Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos. EB14-000676 and EB14-000859 asked during budget estimates hearing of the community affairs committee in May 2014.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludwig for raising the matter. Can I make clear that this government is committed to maintaining the integrity of the Senate estimates process. I think it is fair to say that the same cannot be said of those opposite who have, since losing office, in a number of ways repeatedly chosen to abuse the estimates process. The number of questions on notice received by the Department of Social Services has increased from 434 for budget estimates 2013, to 975 for budget estimates 2014, an increase of over 100 per cent. This has resulted in a significant diversion of department resources to respond to these question

Of the 975 questions lodged with the department, there were over 100 questions where identical or similar information was requested—requiring additional time to assess and respond to questions.

I guess we could look to the past for some context. Let's compare the statistics for this time last year. Under the coalition, a total of 515 questions on notice, or 53 per cent of questions on notice, were tabled by the committee due date of 25 July 2014. In contrast, under the previous Labor government, there were no questions on notice tabled by the due date for the corresponding estimates hearing in 2013. As at 19 September 2014, 872 questions on notice have been tabled by the department with more to follow. I just thought a little bit of context may be of assistance to the chamber.

But let me reiterate that the government does take very seriously the process of answering questions on notice. Let me assure Senator Ludwig that the department and the portfolio are working hard to answer those questions. While I am on my feet, as I also represent the Minister for Communications in this place, I invite Senator Ludwig to raise matters in relation to that portfolio if he wishes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to take note of your answer, first, Minister. I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

That is an appalling response. This is a very special place where the Senate does require answers to questions from budget estimates. All senators have a duty—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Cash interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on the other side might complain, but this is a very serious matter. The Senate has asked and the Senate requires that questions be answered in a reasonable time. I have been relatively patient waiting for answers from the various portfolios, but in this instance I will confine myself to the social services portfolio. They have not met the deadlines.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you ever meet them as a minister—just once?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, the interjectors from the other side bleat loudly but there is no substance in their interjections. Many a time during the last parliament, Senator Macdonald, spoke in this place in relation to unanswered questions. He said that what the minister 'has done here today is arrogance to the top degree'. That is a quote from you, Senator Macdonald, about what you think when questions have not been answered in this place. They are your words that you have iterated in here. So it seems very poor to then complain when you have complained loudly before—and those were the words you used. I will say them again. You said that what the minister 'had done here today is arrogance to the top degree'. That is your view about unanswered questions in this place—and it is my view as well.

The deadlines should be met, but this is a government that has wrapped itself in secrecy. It does not want to answer questions. It does not want to ensure that it meets its obligations. It has a complete lack of transparency. Of course, even in the areas of FOI, we have heard things from the secretary of the department like 'playing hardball on FOI'—because the government does not want to release information. This is just another example of this government being particularly arrogant and closed on providing information to the Senate.

The Abbott government still has almost 2,000 questions on notice that have been lodged by Labor concerning basic questions about its spending and its operations, and you really have to ask, 'What does this government have to hide?' I have lodged basic questions to each department and minister since the election as a means of holding the government to account. Have they met even the basic low bar that you would expect from this coalition government. No, they have not. They have not met it at all.

On behalf of the Labor opposition, I have asked the government, in this instance on social services, to explain each department's spending across a range of standards. These are things that the public ought to know—like the cost of printing, advertising, building leases cetera. This government has failed that basic test. I recognise that there might be further debate on this, and I have a few departments to go through, so I will leave it at that point and expand the debate shortly with a second one.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to contribute to the debate on the motion moved by Senator Ludwig, essentially because I noted that he will raise a similar question of me in my capacity as Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate. I will just put on record that we have answered a record number of questions—1,920. A handful are outstanding, but will all be answered by the time we get to Senate estimates. In the lead-up to every Senate estimates so far, we have prided ourselves on answering all of the questions. We take this responsibility very seriously. Compared to the record of the previous government, our performance is actually exemplary.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig referred to me in his answer. My interjection to Senator Ludwig was drawn by profound disbelief. I challenge Senator Ludwig to tell us just one occasion when he as a minister ever answered questions on time and when he ever answered them before the next parliamentary estimates committees. If Senator Ludwig can prove that, can he please come forward and I will publicly apologise. I am very confident that neither him nor any of his colleagues ever answered questions from estimates by the appropriate date and more importantly never had them answered even by the time the next estimates session came around. I am making this rather bold claim although I must confess I did not attend absolutely every Senate estimates committee, but I did in those days attend quite a few. Yours was one, Senator Ludwig, and you never answered questions by the appropriate time—I can vouch for several other ministers as well.

