Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, under standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos, as to why the following 24 questions on notice to the CSIRO from additional estimates remain unanswered: 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 38, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 131, 132, 134, 135, 141, 142 and 143.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Carr for his question. I have been advised that 99 answers were tabled by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science earlier today and that the rest will be provided in due course. I have not had the opportunity myself to review all of the questions to see what potentially is stopping further responses being provided with greater alacrity, and I am happy to do that if that will help the process, but I think 99 answers tabled is quite a big effort by the department in relation to, as I understand it, questions that were tabled at Senate estimates. I think it is very important that we not rush the department if we are to make sure that the department gives us the sorts of answers which will satisfy the minister—and, in this case, not just the minister but the shadow minister. So I will make further investigations into the matter. It has not been my practice, I have to admit, to go through each of those answers, but, if the department is finding a problem in providing responses, I will follow up personally with the department, as well as with the minister and his office. But I am concerned that, while this involves certain resources, we make sure we are giving you answers which are not leading to a situation where the answer itself then just leads to further questions because you have not been able to get an adequate answer to your initial question. Having participated in a number of the estimates committee hearings, I have been aware that some very detailed questions have been asked, and I do want the department to take a very forensic approach to this. I appreciate that the senator has been cooperative and patient in the matter, and I will seek to do what I can to deal with it with some alacrity.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide an explanation.

In so doing, I indicate that I believe Senator Sinodinos is sincere in his efforts, but there is a fundamental problem here. It is one thing for the minister representing the minister to make an assurance to this chamber, but it is another thing to actually get an answer. There is a big gap between those two events. I raised this issue yesterday, Senator Sinodinos, and sought an explanation yesterday about 29 answers from the CSIRO that were outstanding. I might remind you they have been outstanding since 1 April and these were questions asked a number of weeks prior to that. So it is not a case of not having enough time. This is clearly an example where there has been a failure to respond by 1 April, and now, 19 days later, there remains a failure to respond.

This is an important matter. I understand it is likely that this chamber will not be sitting tomorrow. So it is important to actually get a response today. These are matters that go to a hearing of this committee, which is dealing with the CSIRO, next Wednesday. And so, while I accept that the minister is sincere in his efforts and his commitment to raise the matter with the relevant minister directly, I urge him to seek to have these answers provided today, not after the hearings which are on Wednesday.

These are significant matters. It is undoubtedly true that there will be other questions. That is the nature of the estimates process. But it is simply not good enough to try to snowball us by suggesting we do not have to actually answer the questions. You indicate 99 questions have been outstanding since 1 April. I specifically asked about the 29 in relation to the CSIRO, and I am seeking to have that matter attended to this afternoon and I would ask if the minister is able to give us a response on timing.

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

I would also like to speak to Senator Carr's motion to take note of the minister's answer. Could I note in passing that Senator Sinodinos, as is his wont, has tried to be helpful and has indicated he will personally follow up those answers. But the absolute gall of Senator Carr in particular, and anyone on the Labor front bench, in complaining about questions not being answered almost leaves me breathless; some would say it is a pity it wasn't speechless! In government, Senator Carr and his colleagues would not answer questions taken on notice for up to three years. In fact, I remember questions I asked still being on the notice paper when the parliament was prorogued for the 2013 election. Senator Carr complains that these have not been answered since 1 April. That is 19 days ago. When I compare that with the months and literally years that Labor ministers failed to even attempt to answer questions, I am, as I say, breathless.

These questions relate to the CSIRO. We are apparently going to be having estimates processes in the not too distant future, as I hear the scuttlebutt around this chamber. I am sure that, if Senator Carr has questions that he must have answers to, then that would be a good opportunity for it. Senator Carr says that a committee of which he is a member is having some hearings next week, relative to this particular topic, and I would expect that, if Senator Sinodinos is not able to provide those answers from the representative minister—I hasten to add that it is not Senator Sinodinos's portfolio; it is a minister whom he represents—and so if they are not available to be tabled in parliament by this afternoon, then Senator Carr will be able to follow those questions up at the hearing.

As I mentioned yesterday, this issue relates, as I understand it, to decisions made by the CSIRO management. The CSIRO is an independent statutory authority. It runs itself. It looks at its resources. It looks at the money that it has available. It looks at what projects it is being asked to research or to conduct further scientific study into. And the management of the CSIRO then determines how it will spend its resources.

