Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), which requires that questions on notice be answered within 30 days, I, at the request of Senators Cash and Bragg, seek an explanation from Minister representing the Prime Minister as to why answers to questions on notice Nos 98, 126, 127, 128, 129, 139, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 254, 255, 256, 257, 289 and 326 have not been provided within the requisite 30 days.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former minister Birmingham would know something about unanswered questions on notice. After all, he was the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, as recently as just a few months ago. Can I tell senators about the former Prime Minister's track record on questions on notice. When the election was called, the former Prime Minister had a total of 128 unanswered parliamentary questions on notice, and it wasn't just parliamentary questions on notice that were left unanswered. It wasn't just parliamentary questions on notice that were left unanswered. The Prime Minister's own department had a total of 391 unanswered questions on notice from Senate estimates—391!

I'm advised that the Prime Minister will answer these questions in due course, but we're not going to be lectured by the opposition after the government routinely failed to answer questions on notice in a timely fashion.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer provided by Senator Farrell.

We were told it was all going to be so much better. We were told they were going to hold themselves to a higher standard. We were told endlessly how terrible the previous government were, and we heard Senator Farrell attempt to do that just again. But it turns out that it was all just talk.

It was all talk from those opposite that, indeed, there are 22 overdue questions on notice from the Prime Minister alone already—22! Senator Farrell likes to remind this chamber that the previous government was in office for nine to 10 years. Now he comes in and says, 'And there were 128 questions that were overdue from that time frame.' Well you've only been there, as you like to remind us, Senator Farrell, for some few months, yet you've already racked up 22 to the Prime Minister alone that are overdue. It was all talk. You have broken your promises to this chamber.

Let's look at what some of those promises were. Senator Watt said just last year in June:

We deserve answers and transparency. It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions.

Well, why then is it that Mr Albanese, through Senator Farrell, is now trying to negotiate around whether or not he complies with the standing orders in terms of answering these questions? Remarkably, Senator Watt was still going on with some of these claims. Even in question time today he said:

… there can be no doubt whatsoever as to this government's commitment to transparency, in contrast with the abhorrent and wilful ignorance of transparency that we saw for 10 years under the former government.

Apparently there is doubt as to this government's commitment to transparency. Despite what Senator Watt was saying in question time today, despite the fact he claimed that adhering to these standing orders was not negotiable, the government is walking away from them.

Of course, it's not just Senator Watt. Senator Ayres, reflecting directly upon me in the role Senator Farrell just referenced, said back in November 2020:

It is high time Senator Birmingham signalled a change in approach, in terms of accountability and ministerial accountability in this place, from what we've seen in … a stoic refusal to provide timely responses to questions on notice …

Senator Ayres was there with Senator Watt arguing for timely responses. Now here they are lining up the excuses.

Senator Mariel Smith, in quite an honest and reasonable contribution very early on in her time here, said:

I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days.

That, presumably, is why the standing orders are there: within 30 days. Labor senator after Labor senator used to say it should be within 30 days. Now, of course, they're failing in that regard.

Even those no longer with them—it's always nice to reflect on former senator Keneally, who could put things very directly:

… standing orders require the government to answer questions on notice and to answer them in a certain time frame. It is not a technicality to avoid accountability. It is your responsibility as a government to be answerable to this chamber. It is the responsibility of the government to be accountable to the questions posed by senators, and it is your responsibility as a government to conform to the standing orders. The standing orders require the government to answer questions posed by senators, including on notice.

Various Labor senators, present and past, arguing very clearly that they believed questions should be answered within the time frame of the standing orders and that they would hold to a higher standard in that regard. This is a government that knows how to grandstand. We can see that, from everything. They know how to grandstand. But they are already showing themselves to be incapable in the delivery—grandstanding, yes; delivery, no. Guess what? It's not just the 22 questions to the Prime Minister that are overdue; there are in fact 117 questions to the new government that are already overdue—117 questions that the government have racked up in various places and already are determining are not possible for them to answer. So, despite all these grand claims that we have seen about answering questions on time, this government has shown itself to be hypocritical in that regard.