Question agreed to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 44, 45, 47, 53, 56, 60-97, 242, 311, 336, 362, 371, 373, 386, 390, 392, 399, 400, 406, 407, 410, 411, 415, 421, 431, 433, 514, 613-15, 643, 652, 656, 659 and 690 asked during budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Committee in May 2014.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludwig for the opportunity to address this issue and to provide some historical context by commenting on the answering of questions by the previous government. I think it is well known that Minister Turnbull is one of the most diligent and hardworking ministers in this building, and he works very hard to provide accurate information in answer to questions from colleagues in this place. I think all senators will recall that Senator Conroy spent some time as the minister for communications—six years, in fact. It felt longer but it was only six years. Senator Conroy was perhaps the most renowned minister for showing unbridled contempt for Senate estimates committees and for the questions asked. That is a tradition he has carried onto the other side of the table in terms of the respect that he affords witnesses not just in the communications committee but also in the defence committee. I remember one particular example. Senator Conroy often provided answers to questions from an estimates committee well after the subsequent round of estimates had been undertaken. I provide that by way of what I hope is helpful context for my colleagues.

I make it clear that the communications portfolio is working very hard to address the hundreds of questions placed on notice. As is the nature of the portfolio, many of them are quite technical in nature and I know that the communications portfolio and Minister Turnbull will not want to do other than provide very accurate information for the benefit of Senate estimates committees.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I thank Senator Fifield for his efforts on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Mr Turnbull—however, he has not enlightened me on the date the remaining questions will be answered. That would be particularly helpful, given that estimates are just around the corner. One of the things that Senator Cash quite eloquently said is worth repeating. She said that the minister:

… needs to understand a very crucial thing: every senator as an elected member of this Senate has fundamental constitutional and other rights conferred upon them which they are entitled to exercise in this chamber. One of those fundamental rights is that we are entitled to ask questions of the government and, in asking those questions, senators on this side—

this is when she was in opposition—

senators on the other side and senators from the minor parties are entitled to receive answers to those questions in a timely manner.

It is apposite that the government should take a leaf out of its own book when it was in opposition and demanded that questions be answered, and of course on that basis I do think that the government should provide the answers to those questions. They could indicate a time that those question are going to be answered for the benefit of the Senate. It is an area where the minister for communications really does need to lift his game. Speaking on SBS news the night before the election, Mr Abbott said:

No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

Since that untruth by Mr Abbott he has cut more than $240 million from the ABC and SBS. Mr Turnbull has said that there is more to come, and these cuts will be substantial—proving that Mr Abbott was misleading the public—yet the Prime Minister and his team have steadfastly refused to admit this broken promise. This morning, though, it appears he has had a change of heart. Speaking to Chris Uhlmann on the ABC AM program, and also broadcast live across Australia on the ABC News Breakfast program, Mr Turnbull said:

Look we are making cuts to the ABC and SBS budget, that is true …

The Prime Minister should admit that he has broken his promise not to cut the ABC and SBS, or own up and reverse the cuts to the ABC and SBS budgets.

These are areas where we do have a right to seek to ask questions and to elicit responses from the government in a timely fashion, as the senator opposite has informed the parliament. It is not sufficient to simply come in here and say: 'We will answer the questions when we want to answer them.' That is effectively what you are doing when you are not meeting the deadlines that are set in this place. I have a few more to go through, so I will not delay too long on each issue, but that is the point that I make—that this is a very serious matter. This Senate does take it very seriously, and you ought to meet the commitments you have made and address the issues you have raised in opposition as well.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am again breathless at the hypocrisy not of the speaker, but of his argument—particularly in relation to communications. Senator Conroy, the previous minister, made an absolute artform of never answering any questions, whether it be in this chamber, at estimates or questions on notice. I think when the last government fortunately left office there would have been literally hundreds of questions still on the Notice Paper to Senator Conroy the then communications minister which had never been answered and which, quite frankly—without imputing wrong modems to Senator Conroy, but I think he would agree with me in any case—he never intended to answer.