The CSIRO announced, quite openly, some time ago, that it was diverting some of the positions in its organisation from the pure science of climate change towards how to adapt to climate change—how to ensure sustainability in the face of climate change. Allegations by the Labor Party and the Greens that the CSIRO is slashing staff are simply not true. As I understand it, in the long term the staffing will stay exactly the same at the CSIRO. It is just that scientists will be diverted from dealing with the science of climate change to how to cope with climate change.

I have sat in this chamber and in various committees, and, time and time again, I have heard Senator Carr and his colleagues in the Greens political party saying that the science of climate is settled. How many times have I been told that? Someone help me—was it a hundred times or a thousand times? Senator Carr might indicate how many times he has said that the science of climate change is settled. If that is the case, why would the CSIRO be spending rare resources—I mean, it is well funded; I understand that the government is providing a record $3.1 billion in the 2015-16 budget to the CSIRO, over the forward estimates. It is a lot of money. But the work that they are doing requires careful spending of that money. And if, as we are continually told, the science of climate change is settled, why would you spend those moneys on research that is over and done with?

Accepting that there is climate change, why wouldn't you put that into what we should do about it and how we can best address the issue of climate change?

What the CSIRO said was that there will be a realignment of activity within its climate change division so that it can focus now on climate change mitigation and abatement—that is, as I said, tackling what we do about it, accepting, as Senator Carr keeps telling us, that the science is settled. This is, as I mentioned at the beginning, an operational decision of the CSIRO, which is an independent statutory authority. In fact, I might even quote Senator Carr, who was the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research when he said at Senate estimates on 3 June 2008, at the time when the Labor Party had quite substantially cut the CSIRO budget:

… the government has made the budgetary decision. The implementation issues are matters for the CSIRO and the board. The CSIRO board has to sign off on these decisions.

Again, that reinforces what I said, and what I assume the minister has said before: that these are matters for the CSIRO. These are decisions for it to make on how best to allocate the resources it has.

Unlike Labor, who substantially cut the budget of the CSIRO, in the last budget the Turnbull government provided a record $3.1 billion in funding to the CSIRO over the forward estimates. That indicates, again, that this government is serious about funding the CSIRO for the research it does and for the science it brings to this nation, but leaves it to the experts in the CSIRO—the management of the CSIRO—to determine how best to spend the increased money which the government has allocated to the CSIRO, as opposed to what we all remember were the Labor Party's cuts in funding to the CSIRO several years ago. Now, I repeat: in the face of misrepresentations from the Labor Party and the Greens, there will be no net job losses overall across the agency, and all staff entitlements will be fulfilled. The CSIRO, like any good manager, has been in the process of consulting with staff over the period following these announcements and is also seeking input from external stakeholders on how best to use the money the CSIRO has for the climate change area to deal with the impacts of climate change—how to focus on mitigation and abatement.

I have heard calls from the Labor Party and the Greens to delay the implementation of these changes at the CSIRO. But I again say: these are operational matters for the CSIRO, not for the government to make decisions upon. The CSIRO, as I have mentioned, is following its normal consultation process, as required under its enterprise agreement. I understand that its management are assessing the feedback from an extended consultation period in the context of the CSIRO's organisational priorities and their understanding of the CSIRO's future performance against existing contracts and collaboration arrangements. It is my understanding that the CSIRO's chief executive and the executive team will, after these consultations, make the assessments and finalise the planned changes. CSIRO's management, I understand, consider that further significant delays will have a detrimental impact on the staff at the CSIRO in that they will be unable to provide certainty in those areas that are directly impacted.

This is another of the Labor Party's furphies—misrepresentations, I might say—designed to divert the attention of the Australian public away from the lack of any real policies of the Labor Party and onto other issues that are not relevant. I have to say that at least Senator Carr raises issues that do have some relevance to policy unlike, regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who chose to get into the gutter when it came to her opportunity to ask serious questions at question time. All she could do was attempt to slur members of this parliament in a most inappropriate and unfortunate way—and I thank Senator Brandis for pointing out to Senator Wong, and hopefully to the people in Australia, just how inappropriate the opposition Senate leader's supposed questions and slurs on members of this parliament were. But I have diverted myself from the subject at hand, which, as we all recall, was a motion by Senator Carr to take note of the answer given by Senator Sinodinos, who has indicated he would try to get the answers that Senator Carr wanted.

I come back to the question of climate change. I have emphasised that CSIRO are putting less money into what I would call the pure science of climate change and are instead diverting it to mitigation and abatement. That is appropriate. I am one who acknowledges that the climate changes. As I often say, I remember—I was not around, but I have read that Australia was once covered in ice and I have read that at other times the centre of Australia was a rainforest.

