle understands this issue and has written to the minister. I understand that all human endeavour has failure, but we have to be fair dinkum about this. I am sure there are a lot of people in the department who go home feeling they have not achieved much in life who could take the time to answer. I would suggest that these questions are probably on the minister's desk but, for some strange reason, they have not answered a single question out of 87—not one. I do not think it is a fair thing to the parliament, I do not think it is fair thing for the scrutiny of government, I do not think it is a fair thing for the estimates committee, and it is about time the game was smartened up.

Question agreed to.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I will be asking Senator Arbib—if I say that slowly enough, perhaps we will get some action—as the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to 94 of the questions asked by Senators Boswell, Cash, Ryan, Adams, Payne, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Scullion and me during the additional estimates hearings of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in February this year. Those 94 answers are now overdue by more than 30 days.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very clear that on the last sitting day before Senate estimates, when these issues are normally discussed by the Senate estimates committees, the opposition have decided to come in here and pursue the matter through the chamber. I believe ministers have made their best endeavours to respond to these questions today. As the opposition well know, while in government their form in this area was extremely tardy and subject to action in the chamber, as we are seeing today on a regular basis. I again say that I have no doubt that ministers have made their best endeavours to respond and will be taking note of the comments made in the chamber as we proceed.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide any sort of answer or any sort of an explanation.

They have failed to provide any explanation for why this complete failure has occurred. I should point out—for Senator Lundy's approval, one would hope—that a phone call was made to Minister Macklin's office this morning and it was followed up at 9.53 am by an email to her chief of staff asking about these questions and why they had not been answered. It would not, one assumes, take more than four hours to come up with an explanation as to why these answers have not been provided.

As for whether or not this should be sorted out on the last day of estimates hearings, it was during the last estimates hearings that the due date of 8 April 2011 was set for answers—more than 30 days ago. We are 30 days out and still we do not have the answers. If you look through the sorts of questions we requested answers to, you can see how important it is that we receive this material well before the next hearings. They relate to subjects such as paid parental leave and housing affected by natural disasters—a serious issue in both Queensland and Victoria. They cover changes to eligibility for carer allowance for parents of children with type 1 diabetes. Answers to those questions are being sought for a purpose: to assist people to understand the problems that parents of children with diabetes face in terms of eligibility. We are talking about answers to questions on assisted employment enterprises for people with disabilities—again, an area that has not been addressed properly—and questions relating to home­ownership on Indigenous lands, another area where the government has failed to provide the correct accountability. It is very hard to have any other response to this lack of answers and lack of explanation except to think that there is a deliberate attempt here to stop the opposition from having the infor­mation it needs to keep this government something like accountable.

Question agreed to.

I have a second question to put to Senator Ludwig, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. This time it is in regard to answers that have not been provided to 39 of the questions asked by coalition senators during estimates in the Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In adding to my earlier comments, it is clear that the phone calls to notify on these questions have been placed through to the portfolio minister, but I understood the reasonable practice, so ministers knew to be prepared for the question and to be available to respond to it, was to call the minister who took the questions at the Senate estimates committee. It is clear, and I am not judging it, that that has not happened in this case, and that is contributing to the fact that the ministers are not present. They are no doubt preoccupied, and had no prior warning. I would just like to make that comment and refer you to my earlier comments in this discussion this afternoon.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

Senator Lundy can comment as much as she likes about whether comments have been passed on to representative ministers, but it would seem to me that, with this number of answers outstanding well over 30 days past the due date for response, it is simply indicative of the fact that answering ques­tions on time is not being taken as a serious issue by the government.

Question agreed to.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans—who is also representing the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the Hon. Peter Garrett; the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, the Hon. Kate Ellis; and Senator Arbib, Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development—for an explanation as to why answers still have not been provided to the 159 questions noted in the list circulated in the chamber, asked during the additional estimates hearings of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee in February 2011.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, I just reiterate that the normal practice is, of course, to call the minister representing to give them ample notice to be prepared to respond to these questions. It has become apparent, as succ­essive questions have been asked, that it has been a tactical decision on the part of the opposition not to do so for the course of this session in the Senate this afternoon. I do note that we are occupying the time of other important Senate business now.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That there be laid on the table, no later than Wednesday 18 May, the answers to the 159 questions that remain outstanding.

It took 38 pages for the 159 questions, which have been tabled and are available in the chamber. For the benefit of the minister, Minister Lundy, I assure her that I did personally phone each of the ministers—Evans, Arbib, Ellis and Garrett, and followed up with an email to each of them. So, in terms of the capacity of the minister to be here, I can assure you they should have been, because they knew.

In the short time available to me in this new era of transparency, I just want to advise you that of the additional estimates questions in February 2010, 24 per cent were unanswered as of the expiry date. It jumped to 88 per cent not answered by 31 July as a result of the budget estimates last year. They got a little bit better after the October supplementary estimates—45 per cent unanswered. As of the date required this year, 8 April, a shocking 57 per cent of questions were unanswered. Twelve or 14 senators asked these questions. It is totally unacceptable. If we are ever to see the 'sun shine in', as this Prime Minister has said, I agree with my medical colleague Senator Eggleston: the only way to achieve it would be through the ingestion of Ford pills.

Question agreed to.