Question agreed to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 74(5), I ask the Attorney-General for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice No. AGDVE14-10, 65, 102, 107, 175 asked during the budget estimates hearing of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee in May 2014.

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

I am sure the Attorney-General has a very sound and cogent reason in relation to these matters. I understand that Senator Ludwig is aware that the Attorney-General had to leave the chamber and therefore is unable to give a specific response to him. Having said that, I will briefly indicate that this exercise being undertaken by Senator Ludwig is in fact an exercise in breathtakingly gross hypocrisy. The delays and the non-answers that were suffered year after year—for six long years—while Senator Ludwig was in fact a minister, indicates that some of the unfortunate delays that are currently being occasioned are not because of deliberate tactic, but because of the sheer weight of work. I still especially recall my questions on the ABC going back to estimates after estimates, then Senator Conroy—having had the answers from the department and from the ABC in his office for weeks on end—dropping them the very day after the ABC estimates. It was a dirty tactic, and a tactic that was well known. Here we have the Australian Labor Party literally dumping hundreds of questions on departments and seeking a response, then when they are not in exactly on time, pretending that they somehow have the high moral ground in this area when their record of the past six years speaks so devastatingly for itself.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

That is a sweeping hypocrisy in itself from the leader of the Senate. All we ask is the answers to the questions that we put. Whether or not you want to use mealy-mouthed words to hide the fact, the coalition have not provided the answers to the questions that we have sought. These are important questions about the Attorney-General's portfolio on reviews into the handling of Seven West Media—an awful circumstance which occurred in respect of Seven West Media by this government, and there are supposed to be reviews into this. And we have not heard from the government. To date, they have refused to answer those questions. Nor have they answered our questions about strategy and delivery division, the cost of meeting with Mr Palmer or the handling of FOIs.

The handling of FOIs is one of those areas which is extraordinarily important to the general public and to the opposition to be able to ensure that they can hold this government to account, that it does not hide in the shadows, that it has proper scrutiny and that it has proper transparency. But this government has lacked and failed on all of those issues. Even in the area of FOI you have an ex-secretary of the department who, in answer to a question at budget estimates, said that they were playing 'hardball' in relation to FOI matters. In other words, they do not want to provide what the freedom of information legislation is all about—that is, providing information that is requested by media outlets, the opposition, individuals and the public. What they are doing is again highlighting the continuous broken promises that they have made from budget through to now. These are appalling circumstances, and their best defence today is to just say: 'You did it too.' Well, I thought you said that when you got to government that you were going to be a little bit better than us in this respect; that you were going to try that little bit harder to ensure that you did what you said you would. In answer to an issue also raised by Senator Macdonald: I do not know about other ministers' records, but can I take you to the one that you might have highlighted, which was when I resigned from the ministry and there was a range of unanswered questions that I did leave. We can own up to that. But they were a bit hard to answer after I had resigned, you can appreciate. My record prior to that was nil. In other words, if you look at my record, I certainly did a whole lot better than some of the portfolios are doing now. Look at the Attorney-General's record!

What we are seeking are things like the cost of ministers' websites, the cost of motor vehicles, the cost of the red-tape reduction squad—questions that should be answered. If your defence is 'you were as bad as we are', can you try a little harder this time around? You set your own benchmark. You indicated that, when you got into government, you would be methodical, you would be open and you would be transparent. I will take a little licence here, but I thought you would do a lot better in answering the questions on notice than you have to date. Over 2,000 are unanswered and I have yet to come to a few of the more appalling ones. Recognising the time I am detaining the chamber—I can see Senator Cash is getting a little nervous about the time she is being detained—I will move to the next area, unless someone else also wants to defend the Attorney-General's record.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister for Finance for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 207 and 209 asked during the budget estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in May 2014.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the Senate would recognise that Senator Cormann has, during the course of this debate today, provided a response, albeit not directly to the request put forward by Senator Ludwig right now—but certainly in relation to the motion that he knew was forthcoming. He has had to go to a meeting, but I do want it recognised that he has provided a response to Senator Ludwig's request.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I do recognise that this is taking a little time. Senator Cormann may have other important things to do. I recognise that Senator Cash has provided the answer on his behalf, which can be appropriate in such circumstances. However, it is important that ministers take their duties seriously and that they do answer to this chamber. They are the executive. They have certain privileges in this place and, in exercising those privileges, one of their primary duties is to be responsive to the Senate on motions such as this. I gave due notice that this was going to occur today. The government would also have been aware, from reports from their own departments, of the number of questions that were unanswered.