Senator Scullion interjecting—

I was not around, I can assure you. I have been around for a while, Senator Scullion, but—

Government senators interjecting—

Yes! References have been made to 'dinosaur' when talking about me. I can assure you that I was not around when the dinosaurs did roam, but I understand from reading that the centre of Australia was a rainforest inhabited by, amongst other things, dinosaurs. Clearly, that is not now. Something has happened and the climate has changed. In the last thousand years or so, according to the history books, things have changed again.

I am one of those who acknowledge climate change. I have always been unpersuaded—I do not get into this argument, because I have no scientific background—that it is man's emission of carbon that is causing the climate to change. I wonder how man's emissions interfered with the dinosaurs and the rainforest back in those days, but that is for cleverer people than me to look at.

The point I always make is that if carbon emissions are the cause of climate change now—clearly, it was not back in those days—then Australia and the rest of the world need to be concerned about it and Australia and the rest of the world should do something about it. But when you understand that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon you have to understand that reducing Australia's emissions by 10, 20, 30 or 50 per cent, which we are being called upon to do, will not make one iota of difference to the world's changing climate, if it is caused by man's emission of carbon. At such a small level, if you cut Australia's emissions by 100 per cent, if you stopped Australia—that means shut down every electricity generator, stop every motor vehicle, bus, train, whatever—there would be 1.2 per cent less carbon emitted into the world's atmosphere. I challenge anyone to tell me what impact that would have on the changing climate of the world, if it is caused by man's emission of carbon.

I appreciate and I accept that Australia should always do what the rest of the world is doing with the big emitters—America, China, Russia, India. When they reduce their emissions down to 1.2 per cent then Australia should be part of the global effort. But what Labor had us doing in their time was detrimental to Australian industry and jobs while making no impact whatsoever on the emission of carbon worldwide. There is no sense in flagellating ourselves as a nation for no benefit at all. We were exporting Australian jobs overseas, to China, to India, to North America—places that have very big emission of carbon. We were sending the jobs of our workers over there, because the Labor Party government was penalising the industries that those workers worked in in Australia.

Australia used to be recognised as having the cheapest and best energy source in the world. We had a good manufacturing industry because we had cheap power. I know this from up in my part of the world at Sun Metals, the zinc refinery in Townsville. Sun Metals came to Townsville because we had good, cheap power, but I guess that 30 years on they wish they had never seen Australia, because power prices are so expensive. Why? Because Labor governments keep increasing the cost of power through things such as the carbon tax.

I have strayed slightly off the CSIRO aspect. I will come back to it now. It is an important issue that CSIRO be able to deal with and manage their budget in the best way they see fit. I have great confidence in the CEO and the board of CSIRO to do that in the most appropriate way.

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

The procedure which Senator Carr has adopted this afternoon is the procedure provided for by standing order 74(5). It is a procedure that I have noticed that the opposition have availed themselves of with increasing frequency in the course of this year and last year. It has been used in effect to create another occasion for what amounts to a 'taking note' debate. The parliamentary tactic, as it were, seems to be that the opposition will identify a question—it could be on any topic under the sun—for which there has been default of compliance by the relevant minister in meeting the relevant time for answer. An explanation is sought and then a debate, often a very long debate, is embarked upon in the Senate, which canvasses broadly that issue, and often beyond that issue, the minister's performance and so on.

One must ask, Mr Deputy President, whether that is an entirely appropriate use of standing order 74(5) procedure. I want to make some comments on what I would respectfully submit ought to be allowed and not allowed by this procedure.

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

Senator Brandis, it sounds to me like you are raising a point of order.

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

No, I am not.

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

The question before the chair is to take note of the minister's failure to provide answers to the explanation—

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

under standing order 74(5).

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

I am not sure that the comments you are making right now are in fact relevant to that question.

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

They are, as I will make apparent to you. This is what Senator Sinodinos can have been asked to do under paragraph (5) of standing order 74:

(5) If a minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, or if a question taken on notice during a hearing of a legislative and general purpose standing committee considering estimates remains unanswered after the day set for answering the question, and a minister does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided:

(a) at the conclusion of question time on any day after that period, the senator may ask the relevant minister for such an explanation; and

(b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation; or

(c) in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister‘s failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr this afternoon has not availed himself of the procedure provided for by subparagraph (5)(c)—that is, a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation—but rather that the Senate take note of the explanation, which is not subparagraph (5)(c), Senator Carr, as you have just interjected, but paragraph (5)(b). So you have taken the procedure under standing order 74 subparagraph (5)(b). And that asks us to consider the sufficiency of the minister's response or explanation of the failure to provide an answer. Senator Sinodinos has done so, Senator Carr. Senator Sinodinos, who is the minister with responsibility for this area involving the CSIRO, acknowledged in the explanation that he provided to you that there are some questions that are overdue.