They're not just hypocritical in terms of this area of accountability. There are numerous areas of accountability in which this government is showing that it is not living up to the rhetoric that it took to the election, to the rhetoric that it deployed in this chamber previously or indeed to the claims that it still tries to make about itself. Take the ministerial standards. The new ministerial code of conduct was unveiled with great fanfare by the new Prime Minister. And yet, then, it became apparent that his ministers had neither read the code of conduct nor ensured compliance with the code of conduct. The unveiling of the code of conduct came some time after the ministers had been sworn in. The ministers were sworn in, and then the code of conduct was unveiled. You would assume that ministers had been informed of it before it was publicly released. You'd certainly hope that's the case. Subsequent to that, at least three ministers have been forced to change their interests after it was publicly revealed they were in breach of the new code of conduct. The NDIS minister, Mr Shorten, the local government minister, Ms McBain, and the assistant trade minister in this place, Senator Ayres, all had to go through and make changes after the public disclosure of their breaches to the code of conduct.

A government big on rhetoric about accountability and big on rhetoric about transparency won't answer its questions on time in this chamber. Its ministers have been found to be neither reading nor complying with the code of conduct. Indeed, we also had the issue raised by the Australian Greens in this chamber today about national cabinet's release of documents. Back in opposition, the Labor Party constantly complained about the secrecy surrounding deliberations of national cabinet. Mr Albanese and others were endlessly attacking the former Prime Minister and suggesting that he was 'obsessed with secrecy' over these issues. And yet, now Mr Albanese has confirmed, after his first national cabinet meeting, that the Commonwealth has not proposed changing practices in relation to the release of documents from national cabinet. As you heard from the questions of the Australian Greens today, not only are they not proposing changes but they're continuing to defend the decisions of the former government.

I'm not necessarily criticising their decision in that regard; it's the hypocrisy that I'm shining a spotlight on—the hypocrisy of a mob of Labor politicians who endlessly criticised and railed against the former government in relation to the way it handled such matters as the release of information and yet, when they came to office, simply went and continued past practice, ignoring all that they had to say before. They are the living embodiment of hypocrisy in the way in which they are conducting themselves in this regard.

We said this about chamber management too—that's chamber management here. Again, a government that used to rail against the application of guillotines and complain about the curtailing of debate has now been more than happy to do so whenever it suits them, and not just in this chamber but, even more remarkably, in the other place. In the other place, where they have the numbers to be able to simply change the standing orders, they've done that. They've done that, basically embedding a permanent gag and guillotine in the standing orders of the House of Representatives.

So much for debate in the House of Representatives! So much for empowerment of the greater diversity of members of parliament in the House of Representatives! It now basically just takes a minister to declare that legislation is urgent. They don't have to give any reason. They don't have to say why it's urgent. They don't have to meet any other criteria in relation to its urgency. The minister just says it's urgent and then all of a sudden a range of automatic guillotines take effect. Once declared urgent a bill in the other place is subject to automatic guillotine.

The changes collapse the consideration in detail phase of the debate in the House of Representatives, meaning that any amendments, government or otherwise, are simply moved together and voted on immediately. That's not a government committed to transparency. That's not a government committed to accountability. That's not a government committed to the proper functioning of a parliament. That's the behaviour of a government that simply wants to drive through its own way without any consideration for transparency, accountability or the proper functioning of government.

What we see with those opposite is that despite all the grand and lofty promises they made during their years in opposition, despite all the great criticisms that they tried to deliver, they are ultimately failing to live up to those standards. Mr Albanese, even when he was releasing his Code of Conduct for Ministers, claimed that they were committed to integrity, honesty and accountability, and that ministers in his government will observe standards of probity and governance. Where is the integrity and accountability when ministers breach the code of conduct and have to have it called out by the media, be shamed publicly into changing the way their affairs are ordered, and then try to deny that there was actually anything wrong? You have a government that claimed endlessly that it was frustrated in the delivery of answers when they were in opposition. They moaned endlessly that the then government was failing to adhere to the standing orders. They promised endlessly that they would do better but, then when it came to their behaviour, within just a few months they have racked up 117 overdue questions across a range of different areas of public policy.