We have supplementary budget estimates shortly—within two weeks. What I do not want to see happen is what has happened in the past: you arrive on the Monday and the final answers have all turned up at 8 am, leaving very little time to go through them. There needs to be enough time to assess the answers and prepare for estimates based on those answers. It is important that ministers take this duty seriously and commit to providing answers.

These are important matters that the Minister for Finance should speak on. Under the Abbott government's watch, the budget deficit for 2013-14 went from $30.1 billion—as assessed in the independent Pre-election economic and fiscal outlookto $48.5 billion in the final budget outcome released today. In other words, of the $18.4 billion blow-out, over half—$10.8 billion—is due to policy decisions taken by the Abbott government, including the $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Other key decisions by the Abbott government in 2013-14 included reducing the amount of tax paid by multinational companies. The Abbott government's treatment of fiscal policy for the 2013-14 financial year tells you everything you need to know about their political approach and their values.

Unanswered questions are just another brick in the wall of this opaque government. They lack transparency. They want to hide behind that brick wall and ensure that they escape scrutiny. For the Treasurer and the Abbott government it is about perpetrating budget manipulation to reward their supporters and punish ordinary Australian people. You can criticise me all you like for asking for questions on notice to be answered within a reasonable time prior to estimates. I will take that criticism. But you said that you would be a lot better than us and, to date, my assessment is that you are failing abysmally.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 467, 468, 486, 494, 515, 526 and 533 asked during the budget estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in May 2014.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say to Senator Ludwig, through you, Mr Deputy President: your face should be the colour of your tie, such is your hypocrisy today. Senator Ludwig, you are right. I stand by the words that I said when, time after time after time after time after time, I stood on that side of the chamber and, a week prior to estimates, we still had answers to questions on notice outstanding under your government. You are right. We have set the bar very, very high for ourselves on the government side and at all times we will strive to ensure that we reach those high standards not only that have we set for ourselves but that should be demanded of us by the public. We will at all times strive to meet those standards, unlike those on the other side when they were in government. There are two choices: you either had no bar—so, quite frankly, you could fail as many times as you liked and it did not matter—or, alternatively, you did have a bar but you set the bar so low that, even if you provided one answer out of several thousand, you considered it a win for your side. That is not how we are going to behave on this side of the chamber.

I timed Senator Ludwig when he read out the question numbers that my department, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, have outstanding from the May 2014 budget estimates. It took him exactly six seconds to put the question numbers on the record. To put that into context, if I were to ask for an explanation as to why, in the October 2012 Senate estimates hearings, the minister had not provided answers to 331 of the questions I had placed on notice and I listed the question numbers, quite frankly, Senator Ludwig, you and I would be here for the rest of the afternoon! But I am quite sure that the chamber has been detained enough today by the rank hypocrisy that is being shown by those on the other side.

In relation to my own portfolio, I place on the record that we took some 616 questions on notice at the May budget estimates hearings earlier this year. Senator Ludwig would be well aware that the questions that my department takes on notice are very complex and, on a number of occasions, will have numerous subparts. To date, two weeks prior to the next round of estimates hearings, I am pleased to advise the Senate that, out of the 616 questions that we took on notice, 598 have been answered.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well done.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Smith. I do say 'well done' to my department because I know from putting questions on notice myself just how complex some of those questions are.

As I said, we have set a very, very high bar for ourselves on this side of the chamber, unlike those opposite, who had absolutely no regard at all for the Senate standing orders which Senator Ludwig is here today pretending that he actually has some form of respect for. Because, whilst you can stand here and say that, Senator Ludwig, unfortunately your record during six years in government is of failing to provide answers for estimates after estimates after estimates in relation to, yes, every single portfolio that you, Senator Ludwig—through you, Mr Deputy President—have raised today. Your government consistently, blatantly and flagrantly abused the standing orders of the Senate and did not meet the deadlines that, to quote you, were set by the Senate itself.