The first point to be made is that it is not at all uncommon. It is the most common thing in the world for answers to questions taken on notice to be overdue. I am not saying that that is not a failure to comply with the requirements of the standing order—it is—but it is also a very commonplace thing. Although I do not have the statistics to hand, I can assure you, Senator Carr, because I did look at these statistics some time ago, that this government's record in complying with time lines for questions taken on notice—questions placed on notice with the Clerk and, more importantly, estimates questions—is much, much better than the record of the previous Labor government. And if I may say so, Senator Carr, it is much better than your personal record when you enjoyed ministerial office.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: the minister has grossly misrepresented me.

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

That is not a point of order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee secretariat has just rung to say that the department is chasing up the CSIRO to get these answers this afternoon.

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

Senator Carr, that is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

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

Thank you, Senator Carr, I am very pleased to hear that—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So stop wasting time!

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

I will take that interjection. Having a debate about compliance by the government with the requirements of a standing order of the Senate is hardly, on one view, 'wasting time'. Nevertheless, it is a question of whether the procedure provided for by standing order 74 or debate of the kind that you have brought on this afternoon—it was you who brought this debate on, Senator Carr, and not any government senator—is really the most appropriate use of the Senate's time in pursuing these lines of inquiry. A fortiori, Senator Carr, as you have just advised the Senate, you are anticipating receiving the answers this afternoon.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Sorry, Senator Carr, have I misrepresented what you said?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you did. You do it all the time.

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

Then let me withdraw and rephrase. What I understood you to say, Senator, is that you have been advised that the department was chasing the answers this afternoon—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a result of these proceedings.

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

Well, you did not say that. Are you saying that now, Senator Carr? It seems to me, with respect, that what is happening is that you are accusing Senator Sinodinos—who is a very conscientious minister and, because of his long service at the highest levels of the bureaucracy in the Prime Minister's office, has more knowledge of the machinery of government than any senator on either side of this chamber—of being somehow delinquent in his obligations to the Senate. I rise to the defence of my friend Arthur Sinodinos in saying that that is not so.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should listen before you put your foot in it again!

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

Senator Carr, you are being offensive. As you know, I do not stoop to that. If that is the way you choose to conduct your parliamentary behaviour, that is entirely a matter for you. Nevertheless, I understood you to be saying that the department is chasing the CSIRO this afternoon, and the inference I drew from your interjection was that you expected to get these answers imminently. If you expect to get these answers imminently, Senator Carr, I wonder why it is that the Senate is being delayed by this procedure when perhaps a polite letter to Senator Sinodinos might have sufficed. I wonder aloud that perhaps you could respond at some stage, in some manner, as to whether a polite letter or even a telephone call might have been the appropriate course to take.

Nevertheless, let us come to the subject matter of the question. The subject matter of the question, Senator Carr, is in relation to certain administrative and, in particular, budgetary decisions that were made within the CSIRO. You criticised the government for having made those budgetary decisions. And they bear, in particular, as I understand it, on decisions made internally, within the CSIRO, not by the minister. Senator Sinodinos, of course, represents the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science in this chamber. The minister, as we know, is the distinguished member for Sturt, the Hon. Christopher Pyne. So if there is a delinquency here—and I am not suggesting that there is; you are the one making that suggestion—it is not the delinquency of Senators Sinodinos. He is merely answering to the Senate and providing the Senate with information on behalf of a House of Representatives minister. Secondly, Senator Carr, in both the debate you have initiated this afternoon and in questions which not merely today but in previous weeks you have directed to Senator Sinodinos, you seem to be implying that the decision in relation to resource allocation within the CSIRO is somehow a ministerial decision. Senator Carr, as a former minister yourself—

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

Senator Brandis, it would be more appropriate if you addressed your remarks to the chair.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President; you correct me quite rightly. Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, as a former minister in the portfolio yourself, you should know that decisions of the kind which are being inquired into by these questions are administrative decisions; they are not ministerial decisions. Of course, ultimately, under the principles of responsible government and section 64 of the Constitution, the minister must take ultimate responsibility for them. Nevertheless, the decisions are administrative and managerial decisions—not Mr Pyne's decisions and, certainly, not the decisions of Senator Sinodinos, who represents Mr Pyne in this chamber.