The 22 that I highlighted today to the Prime Minister were questions asked by my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator Bragg across different issues in relation to superannuation industry policy, different issues in relation to workplace relations or in relation to the administration of government. They're not particularly tricky questions. These, at the early stages of the government, you would think are relatively straightforward questions for a government to get on and answer. So how, why is it the case that this government has been unable to do so in the time that they have had? They have had these questions for 30 days and yet the clock has seen them run over and fail to do so. There are 117 across all of the other portfolios.

Deputy President, let it stand that this government is a government proven to be one who was all talk when it came to these sorts of standards pre-election. And now they're breaking their promises to the chamber, to the Australian people, to themselves even. No doubt they convinced themselves going into the election. And now they're breaking their promises to themselves as well.

They're a government who will no doubt continue to grandstand and claim that they're doing better, that they're doing differently, when in fact the proof is in the data, the proof is in the behaviour, that they're letting themselves down, they're letting this chamber down and, ultimately, they're letting the Australian people down.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Transparency, integrity and accountability. This is the Prime Minister of Australia, the man who went to the last election stating that if he was elected by the Australian people an Albanese-led government would be the hallmark of transparency, integrity and accountability. Yet today what we see is that Mr Albanese has fallen over at the very first hurdle.

In providing an explanation on behalf of the Prime Minister of Australia, what did we get from the minister representing the Prime Minister? Well, actually nothing—nothing but excuses and blame. You see, what the minister and the Prime Minister clearly fail to remember is that you are now in government. You set the standards by which you wanted the Australian people and this parliament to judge you: transparency, integrity and accountability. Yet on each one of those standards, with 117 questions overdue—and it's not like you had a short time in which to provide the answers; they are overdue now after over 30 days—you have failed in every regard.

As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate stated, when those in government were on the other side of the chamber, they were very demanding when it came to questions being answered on time. Yet now that they are in government, they don't hold themselves to that same standard of accountability. In June last year, just over 12 months ago, what did now Minister Watt say in relation to the failure to provide answers to questions on notice in a timely fashion? He said this: 'We deserve answers and transparency.' He went even further and said:

It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions.

Of course, the Prime Minister is now his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister Albanese. According to what now Minister Watt said at the time, Mr Albanese has failed. Mr Albanese has decided that transparency is negotiable, even though it was not negotiable when they were in opposition and we were in government. Then, of course, Senator Marielle Smith said on 15 October 2019:

I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days.

I agree. It is not an unreasonable request, in particular when you are the now Prime Minister of this country and you have gone to an election on the basis of integrity, on the basis of transparency and on the basis of accountability.

The Prime Minister should stand true to his words and ensure that at all times he complies with the standards that he himself set. The Prime Minister made a huge fanfare when he announced what he said was his new code of conduct for ministers. What did he say in the foreword to the code of conduct signed personally by Anthony Albanese, the new Prime Minister?

Australians deserve good government.

The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.

Yet when it comes to ensuring that they comply with the standing orders in this place, the Australian Senate, all of that goes out the window and the now Prime Minister thinks, 'Well, I won't personally observe the standards of probity, governance and behaviour that are worthy of the Australian people.'

In making all the fanfare that he did in relation to his code of conduct, at clause 5, Accountability, he says this:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

This is the code of conduct which Mr Albanese made great fanfare about when he announced it. This was going to be the code of conduct to end all codes of conduct, and yet what we've had is the Prime Minister himself—and they've only been in government for over 120 days—already failing the code of conduct that he himself signed off on. But what is worse, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has stated, the Prime Minister has been more than happy in the past to have several press conferences about the ministerial arrangements of the previous government, and yet when it comes to taking responsibility for his own government and answering questions, very serious questions, he is nowhere to be seen.

The questions on notice, and there are 117 that are outstanding, which have been asked of this government—and particularly in this case were asked of the Prime Minister of Australia—are very important. In the case of the questions on notice that are outstanding for me, they seek to inquire into what discussions Labor ministers and the Prime Minister's office had with a number of union stakeholders.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aah!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly! But Senator Scarr, as you would know, many of these stakeholders donated millions and millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party. Money comes in by way of donations, policy goes out.