In terms of percentages, I go back to the October 2012 Senate estimates hearings. If I were on the other side now and raising it, in excess of 50 per cent of the questions that I had put on notice would still not have been answered—in excess of 50 per cent. If I put that into context today, Senator Ludwig, yes, some remain outstanding, but that figure is but three per cent, again because we set ourselves a very high bar on the side chamber and that is what we will strive to achieve.

When I used to come into this place to raise questions pursuant to standing order 74(5), as did many on this side and as Senator Ludwig has quite rightly done today, even after the minister at the time had stood up and given me the explanation—which was at the time a very poor explanation—of why answers had not been provided, I was still not actually provided with them prior to estimates. In fact, I used to often dread the Sunday night before the Monday when I commenced my estimates because I could almost be guaranteed that in the dark of night I would receive a dump, from the relevant minister, of answers. I am assuming he hoped that we would not have time to go through them before we actually commenced estimates on the Monday. Alternatively, on the Monday, I would still not have received answers to questions and I would have to, unfortunately, ask the departmental secretary. I am sure it was not his fault, but I would have to ask him why we had commenced estimates and I still was not in receipt of answers to questions I had placed on notice.

So, Senator Ludwig, whilst I stand by the comments that I made when I was on that side of the chamber, we have set ourselves an exceptionally high bar on this side of the chamber. I can assure the Senate and I can assure the Australian people that at all times we will strive to achieve that exceptionally high bar that we have set ourselves. Certainly, I have done so in relation to my portfolio, with three per cent of answers being outstanding, or 18 out of 616 questions—which I have raised with the department.

Senator Ludwig, I have to say I am a little disappointed that you would come in today and, with such venom and such conviction, act like you on your side of the chamber have ever in any way tried to comply or had any respect at all for the standing orders of the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Clerk has quite rightly brought to my attention that standing order 74(5) is the request for an explanation of a minister. It then enables the senator who has asked for the explanation to move a motion to take note of explanation, and that is the part where the debate about the reason should take place. In some respects, it really just changes where this debate can take place. I do not know if Senator Ludwig has more of these to do. But if he does I will ask the minister to make an explanation and then make further contributions if they so wish on the motion that is then before the chamber. But I certainly did not want to interrupt you, Senator Cash, given that this is the way we have carried on the debate so far.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did note the odd way that they were answering the standing order 74(5) request. However, it was interesting to hear. I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I do find that, in all of this, what I was trying to elicit from those opposite was a simple explanation as to the reason why they have not provided the answers to the questions that we have asked.

Senator Cash interjecting—

But, to take an interjection, I think they do, in this instance, protest too much. It is a simple matter. All you have to do is commit to answer the questions that we have asked. That is the simple thing you need to do. We have not heard a commitment from any minister yet to answer the questions that have been asked. We have heard some weasel words. We have heard part explanations. But mostly what we have heard is an attack on the opposition for simply doing what we are entitled to do in this place, which used to ask why questions have remained unanswered.

Senator Cash does, I think, protest too much, because I will go back to what Senator Cash said. They are prophetic words and you ought to be very careful when you make them because they will be served back to the Senate. To quote Senator Cash:

One of those fundamental rights is that we are entitled to ask questions of the government and, in asking those questions, senators on this side senators on the other side and senators from the minor parties are entitled to receive answers to those questions in a timely manner.

Senator Cash may want to attack me for raising this. I am big enough to take that attack. She may want to also throw slurs at me. I am big enough and my shoulders are broad enough to take that. But this is a simple matter that only needs to end in: 'Yes, we commit to answer those questions and we commit not to do what was done in other portfolios at budget estimates in that they dumped them on the Sunday night.' If you have sleepless nights when you are in opposition on Sunday night before budget, so do we in this instance because we dread the huge number of unanswered questions being dumped on us at the very late stage in estimates.