So what are the decisions about to which the questions were directed? Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, you will appreciate that this is not an area in which I have ever been either the minister or the shadow minister. As I understand it, the decisions were in relation to the climate science area of the CSIRO. I have followed this debate, Senator Carr. I have followed it, in particular, through what I have always found to be the very illuminating contributions of my friend Senator Ian Macdonald, who makes the point, time and again, that there is an inconsistency in the Labor Party's position on this matter. On the one hand, times beyond number and for years on end, we have heard you and Senator Penny Wong and others say that, in relation to climate science, 'the science is settled'. That has been your constant refrain; it has been your mantra; it has been in pectore your most cherished belief that the science is settled. Yet you come into this chamber and condemn the government for making a decision which apparently acknowledges a fact that you have for so long asserted as an article of faith—that the science is settled.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Senator Siewert, I will take that interjection. I am not embarking on this debate myself; I am simply challenging the illogic of the proposition being advanced by the Labor Party. On the one hand they say the science is settled but on the other hand they say it is a disgraceful thing that we should make adjustments to our premier public sector scientific research agency that would reflect the 'fact' that 'the science is settled'. For heaven's sake, Senator Carr—through you Mr Deputy President—if the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science? Wouldn't it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers' money, and research capacity within CSIRO, for CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science is not settled? Wouldn't it, Senator Carr?

Senator Carr, you are the one who says the science settled. I do not. I am aware that there are a number of views about the two questions of the nature and the causes of climate change. It does not seem to me that the science is settled at all. I am not a scientist—I am agnostic, really, on that question—but I can follow a logical argument. It seems to me that if you are the party, the senator and the advocate who says the science is settled, it hardly lies in your mouth to criticise the government, the CSIRO or those who manage and administer its resources for allocating their resources to reflect a fact that you yourself assert. That is the falseness of your position, Senator Carr.

You put all these questions on notice to Senator Sinodinos, representing Minister Pyne. You come into the chamber today and hold us up with a debate about why it should be that these questions are 19 days late, when you have acknowledged yourself, through your interjection, that the answers to the questions are imminently to be provided. Senator Carr, if you are concerned about the misallocation of resources, as you allege, within the CSIRO, if that is a matter of such beseeching concern to you, why is it that you are putting the CSIRO, and those who administer it, to all the cost and trouble of seeking out answers to questions that you could just as easily have put in estimates, that you could just as easily have asked in the chamber and, frankly, that you could just as easily have inquired of the officers yourself? But, no, rather than do that, you invoke this elaborate parliamentary procedure, forcing the CSIRO—which has much better things to do than dance at your whim, Senator Carr—to spend so much time and waste so much money pursuing answers to pointless questions. And yet, somehow, this is the socialist dream of appropriate resource allocation. And if anyone was going to dream the socialist dream, Senator Carr, I guess it would be you.

There is not much more, I feel, I can contribute to this discussion than to point out that this entire exercise has been unnecessary. It has been entirely unnecessary. The information you are seeking is information in relation to a decision that you criticise in a manner which is completely at variance from the policy position you take. The people you criticised for making the decision, Mr Pyne and Senator Sinodinos, were not the decision makers. The delinquency of which you complain—namely, the lateness in the provision of the answers to the question—is an alleged delinquency which, by your own admission in interjection, is imminently to be corrected because you tell us that the CSIRO are about to provide the answers to the department. The procedure you have invoked this afternoon, the procedure under standing order 74(5)(b), is utterly unnecessary for you to achieve any appropriate line of parliamentary inquiry or any legitimate forensic end. So why do you tax us so, Senator Carr? Why do you delay us so?

What I can tell you, Senator Carr—and let me close on this, because I see that my time is fast running out to make this contribution to the debate—is that you will get your answers to the questions, as Senator Sinodinos has assured you. And, when you get the answers to the questions, I am sure you will find that those at the CSIRO who have provided those answers will have done so in a thorough, honest and conscientious way. All the time that they have diverted from their scientific research—the important research work they should be undertaking—to answer your unnecessary and meddlesome questions is time that could be much—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

You laugh, Senator Carr. You are the one who brought on this unnecessary debate. You are the one who brought this entirely unnecessary debate before the chamber. I am simply pointing out to you that it was an unnecessary and inappropriate use of the procedure. Mr President, you chair the Senate procedure committee. Perhaps, one thing the Senate procedure committee could do in the future is have a look at the appropriate scope of subparagraph (5) of standing order 74. This is an open-ended debate. This could go all day this debate you have inflicted upon us, Senator Carr, in order to achieve an end that could have been achieved by a telephone call. Yet you invoke this very recondite procedure in order to find out answers that you probably already know the answer to. You waste people's time with meddlesome and unnecessary questions and you announce to the Senate, having initiated this unnecessary debate, that the answers are imminent in any event. Senator Carr, why have you inflicted this on the Senate on the last sitting day of the week? Possibly the second last sitting week of this parliament is being detained by you, Senator Carr, by invoking this procedure entirely unnecessarily. Senator Carr—and I see my friend Senator Claire Moore sitting there; as whip, she is no doubt part of the tactics committee of the Labor Party—I wonder whether you might think again about whether there is a more efficient use of the Senate's time than to invoke this procedure in pursuing answers.

