Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Attorney-General for an explanation as to why, after 30 days or more, answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 20, 43, 52, 53, 56, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 102, 114, 127, 130, 137, 157, 227, 229 and 237 asked during the additional estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in February of 2014.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh did give me advance notice of this question, although I did not receive it until about an hour or so before question time. In the time that has been available to me, I have asked my department and my office to look into the matter. The preliminary advice I have received is that, of the 304 questions that were taken on notice during the February estimates during the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearings, there are seven remaining with me to be cleared. I do not know what those are—and I think there may be some with the Minister for Justice as well—so I will have a look into that and I will deal with them as soon as I reasonably can.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

According to Senator Brandis, there are only seven before him that are on notice. According to my last check with the secretariat of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, there are 120 in total that are still outstanding, and within those are the numbers that I have just read out. These answers were due on 23 April. There have been some 56 days since that time—56 days that these answers have been sitting there late—and it is not seven, but 120 questions. That is pretty poor form, I believe, of the Attorney-General.

We already know that there are a number of questions on notice from budget estimates that will be due in due course. But February estimates was some time ago—we are now in June. I did wait the 30 days after the due date of 23 April for answers to those questions, but even after then there had still been a failure to provide an answer to a number of those questions. It is a staggering number and I think it is an indictment on the work ethos of the Attorney-General and his commitment to the processes of democracy within and outside of this chamber.

Senate estimates—be it additional estimates or budget estimates—is an important part of our democratic system. At the moment, the number of questions that remain unanswered represents 40 per cent of the questions asked of him—303 in total. That is almost half of the entire number of questions put on behalf of the Australian people by senators to Senator Brandis during estimates. I think that goes to the heart of how our democratic system is treated by this government. I do think that it is being treated with contempt. I say that because there has been such a long period of time.

Some of these questions that remain on notice without an answer are really important questions, and they go to the heart of the budget cuts that have just been referred in the latest budget. I know that it relates to February estimates, but a lot of the questions relate to the MYEFO cuts that carried over into the budget. They are important questions that relating to cuts to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services of some $43.1 million and questions relating to freedom of information to our Freedom Commissioner—and we know in some detail what has happened there as well. We would like more detail, and I am sure that the Australian public would like more detail. Whilst it is all well and good to go slashing the budget, there is some level of accountability and transparency that, when in government, you have to abide by—that is part of our democratic system—and part of that is through the Senate estimates process.

The Attorney-General may not be interested in examining some of the policy decisions in any detail—he may resist that attempt to do so—but others do want to know about the policy decisions that have been made in the Attorney-General's Department. Why do they want to know? They want to know because it affects the very heart of our social fabric. It affects our access to justice services, and that includes community legal centres, women's legal services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services as well as environmental defenders offices. There are also some 72 questions to the Australian Federal Police that remain outstanding.

I do not understand what the Attorney-General seeks to hide by not answering these questions in any way, shape or form in a timely manner. I listened to his explanation just now, and I do not quite understand why he says there are only seven outstanding questions. He may want to go back and check that with his advisers and the department. The number that is outstanding has been made very clear to me by the secretariat of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and, from my current records—unless that has changed since I have come into this chamber—it remains at some 120 questions.

I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done within the Attorney-General's office to ensure that he does want to remain an Attorney-General that abides by the democratic process that is set out in this parliament—an important democratic process—that relates to transparency and accountability through our Senate estimates process. It is a very important part of our Westminster system of government, and it is an opportunity for senators to be able to ask pertinent questions of officials—and Senator Brandis often likes to answer the questions himself in great length—about the delivery of services that keep our government, our economy and our society functioning. I think the power of the legislature to do this should not be compromised by the failure of members of the executive—and I refer here, obviously, to Senator Brandis in his capacity as Attorney-General and as Minister for the Arts—to respond to questions to which the Australian public and their representatives in the parliament have a legitimate right to seek answers. It is something that is set out very clearly—I think Senator Brandis and I went through this during the last budget estimates—in the latest version of Odgers. Page 468 of the 13th edition of Odgers sets out in great detail the scrutiny process of estimates, the importance of it being on the Senate calendar and a key part of the Senate's role as a check on government.

How can a senator do a check on government when the particular minister—in this case, the Attorney-General—has refused to provide answers to questions some 56 days later? Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? They are happy to go out and slash programs, Aboriginal legal services, front-line services and access to justice. There are other areas, as I mentioned—the AFP, civil law sections and the like—all outstanding. I have them here in a huge list, all needing to be answered, and they need to be answered because they would provide answers to those in our community, those working in areas that are feeling very harshly the pinch by this government to their bottom line through the budget cuts. They want some answers around these decisions. That is where it remains. It remains unanswered. I hope that Senator Brandis is listening to my motion to take note of his explanation and that he realises that there are many more than seven questions remaining on notice. I think it seems a mystery to all of us here why Senator Brandis—who has participated in the process of estimates for many years—should be seeking to frustrate what is a fundamental part of the democratic process in Australia.

Question agreed to.