This opposition does have an opportunity to ask questions. We do want to be able to follow up with answers to those questions, and in setting their high bar, all that they have done in the explanation is complain about our record. Well, our record speaks to itself. You are creating your own record here and you are not meeting it very well. In fact, what you are doing is setting a very poor record. There are in the order of almost 2,000 questions on notice still unanswered lodged by Labor concerning basic questions about expenditure and operation. You have to ask yourself what this government has got to hide.

But Senator Cash, in her own estimates, we will not mention the time when Mr Morrison bumped her from estimates and make sure he was there to answer the questions rather than Senator—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not estimates, it was a hearing.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand corrected. I am pleased you can remember it so clearly. It must have hurt when, in that hearing, you were bumped from answering the questions, and I recognise that Mr Scott Morrison answered those questions on your behalf. But it is an area where you ought to strive to meet these obligations, and I think it does not say much for the government when they attack me and say that I might have any other motive than ensuring that you answer these questions. If you look at my record as manager and in government, I have been assiduously careful in meeting all of those obligations where I could possibly do so. When I did not meet the expectations of the opposition, I came in here and gave an explanation as to why and a commitment about answering those questions. But I have not heard either an explanation or a commitment to answer those questions prior to estimates from any of those on the frontbench so that the opposition can meet its obligations to look at those answers and be apprised of those answers so that they can ensure that proper scrutiny of the executive is undertaken.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I give Senator Ludwig a reason why there are 18 questions outstanding out of 616 asked in the immigration and border protection portfolio? It is because, appropriately, most of the staff of the department are out doing what they should be doing—that is, protecting our borders and maintaining our very generous migration system. Because of Labor's inadequacies—there were literally hundreds of boats arriving on our shores unchallenged every month of the year during the six years of Labor government—we had to direct a lot of attention and resources to stopping the boats and to correcting Labor's mismanagement.

I do not want to delay the Senate too much further on this afternoon for opposition business. Suffice it to point out, though, that in my long experience in this chamber, Labor has been absolutely atrocious in this area and not just in the last six years of Labor governments. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments were equally arrogant in ignoring the Senate in answering questions. In relation to Senator Cash's portfolio, I point out that 616 questions were taken on notice. I chair that committee, so I am conscious of the questions that were taken on notice. Many of them were very complicated, difficult and sensitive questions. The fact is that 598 of the 616 questions have already been answered. From the past experience we have had of this government and these ministers, I am very confident that the final 18 out of the 616 questions will be answered by the time the next estimates comes around. This is in contrast to the situation under Labor. As Senator Cash has mentioned, on the Sunday night before estimates started Labor dumped 500 or 600 answers to questions, knowing full well that no human being could properly read, assess and analyse those answers in the limited time available before Senate estimates started at 9 o'clock the following morning.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate both Senator Cash and Senator Brandis. I did not speak on the motion when Senator Ludwig raised the Attorney-General's portfolio, but that was also in the committee that I chair. I congratulate both Senator Cash and Senator Brandis on the way they answer questions at the table but also, more importantly for the purposes of this debate, the way that they ensure their departments provide the appropriate written answers prior to the time set by the Senate or, at the very latest, the occurrence of the next estimates committee hearing.

I do not like to raise this, because it really bring shame to every senator, but a lot of the questions on notice in this Senate inquiry were asked by Senator Conroy after he came in and made that absolutely disgraceful attack on a senior serving officer of the Australian Defence Force. As I say, I hesitate to raise it because, although it was Senator Conroy from the Labor Party who made the attack, the attack on a distinguished, decorated, serving officer doing his duty as he is required to do was a disgrace. It brought contempt not only, appropriately, on Senator Conroy but on the Senate as a whole. As a result of Senator Conroy's rebuff at the time, senators might recall that I shut down the committee hearing until Senator Conroy apologised to the officer. For some time he petulantly refused to apologise, but eventually he realised that he was holding up the whole Senate estimates process, and so he came back reluctantly—not very genuinely, I might say—and made the appropriate apology.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on relevance. We are looking for an explanation, not a diatribe from Senator Macdonald.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the Senate is taking note of the explanation. My understanding from the explanation is that some or all of these questions were asked at Senate estimates. Senator Macdonald is probably at the edge, but he is still within the bounds of relevance.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, not that it is of any comfort and not that you need my imprimatur, but thank you for what is obviously a correct ruling. The motion that perhaps the Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate did not understand was that we take note of the answer. It is a bit hard to be too precise on a motion to take note. Anyhow, I will continue.