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

I am very keen to participate in the debate on the motion moved by Senator Carr.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a moment, Senator.

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

I was the first one up.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was the first one up, but he also is the deputy leader. It is a motion instigated by yourself, Senator Carr. There is ample opportunity for others on your side to contribute to the debate. I have gone to Senator Cormann on that basis. But your side will not be overlooked. There will be plenty of opportunity to speak.

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

I will not hold up the Senate for long, but I am very keen to participate in this debate on a motion initiated by Senator Carr. The chutzpah of a Labor senator complaining about a delay in providing answers to questions at a Senate estimates committee—a Labor senator who was a senior cabinet minister in the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments!

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong; that is out of order. I explained that to Senator Carr a moment ago. You were not in the chamber when I gave an explanation.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Anyway, Senator Cormann has the call. There is ample opportunity for you to have the call. Also, Senator Wong, as you were walking over here I indicated to Senator Carr that the motion has been moved from the Labor side and there is ample opportunity for senators to contribute to the debate. Senator Cormann, you have the call.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Here we see again Labor Party dysfunction at work—two senior shadow ministers at each other's throats. That is what we remember from the Rudd-Gillard Labor government years. We have a shadow cabinet minister initiating the debate—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Here we go! We have Senator Wong complaining about the fact that I am participating in the debate on a motion that she initiated. The Labor Party initiated a debate on a motion—and look at this!

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. I will not continue with the debate if we are going to have this level of shouting.

Senator Wong interjecting —

Order! No, I will not be; and I do not want you questioning.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, there is ample opportunity for anyone who wants to participate in the debate.

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

I think that Senator Wong is again demonstrating in her way that Labor is not fit to hold office in government in Australia. Look at the level of dysfunction on the Labor side: we have a shadow cabinet minister in Senator Carr initiating a debate, complaining about the fact that a minister has not answered questions on notice in a timely manner, and by me participating in that debate somehow I am doing something wrong. That is actually the way the parliament works: if a senator initiates a debate which under our standing orders is an open-ended debate, I am entitled to participate in that debate.

As I was saying, the chutzpah of a Labor senator who was a senior minister in the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments complaining about the lack of timeliness of answers to questions taken on notice is absolutely breathtaking. The government have a strong and proud record of answering questions, answering them properly, providing information and making sure that we follow the procedures of the Senate when, for very good public interest reasons, certain information is not able to be put into the public domain.

I contrast our track record of providing timely and high-quality answers to questions from Labor senators with that of the previous government. I used to sit on that side, as you might recall, Mr President, pursuing the then Labor government over the modelling that they had initiated through Treasury and various other agencies of government into their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and subsequently their carbon tax. I am waiting to this day to get answers to those questions. We put orders for the production of documents on the table, we passed them through the Senate, we put questions on notice at Senate estimates, we set up Senate inquiries asking questions in the vain hope that we might be able to get an answer somewhere along the way. I am still waiting.

One of the questions that Senator Carr put on notice—I am just reading it—relates to measuring and modelling. This is what we are talking about. He is holding up the Senate, complaining about a minister not providing quick enough answers to this question. I am quoting now from Hansard. This is Senator Carr:

Can I just follow up on a question on notice. You have indicated several times, Dr Marshall, that Australia spends 75 per cent—or the US spends 25 per cent—on its measuring and modelling. How much does Australia spend, as distinct from the CSIRO; and what proportion of Australia's contribution to the measurement of climate change does the CSIRO undertake? Can you provide that on notice?

Dr Marshall said:

It is probably better if we take that one on notice. We have been searching for those numbers, and they are complicated.

They are complicated. That is what he was told on the spot during the Senate estimates hearing. Senator Carr then said:

You have used a figure several times. I would be very surprised as to what extent—let me wait. I look forward to your analysis of the comparison that Australia spends—and, by that, I mean the whole country and then a subset of that as CSIRO's contribution.