An opposition senator interjecting—

Exactly. There's one accord in town, and that's the accord between the Albanese Labor government and the union movement of Australia. And then when we deign to ask very simple questions—just what, where, when, why and how—we are treated with complete contempt. And in treating the opposition with contempt, the Albanese government is treating the Australian people with contempt because the Australian people deserve to know the answers to these questions.

Of course, we know the contempt with which the now Prime Minister treats his code of conduct. He says in a big press conference there's a new code of conduct and all his ministers will abide by it. Yet what do we see within the first few months of the parliament? We see minister after minister in potential breach of the code. As I said, what the code says is:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

And what do we have? Minister after minister after minister ignoring this code. What does the Prime Minister of Australia say—the Prime Minister of Australia who went to the election on the basis of transparency, integrity, accountability and honesty? Well, let's be honest: he really doesn't seem too interested in whether his ministers are actually abiding by it or not.

In relation to one of the first ministers to have a conflict: Minister Kristy McBain decided the best way to divest herself of a number of her shares was to give them to her husband, which was unfortunate because, if you read the ministerial code of conduct, it actually says that is a breach of the ministerial code of conduct.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're actually going to have to read it!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, Senator Scarr. In this case she clearly didn't read it. While I understand all ministers were issued with a copy of the code of conduct, perhaps Mr Albanese didn't give them the instruction that they should also read the code conduct. Had Ms McBain read the code of conduct, she would have understood that she can't just transfer the shares to her husband. What did she say and what did Mr Albanese say? 'Nothing to see here. No breach of the code. There's nothing that has been done wrong.'

Then you had the second minister, Minister Ged Kearney. She had an interest in a fund which had a number of holdings in a fund with significant exposure to health care despite having a portfolio in that area. But, again, according to the Prime Minister—who was big on transparency, integrity and accountability in the lead-up to the election—when his ministers are called out there is nothing to see here.

Of course, we have the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who loves to lecture others on integrity—we saw it in question time today, actually, with Senator Shoebridge's question.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who refers people to the police.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does—frivolously! He frivolously referred nine of his political opponents to the Australian Federal Police just to get a headline, because none of these referrals were in any way successful. But Attorney-General Dreyfus—for the Hansard record—was heavily invested in a fund which owned shares in Omni Bridgeway, a company which put out a press release—you can go online, google this and see it—praising a decision by the Attorney-General in litigation funding policy, a policy which strongly benefits that company. On any analysis, whether or not you are a minister in the Albanese government, how the Attorney-General of Australia would think this is a good idea is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he is the Attorney.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the Attorney; he should know. He should have at least read code of conduct. When he was questioned about this in the parliament, though—it's actually fascinating to watch, if you go online and watch the video—as Mr Dreyfus reads the code of conduct, you can see his face and he realises he needs to report back to the parliament on the matter.

But this is very typical, colleagues, of the Albanese government. What is good for the government when they are in opposition is not the standard that they are going to live by when they, themselves, get into government. This is the Prime Minister of Australia who has failed to answer very simple questions. According to the statistics, over 16 per cent of questions in the Senate are currently overdue. Sixteen per cent of the questions asked are overdue.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have only been in three months.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three months. One would think that when you are elected on a platform of transparency, integrity and accountability, no questions would be overdue.

But it gets worse because, when you break down the 16 per cent, over 40 per cent of that 16 per cent are actually overdue and they were directed to the Prime Minister of Australia. He has only been asked 48 questions on notice yet he thinks this parliament, the Senate, is beneath him to respond. As I said, if you treat the opposition in this place with contempt, you are treating the Australian people with contempt. The Australian people, who believed in transparency, integrity and accountability, are being failed miserably by the Prime Minister of Australia. Transparency, integrity and accountability—those are words in the lead up to an election which the Prime Minister is happy to throw around happily but, when he gets into government, it all goes out the window.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President McLachlan, if you don't mind, I will read out the relevant clause from this new ministerial code of conduct that has been in for several months. It says at 5.1:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

It is somewhat shameful that we have a Prime Minister in this country who goes around lecturing us not only all about integrity and about transparency but also about good manners. This Prime Minister is big about how we have to have good manners in public life, and we need good manners when it comes to trying to change things. But when it comes to answering questions, the Prime Minister doesn't have any good manners. The good manners have got into a large white car, gone to the airport and flown overseas with him.