I can understand why Senator Bilyk would want to try to protect Senator Conroy from any additional embarrassment. Senator Bilyk, like all the rest of us, wants to forget Senator Conroy's outrageous behaviour. I can understand why the Labor Party would like to obliterate it from the annals of this Senate chamber. Senator Conroy attacked a senior Defence officer, who was really unable to do anything except say, 'I refuse to answer that'. He wanted to say, 'I will treat it with the absolute contempt it deserves' but senior serving military officers do not do that at Senate estimates committees; they show more respect to Senate estimates committee's than Senator Conroy showed at that time. I understand why Senator Bilyk took the point of order to try to stop any recollection of that disgraceful episode in the annals of this Senate.

Again, I am conscious that this is the afternoon for opposition business. Far be it from me to in any way prevent the opposition from whatever business they might happen to have

It seemed to me to be a rather odd strategy that this sort of action would be taken on opposition business day, but so be it.

I will finish by highlighting something that Labor senators who have been here for a while will simply not comprehend. They will not understand that of 616 questions taken on notice at the Senate estimates committee for Senator Cash's portfolio all bar 18 have already been answered, and I am very confident that the other 18 will be answered within the next two weeks. I might say the same for Senator Brandis's portfolio. I know that both ministers will do everything in their power to ensure that the rules of the Senate are followed and that answers are given so that the Senate can operate in the way it should.

Question agreed to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor 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 over 1,700 questions on notice. I have made the numbers of the questions available to the chamber to be circulated. The questions were asked during the budget estimates hearing of the Economics Committee, in May 2014. I move:

That answers to questions on notice, the details of which have been circulated, be tabled in the Senate today no later than 5 pm.

We have an extraordinary position here today where not even the duty minister stood up to defend Mr Hockey's lack of answers to questions. Not even the duty minister could be bothered to defend a record as bad as that of 1,700 unanswered questions, which is why I have moved the motion today requiring him to meet a deadline of 5 pm. I have not done it to the other ministers, who at least made a half-hearted attempt, in some cases, and almost an explanation in other cases, to explain why they did not answer the questions that have been asked, within the time allotted. In themselves, they have appalling records, but this is the most appalling record: 1,700 questions unanswered, and silence from those opposite in this regard. No defence and no explanation. It is an appalling circumstance from this government. And it is not unsurprising from this government, where not even the duty minister could raise himself out of his seat to provide even a pitiful explanation.

But look at the record of this government. This is a government that has not answered 2,000 questions. I note that Senator Macdonald—maybe this is faint praise from me—is the only one from the coalition who attempted to provide an explanation as to why, and a commitment as to when the questions would be answered, although it was on their behalf. No other frontbencher made any attempt to commit to answering the question or to provide a date upon which they will be provided. Not one. Their only excuse, not an explanation, was to attack our record. Our record stands on its own. Our record in answering questions is a lot better than the silence from those opposite today. Mind you, though, Senator Macdonald does maybe need a lesson in procedure. The general business motion comes in at 4.30 and gets its full time until six o'clock. This is certainly not taking up general business. We will all have a good opportunity shortly for that debate.

In this instance is very important for the Senate to understand that it is not permissible not to provide a) explanations to questions asked by the Senate; and, b) if they do not provide that explanation they should at least commit in that explanation, if they do not have one, to answer the questions, and certainly answer them prior to estimates so that this place can examine the answers. On these issues, when the government were in opposition they did raise the same things. Senator Abetz said at that time:

This is indicative of a government that has no concern for the parliamentary process.

That is apposite now, as it was then.