Here we have Dr Marshall explaining, right up front, that this is not easy information to identify, but of course he uses best endeavours. He says on the spot that it is not an easy piece of information to put together, that it is complicated, but he will do his best and, of course, that information will be provided as quickly as possible.

Compare and contrast that with the attempts of the then opposition, year in year out, day in day out, week in week out, month in month out, when we were asking then Gillard and Rudd Labor governments to share with the Senate the modelling information underpinning their climate change policies—the modelling information which they had at their fingertips because they had considered it when making relevant decisions but which they were keeping secret from the Australian people. They were deliberately keeping it secret from the Australian people because they knew that if it had become public the public would have been able to see even sooner that what Labor was proposing in government was not effective policy on climate change and that all it would do would be to push up the cost of living and the cost of doing business and cost jobs and investment without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. That is why Labor in government, in absolute desperation, never ever answered that question.

Here we have a situation where many, many questions were taken on notice by the CSIRO and others during Senate estimates. The motion that we are talking about is the motion by Labor Senator Kim Carr complaining that answers to certain questions are 19 days overdue. I wish I had received answers to my questions 19 days after the deadline. That would have been a great improvement on our experience during our period in opposition.

Senator Carr also repeated a range of inaccurate assertions in relation to the government's approach to the CSIRO. In the context of this debate, to directly respond to the comments that Senator Carr made during his contribution, I would like to point out that this government is providing a record $3.1 billion of funding to the CSIRO in the 2015-16 budget forward estimates. The CSIRO have announced that there will be some realignment of activity within their climate change division, so they will now focus on climate mitigation and abatement—that is, on tackling the problem. Labor were pursuing this ideological agenda of taxing more because they wanted to spend more, and they wanted to dress up that taxing more as effective action on climate change. The truth was that it was just good old-fashioned Labor socialism—taxing more to spend more—and even then, because the taxes were not enough, they were spending more than they were able to afford. That is, of course, why Labor left a track record of debt and deficit as far as the eye can see.

It is important to note that advice from the CSIRO is that there will be no net job losses overall across the CSIRO agency, and that all staff entitlements will be fulfilled. Contrast that with what Senator Carr said during estimates on 3 June 2008, in relation to Labor cutting the CSIRO budget:

…the government has made the budgetary decision. The implementation issues are matters for the CSIRO and the board. The CSIRO board has to sign off on these decisions.

That is, to translate that, 'Nothing to do with me.' That is what Senator Carr said when he was asked questions about the impact on the CSIRO of budget cuts by the Labor government that he was a part of: 'Nothing to do with me; nothing to see here. It's all a matter for them.' We are taking responsibility and being accountable.

The truth is: under our government, there have been no changes to funding. Any suggestion that funding arrangements were the result of changes to the CSIRO budget is incorrect. The CSIRO is undertaking a consultation process with its staff over the next few weeks, and it will be seeking input from external stakeholders, as appropriate. So this is about making sure that CSIRO as an organisation is able to be more effective. One of the objectives that we pursue as a government—right across government—is that we want to ensure that taxpayer resources are deployed in the most efficient, most effective and most well-targeted way possible. That is exactly what we are doing.

The advice from the CSIRO, as I have said, is that there will be no net job losses, although there will be a realignment of activity in order to ensure that its structure reflects the changing priorities in a changing world. It is true that the proposed changes are an operational matter for the CSIRO. The CSIRO is following its normal consultation process, as is required under its enterprise agreement. I understand that the CSIRO's management is assessing the feedback from an extended consultation period in the context of its organisation priorities as well as an understanding of CSIRO's future performance against existing contracts and collaboration arrangements. The CSIRO's chief executive and executive team will then finalise the planned changes, as is appropriate. The CSIRO management, of course, considers that further significant delays in making this change would have a detrimental impact on staff, as CSIRO is unable to provide certainty to those areas that are directly impacted.

As I have indicated right at the outset, we have a Labor senator who was a senior minister in the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments come into this chamber and complain about a lack of timeliness in providing answers to questions. It clearly upset Senator Wong that he asked that question and initiated this debate that we are now engaged in. The chutzpah involved in a Labor senator complaining about a lack of information from our government when we have bent over backwards to provide answers in a timely fashion, when we have prided ourselves in providing answers in a timely fashion and when we have prided ourselves in following proper Senate procedure when it comes to claiming public interest immunity in relation to the pieces of information for which, upon reflection, it would not be in the national interest to publicly release at a particular point in time. We have prided ourselves in doing all of this, yet this senator comes in because a piece of information that was particularly complex to collect is 19 days late. Really? Is that the most important priority that Senator Carr feels that the Senate should be debating at this point in time? You really wonder!