This is the problem: we have a prime minister who is not engaged in the day-to-day running of this country. We have a Prime Minister who does not want to answer questions. Forty per cent of the questions that have not been answered in this chamber were to the Prime Minister. That is 40 per cent. This is a Prime Minister who spent the last three years going around the country like some sort of demented robot, talking about transparency and accountability and how he is purer than pure. He grew up in public housing; isn't life terrible. He said, 'I am going to be honest and transparent' but he gets into power and gets in the big white limo and he gets in that leather spin-around chair and he goes, 'Well—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bugger this.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

bugger this.' Thank you, Senator Hughes, for that eloquent but quite disorderly—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, let's keep the standard of language at a high level.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I blame Senator Hughes. She's leading me astray, as she is wont to do—and as the Prime Minister is leading the country astray. Forty per cent—that is a big number, but when it comes down to it there are 22 questions. The Prime Minister doesn't want to answer these questions, but I'm going to read them out. I think it is important that these questions are on the public record to make sure those poor people up there in the public gallery can leave this chamber, go to the Queen's Terrace Cafe, have a double-shot cappuccino and understand that the Prime Minister of this country is snubbing his nose at this chamber and snubbing his nose at accountability. The first question from my good colleague Senator Cash, question on notice No. 139, says:

On what date did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provide an Incoming Government Brief to the Prime Minister or his office following the May 2022 federal election.

That's a pretty simple question. It's a classic machinery-of-government question, so it's very, very easy.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the date?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the date? We weren't asking him to do algebra. We weren't asking him to solve world peace. It was: what date did you get the incoming brief?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not too tricky.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not too tricky at all. Do you know what answer he gave? None—no answer; none whatsoever. Also, Senator Cash asked:

Can a copy of the Incoming Government Brief prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be provided.

No answer. None. Zip. Nothing happened there. It was a very simple question.

The next question, in my view, was also very simple. The answer will shock people too, because there isn't an answer. My good friend here, Senator Michaelia Cash, asked the Prime Minister:

With reference to the additional information provided by Minister Watt on 28 July 2022 at 3.05pm—

That's very precise, ladies and gentlemen—

in relation to questions taken on notice from myself, in relation to a meeting held with the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) Construction Division on 17 June 2022 (the meeting): …

It was a very specific question. It wasn't a random question like 'When was the last time you had a scone?' or something like that. This was a specific question, in relation to a meeting, that was asked by my good friend here and that Minister Watt didn't really answer at 3.05 pm. This is like an Agatha Christie plot. We know where it happened. We know the time. Question one was:

Can all briefing notes, file notes, emails and messages including text messages and messages sent on any instant messaging service or application between the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to the meeting with the CFMMEU on 17 June 2022; and/or in relation to the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022 announced by Minister Burke on 24 July 2022 be provided; this request covers both internal and external documents in the Prime Minister's office and the Department.

That's a pretty specific request. It wasn't what you'd call a fishing exercise. Senator Cash hadn't asked a general question like 'What's your view on the weather?' No. It was a specific question in relation to a meeting and in relation to information that referred to that particular meeting. Guess what? Zip—absolutely nothing; very, very disappointing. Senator Cash, you are living this at the moment—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am. The building industry is living it.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because you are standing up for the taxpayers of Australia, those poor, poor people. That mob over there are about to take away their stage 3 tax cuts, by the way—breaking news there. That's not going to happen; we can all see that coming down the hallway. Question two was:

Can copies of any correspondence between the Department and the Prime Minister's office about this meeting, including but not limited to email, instant messages (for example text messages, WhatsApp, etc.) or by letter be provided.