This government has no concern for parliamentary process. It has shunned parliamentary process. It has ensured that it will play hard-ball with FOI applications. It has broken promises and lied at the election. It lied about no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no changes to the GST, and, most awful of all, we have already had now an admission from the communications minister that they did lie. They said there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS, but today we find out that they lied. There will be cuts to the ABC and SBS. This is typical of a government that does not want to provide information. It lacks transparency. It has made an art form of not answering questions that have been asked by the opposition. We say that their explanations today have been pitiful. Their explanations have not been fulsome. I recognise that all ministers cannot be here. Senator Cormann did say that he could not be here. He had urgent business. I recognise that, but you would at least have expected the sitting duty minister to provide such an explanation on his behalf. As manager, in the past, that is what I had to do, and it was done with careful words but with a commitment to answer the questions that have been asked. In this instance we have not heard one jot from that. It is an appalling record. Why? Well, I suspect nobody wants to defend Mr Hockey. Mr Hockey has made himself that unpopular. He is even more unpopular than Mr Abbott, so nobody from the other side wants to defend Mr Hockey or his record. In this place, his record speaks for itself. He has been an abysmal failure as Treasurer and the unanswered questions simply underscore this point that this minister has failed.

He has not been able to carry a budget. Months later, we are still talking about a budget. Most budgets get through and are finalised, so we can move on, within the first month or so and sometimes even less. In this instance, it is four months on and we are still talking about a failed budget. It is time for Mr Hockey to cut and run to wrap-up his budget, recognise that he made a huge failing and recognise that he made a huge mistake. He needs to call it quits, because in this instance Mr Hockey ought to take a lesson from the 1,700 questions unanswered. That is because his budget remains also unanswered.

We have had the government saying in this place that when they come into government they would be methodical, they would answer the questions on notice, they would take parliament seriously, they were treated with due deference and they would ensure that we got the information that we asked for. But what do we find? They are all talk and no action. They are all talk with very little action to fulfil those commitments. That was further underlined when you looked at Mr Hockey's budget and when he and Mr Abbott said prior to the election that there would not be cuts to education or to health and there would be no changes to the pension. All of this is unravelling for the coalition. They are not true to a word and they have not met the requirements of this place. That is why today I have asked to take note of these matters, because the extraordinary lack of attention to detail from those opposite has brought us here.

If you then go back to the primary issue, the Abbott government has still not answered 2,000 questions on notice lodged by Labor concerning some of the fundamental, basic questions about it spending on operations that we should have answered in this place. Why do they not want to answer those questions? I can proffer an answer. It is because they have got plenty to hide. They do not want the scrutiny. Their answers, like Mr Morrison's answers with Operation Sovereign Borders, is that they do not want to answer questions on this. Instead, they will flick past them for all of reasons that he might say, but scrutiny is not high on his agenda. Mr Hockey and this government are all following on the same song sheet.

It is an extraordinary circumstance that we are in. I trust that they will take note of this issue and ensure that the questions are answered in this place. That is because what we have uncovered in questions where they do answer is a Christmas party held at a burlesque bar by Peter Costello's Future Fund Management Agency. That was a dreadful waste. There was a $36,000 bookshelf for Senator Brandis. What can I say? Plenty has been said about that, but I suspect that the Attorney-General may not have learnt his lesson from that. Up to $2 million for each departmental red-tape reduction squad has been revealed. That is an extraordinary circumstances in itself, where if they did not answer the questions we would not now know that they had put together a red-tape squad. In some cases, they have not even covered the cost of the squad itself in the reduction of red tape. It should be the ordinary work of government, but they have made it into an art form.

There is over $60,000 a day being spent on taxis. $50,000 was splurged on upgrades to gym lockers. These are the issues that this government does not want to tell the public about. That is because on the other side of their persona, what they are saying is, 'We are Scrooge, we have got to be careful with our money and we have to ensure that we are savers and not spenders.' But what the questions do show is that they are spenders. They are spenders on waste and mismanagement. That is what this coalition government stands for.

Can I remind those opposite that it is a duty to take them on board and answer the questions provided. Given the time that I have taken, I will keep my contribution short. I note that I have not taken the full 20 minutes for each of the questions that I could have otherwise taken. I have ensured that I have kept it succinct and to the point, so that this government recognises their failings in this regard. Their only response to date has been to say, 'Look at them and look at us. Labor had a worse record.' That is not an explanation, it is not an argument and it is not a debate that is entertained in here. They are in government now and they have the reins. They are the executive and they should be held to account. They should manage their circumstances and they should commit to answering the questions that are unanswered.

Question agreed to.