Clearly, Senator Wong was very unhappy with Senator Carr having initiated this debate. I am not surprised. I suspect that this is a continuation of the wars that we witnessed on the Labor side of politics in the period between 2007 and 2013. What was the name of that—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Killing Season.

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

The Killing Season! Apparently we are going to get the expanded book version of the The Killing Season. I will go to the index to see how often Senator Carr and Senator Wong come up in dispatches together.

I did not hear Senator Carr complain when I was not able to get answers from Senator Wong, by the way, in relation to the climate change modelling that was undertaken by the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments. I remember spending weeks and weeks and every single question time asking questions about when we were going to see the modelling and the underlying assumptions—not just in relation to climate change, incidentally, but also in relation to the mining tax. Remember the mining tax—the tax which we always said would not raise any money, the tax for which we asked the Labor government to provide us with the underlying assumptions and the modelling information? Of course, the then Treasurer, Mr Swan, went running for the hills when we asked him for information which we knew would prove that that was a tax which would not raise any money when Labor had already promised to spend all of the money that they thought it would raise, and more. So we will contrast our track record against yours any day. When it comes to openness and transparency, we will put our track record against your track record any day, Senator Carr.

I am very confident that Senator Sinodinos, representing the illustrious and very impressive senior minister in Minister Pyne, will, here in this chamber, provide the answers to the questions that you have put on notice during the last Senate estimates period in a timely fashion, while, of course, being focused on making sure that the information we provide to you is accurate and factual, that it does not mislead and that it informs rather than hinders the public debate.

I have just received some very interesting information which was published on 17 April 2013. This relates to the Gillard government's lack of accountability in Senate estimates. Here we go: figures supplied by the Senate clerk's office—this is in April 2013—show that 58 per cent of questions on notice were still outstanding after two months, despite a requirement that all questions be answered by 12 April. So this was exactly three years ago. This was the tail end of your government—the government in which you were a senior cabinet minister for a period, at least, until you somehow got caught up in the wars, or The Killing Season. Somewhere along the way you got involved in The Killing Season. Senator Carr was a victim of The Killing Season somewhere along the way. But here we are: figures supplied by the Senate clerk's office back in 2013 show that 58 per cent of questions on notice were still outstanding after two months, despite a requirement that all questions be answered by 12 April. Five portfolios and agencies—resources, energy and tourism; Austrade; immigration and citizenship; infrastructure and transport; and regional Australia, local government, arts and sport—failed to answer any questions whatsoever by the due date! Not a single question was answered by the due date under the Gillard and then the Rudd Labor government, and Senator Carr comes in here and complains about our performance when it comes to the timeliness of providing answers to questions put to us! Really, it is quite ridiculous.

I am pretty sure that Senator Wong is not very pleased with Senator Carr for having initiated this debate here today, because she, out of all ministers, actually would well remember that she has a very bad track record when it comes to answering questions taken on notice during Senate estimates or, indeed, during Senate question time. I spent a bit of time with Senator Wong in Senate estimates when I was in opposition, and I have learnt a little bit about how to handle questions in Senate estimates from Senator Wong. Let me tell you, again, that I am still waiting for a whole heap of answers that Senator Wong and, indeed, Senator Conroy took on notice during my period as an opposition shadow minister.

The motion moved by Senator Carr is, of course, about two main issues. It is, firstly, about the proposition that somehow Senator Sinodinos has been inappropriately tardy in providing answers. I believe that I have addressed this by contrasting our strong and effective performance on this front with that of the previous Labor government. Of course, the other part of the issue raised by Senator Carr wrongly asserted that there have been all these significant cuts to the CSIRO, which would undermine their capacity to undertake important climate change modelling. Let me again refute this. The government are providing a record $3.1 billion of funding in the current budget forward estimates period to the CSIRO over the 2015-16 forward estimates. The CSIRO is working to do things better, to ensure that the money that is made available to it—ultimately, by taxpayers—is spent as effectively and as efficiently as possible. That is what you would expect a good government to do. That is what the government are doing. I do not really understand why Senator Carr would be coming into this chamber and complaining about the fact that we are doing our job the way that the Australian taxpayers would expect us to perform our job.

In closing, let me say again that, given Senator Carr was a senior minister in a government that religiously failed to even try to answer questions—to the point where a whole series of departments did not answer by the due date one single question that was put to them in Senate estimates—it is really quite extraordinary that Senator Carr would have the chutzpah to come into this chamber and complain about our performance. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Moore that the question be now put be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.