We have asked for this on behalf of the people of Australia, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, but also, weirdly—I don't want to be existential—we've actually asked on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has talked to all of us about the importance of transparency and accountability. He lectures us. He could bore for Australia about this. He's a bit of a chatterbox, but he doesn't deliver, and he certainly hasn't delivered on this.

Because we're team players, we want the Prime Minister to do a good job. We want the Prime Minister to deliver on his promises. We want the Prime Minister to be that man he promised to be for the last three years. We all know—it's no secret—he's not going to do that. We know that he is a creature of the socialist left and of the Labor Party. Taxes are going to go up. There are going to be new taxes. There's a giant vacuum cleaner over regional Australia at the moment, sucking all the money out of there so it can go to building trams in Redfern or something like that. As important as trams for Redfern might be, we have a Prime Minister who is not doing what he said he would do. He is not standing up for accountability and transparency.

I am going to read another question out. For those who are watching in the office or watching at home on the Internet, don't make a cup of tea or coffee. Just sit down and hold on. It's like a rollercoaster! Here it comes. Senator Cash asked the Prime Minister—Saint Anthony of accountability, transparency and telling the truth—question on notice No. 197:

With reference to the additional information provided by Minister Watt on 28 July 2022 at 3.05pm, in relation to questions taken on notice from myself—

that being Senator Cash—

in relation to a meeting held with the state and territory ministers with responsibility for workplace relations on 5 July 2022 (the meeting) …

It was a very specific time and a very specific meeting. It wasn't a meeting just with one person. This was with other ministers representing other jurisdictions, all paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. You'd think there would be some accountability here, but no.

Question No. 1:

Was the Prime Minister or his office aware of this meeting; if yes, when and how did they become aware.

I'm not the most technological person in the world, but I can go to my Microsoft Outlook, and I can do a search, look backwards and find out when I had meetings and things like that. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to operate a Microsoft Outlook diary and find out when you may have had a meeting or not had a meeting. There are a lot of people who work in the Prime Minister's office. We see them. They all walk around this building rather grandly and push you out of the line at Aussies and things like that because they're very important people! I think one of them could actually work out how to use Microsoft Outlook and find out: did the Prime Minister or his office become aware of this meeting on 5 July 2022? I don't know what they're doing in that office. Forty per cent of the questions have not been answered. They're paid for by the taxpayers of Australia, and we've got some very simple questions. I don't know what they're doing. So we haven't got an answer in relation to that.

Then there's question No. 2:

Did the Prime Minister or anyone from the Prime Minister's office attend this meeting; if so, who and what position do they hold.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They could just ask at morning tea!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They could ask at a morning tea. They like morning tea. We know they've brought back the morning tea! They're big on morning teas. They're big on having lots of biscuits and things like that because that's how you rebuild the economy! But what you'd think they could have done is send an all-of-office email—we'd see that—and say: 'By the way, did anyone here know about this meeting? Whoopsie! Someone forgot to go. My bad.' You'd think someone would have done that, but no. Welcome to the new paradigm of the arrogance of this government. It is a new government. They've had four months. They are the government. It breaks my heart to say that; I've worked through my pain! But they are the government, and they are in charge. But guess what? They're not really doing anything because they're not answering questions.

Then my good friend Senator Cash asked question No. 3:

If the Prime Minister or his office did not attend the meeting, was the Prime Minister or his office briefed on this meeting or the outcomes of this meeting; if yes:

a. when and by whom; and

b. what was the Prime Minister or his office told.

These aren't difficult questions. We're not saying, 'Work out world peace.' We're not saying to work out pi, sine and things like that without using a calculator. We're saying: Did you attend a meeting? Was there some information in relation to this meeting? Was there a briefing note? Guess what! We know, Prime Minister's office—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know there was.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know there was. So, by not answering these questions, you're not just lying to us; you're lying to yourselves. We want you to be better. We want you to be proud, to spend taxpayers' money and do a good job. We know you won't. We know you're terrible. But at least try and answer these questions.

Question No. 4:

Can copies of any correspondence between any Minister's office and the Prime Minister's office about this meeting, including but not limited to email, instant messages (for example text messages, WhatsApp, etc.) or by letter be provided.

