Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), and with notice given to the relevant minister's office, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Lundy, for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to more than 331 questions on notice from the October 2012 Senate estimates hearings.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The department has taken some 647 questions on notice from the supplementary estimates hearing in October 2012. The department did not meet the deadline for receipt of answers to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as many of the questions sought detailed information on a number of complex and sensitive issues.

Over the past seven hearings, since the supplementary estimates hearing in October 2010, there has been a significant increase in the number of questions on notice. For example, there were 647 questions taken on notice at the supplementary estimates hearing in October 2012; 510 questions on notice at the budget estimates hearing in May 2012; 509 questions at the additional estimates hearing in February 2012; 423 questions on notice at the supplementary estimates hearing in October 2011; 794 questions on notice at the budget estimates hearing in May 2011; 357 questions on notice at the additional budget estimates hearing in February 2011; and, finally, 445 questions on notice at the supplementary estimates hearing in October 2010. This compares with only 136 questions on notice being asked at the budget estimates hearing back in May 2010. Our best efforts are being sustained to respond to these questions.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

The explanation that the minister just gave is clearly one that the minister's office has on hand. This is not the first time I have had to stand in this place and ask the relevant representative minister why, yet again, both the minister and the department have failed to comply with an order of the Senate—that order being to provide answers to questions on notice asked at Senate estimates, by a relevant date. When Minister Ludwig was the representative minister, the exact same situation occurred: the minister and the department failed to provide answers to questions on notice within the stated timeframe and a very similar explanation was read out by Minister Ludwig. When Minister Kim Carr was the relevant representative minister, the same situation arose: the department and the minister failed to provide answers to questions on notice taken at Senate estimates hearings to the Senate within the required timeframe and, again, almost the identical answer was given in response to my seeking an explanation.

Lo and behold, today we again have the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship providing nothing more and nothing less than a series of excuses for what are either blatant policy failures by the government or, worse still, a complete failure by the department to discharge its responsibilities. I note that, in the minister's explanation, the minister outlined for the Senate the number of questions that had been placed on notice during the relevant Senate estimates period. The minister was making the point that there had been several hundred questions placed on notice at each Senate estimates hearing. I invite you to have a look at the portfolio that we are seeking the explanation from—the immigration and citizenship portfolio—and ask yourself, why? Why have the opposition and the Greens—a number of those questions were from the Greens—had to put questions on notice to the minister and to the department? There are two answers to that: the first is, the department at Senate estimates cannot or will not provide answers to the genuine questions that the opposition asks. They either do not know the answer or, quite frankly, they are too embarrassed to give the answers. The second answer is: as Senator Bernardi rightly pointed out, when you have such a gross failure in relation to a particular portfolio; when you have in excess of 30,000 people arriving by boat in less than five years under the current Labor government and the former Labor government, when you have a blowout in costs—not actual costs—tipping in excess of $6 billion, when under the former Howard government on a per annum basis this particular portfolio was costing the Australian taxpayer less than $85 million—not billion but million—it is little wonder that blind Freddy himself can work out why there has been an increase in the number of questions asked.

As of today, which I note is the final parliamentary sitting day before this particular portfolio's additional estimates hearing on Monday, there are currently 331 answers that have not been provided by the department. That is an indictment on either the minister or the department or both. We are expected to go into Senate estimates on Monday without the answers to those questions. The answers were due to be provided by 7 December 2012 and, as senators would be aware, that is not a date that is set by the opposition. It is not a date that the coalition plucks out of the air. That is the date that is set by the relevant Senate estimates committee, the numbers of which are controlled by the current government. Were any answers provided by this minister and his department by the relevant due date? Not even one. Not even one answer was provided by the department by the due date. In fact, the first answer was not received by senators until some four weeks later on 10 January 2013. The due date was 7 December 2012. The first answers were not received until 10 January 2013.

Unfortunately for the Australian taxpayer, this is not the first time that I have had to stand here and ask the relevant minister for an explanation. Almost two years ago exactly, on 9 February 2011, I had to again stand in this place and ask the representative minister at that time why answers had not been provided to all 445 questions that had been placed on notice by senators of the immigration and citizenship portfolio following the Senate estimates hearing in October 2010.

There is a pattern of behaviour which is nothing more and nothing less than a pattern of failure under successive ministers—under the former minister, Minister Evans, under Minister Bowen and now under Minister O'Connor—not only for this portfolio but in the provision of answers to questions on notice that have been genuinely put on notice at Senate estimates hearings. I remind all senators, in particular Minister Bowen and now Minister O'Connor, that senators have a fundamental, constitutional right which they are entitled to exercise, and that is to ask questions at Senate estimates and to be given those answers in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, in relation to this portfolio, quite frankly, nothing surprises me anymore. I suppose we should be grateful that I have got but one answer from this particular minister.

The failure yet again to provide answers to questions on notice in a timely fashion or at all is an indictment on former minister Bowen. It is an indictment on the current minister, Minister O'Connor, who if he wanted to could today signal to his department that they, this afternoon, should provide the opposition and the Greens Party with the answers that they require so that we can go into Senate estimates on Monday properly informed.

Question agreed to.