Apparently not. Apparently, there is only one photocopier in the Prime Minister's office, and that's on the blink because they're waiting for Terry or someone from Canon to come and fix it up. This is the issue: the printers aren't working. They need to put a password in or something like that. They can't print these things off. The photocopier's not working, and they don't trust Richard Marles to borrow his photocopier or anything like that—they certainly won't trust a senator—so they're in trouble.

An opposition senator: They're not asking Tanya Plibersek?

They're not going to ask Minister Plibersek either. What is going on in the Prime Minister's office? What are they doing in there? Having an afternoon tea probably right about now!

Question 5:

Can a copy of any correspondence or briefing notes from the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet or any other Department about this meeting, including but not limited to email, instant messages (for example text messages, WhatsApp, etc.) or by letter be provided.

Apparently not. It's a no. There's no answer whatsoever. It's sort of like that awkward silence. They're frightened people are going to talk to them. They've got a personality disorder and they're just going to go and stand at the corner and stare at the wall.

We are facing, in politics in Australia, a Prime Minister's office who does not want to engage with taxpayers. They do not engage with this chamber. They do not want to engage with being honest, transparent and accountable. That is the lesson here, fellow senators: we've got a Prime Minister's office who, quite frankly, don't care about this chamber. They do not care about accountability. We've got a government here who do not care about us. Estimates is going to be interesting; get lots of coffee for that!

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Murray 'Not My Job' Watt!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt is very scared of Shane Stone—bring back Shane Stone! That'll scare him! It is very important, as people who believe in a liberal democracy, that governments are held to account. On a daily basis when we were in government we were held to account by the opposition—and that is important. As someone who has worked around the world in various different emerging democracies, it is so important for that government of whatever persuasion to be held to account. What we are seeing here is a government who are refusing to be held to account because they are refusing to answer simple questions about how they are spending money and how they are making decisions on behalf of the Australian people, and are refusing to release pretty basic information. That is shameful. Shame on the Prime Minister.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kudos, Senator McGrath, for going through some of those questions, but I don't think you touched on my personal favourite of the questions that have been asked. I'm reasonably sure that whilst this question was asked of the Prime Minister—I'm even going to give him credit; this is probably not something he was personally responsible for—these details are able to be provided pretty easily and quickly by his EA, by anyone in his office. I know when I have hosted a function that all these details are immediately available.

Following on from Senator McGrath, the question asked by my good friend Senator Michaelia Cash to the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 25 August 2022—this question was actually asked twice; question on notice Nos. 289 and 326:

With reference to any functions, official or unofficial receptions or other events hosted by Ministers, Assistant Ministers or their Departments in their portfolio since 1 June 2022, can the following information be provided for each function:

a. name of function;

b. list of attendees including departmental officials and members of the Minister's staff;

c. function venue;

d. itemised list of costs;

e. details of any food served—

This is my personal favourite—

f. details of any alcohol served including brand and vintage; and

g. details of any entertainment provided.

We know those opposite have never seen a trough deep enough to get their snout in as quickly as possible.

I'm sure those briefs, which would be sitting already sorted in someone's drawer—that's the information you get every time you host any sort of function, particularly in Parliament House. All this information is provided to you—certainly the names of guests. You do not turn up to a function as a backbencher in the opposition without knowing who's going to be at events. There is no way the Prime Minister is turning up at any function, nor are any of his ministers or assistant ministers turning up at any events, without a list of all attendees. That would just be part of the event brief. But any event that they've ordered and they've organised would have all of that information. And I have no doubt that one of the reasons they don't want to provide this—because none of this information is being provided—is because the vintage Moet that they probably served may not align with the alleged blue-collar working values that they purport to support. The fact that that snout has delved into the trough, well and truly within the first—I'd like to say 120 days, I would have given it 120 minutes and they'd have been in. Within 120 minutes the taxpayer funded French champagne would have been provided.

Aside from the fact they don't even support Australian winemakers except Senator Farrell, we've got to give him credit for the Godfather. That's why they dined at Otis. The Otis group was only there because it's the only restaurant in Canberra to serve Senator Farrell's own wine. So we know Senator Farrell has an interest in the domestic wine market, particularly when it's supporting his own winery, but I think in any other instance we know those opposite—particularly at the far left of the chamber—love a good drop of a vintage French.

But, of course, these are the people who are all 'do as I say, not as I do', who we've been listening to bleat on about how they were going to be the bastions of integrity, the bastions of transparency, an honest government, and lift the standards. There were going to be no more mean girls. Everyone was going to be giving each other big hugs—all kumbaya. There wasn't going to be the tearing down. It was all going to be about support. It was all going to be love-ins.

I've got a two-minute statement tomorrow, and we've actually just lost a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, so I may give credit to him tomorrow. What I was planning to come and do was actually read out some of the misogynistic tweets I've received in the last seven days, because I actually thought it'd be interesting to see how the tone of politics has improved since the Albanese government has come in and called for this kinder parliament. I can tell you: it has got worse. And not only has it got worse for conservative women, not only has it got worse—I've got to tell you, there is a meme that came out today and it's hilarious. I think it's great. It's me, Bronwyn Bishop and Prue MacSween, and it's asking, 'Where's the factory that produces these?' As I replied to it, that must have been in response to: who are your dream dinner party guests? Then I got another one that was, 'Have Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard had a love child?' with a very flattering photo of me, which I sent to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, because we know he always claimed to be their love child. He responded to me, saying, 'Well, congratulations; the family's clearly expanding.'

But I digress. We're now talking about the tone, the parliamentary tone. But I'll tell you what we are going to see—the tone towards women absolutely descend. And we know where women are going to start being treated even worse than conservative women in this place and in the sewer of Twitter et cetera. It will be on worksites around this country, because we know those opposite are all talk but all delivery when it comes to union policy. As soon as John Setka gave you the call, as soon as those election results were in and John Setka was on the phone, you lot, quick as a flash: 'Quick, let's get rid of that ABCC. We've got to get rid of any security for women on building sites. We've got to get rid of any security for workers on building sites who don't subscribe to the CFMMEU.' We know how many hearings there've been, how many cases there've been. The CFMMEU just sees these fines as the cost of doing business. There is the most appalling treatment of women on building sites.

We also hear them bleat on about cost of living. There's a housing shortage. We need to boost the building sector. But how is this going help? We're going to see building companies struggle even further to attract workers, to maintain workers and to keep their workplaces going and worksites operating, as the unions are given even more overreach of power. This is only going to get worse. If you don't think housing costs are going to increase, if you don't think building costs for businesses and commercial properties are going to increase, you guys live in la-la land.

You guys, with everything you do, are making a bad situation worse. You add to inflationary pressures through every decision you make, because you don't understand consequences. You just think, 'Oh well, we'll do what Mr Setka tells us, and everything will be okay.' No, it won't. Building costs are going to go sky high. We're going to see inflation follow through. We're going to see further pressure on families trying to find housing. It's the same as what you're doing with the CDC. You know that, because you've now put $50 million more into drug and alcohol services. You know that there are going to be consequences for Indigenous families, particularly women and children, but you won't ever acknowledge it. You're just going to crawl back under some rock and pretend you don't know what's happening, because over there you don't understand consequences. All talk, no action unless your union bosses tell you it's okay to do so. Absolutely appalling.

But we do know that you're very big on action if it comes to photo shoots. We do know you're very big on action if it comes to overseas trips. We're all back this week, and we've got people here in the gallery. What they don't understand or potentially may not know is that there absolutely were a number of weeks that we could have come back on to make up for the week that we had off with the Queen's passing. But, no, the new Albanese government, who claimed they were going to be family friendly and all about family-work-life balance, decided with very short notice that they were going to put the first sitting week on the first week of school holidays. They also put the public holiday on last Thursday.

Now, why was it last Thursday? Lots of people wonder. What a lot of people don't know is that in Victoria Friday was already a public holiday for the AFL, and today there's a public holiday in WA. So Thursday kind of worked because Mr Albanese was back from overseas; it didn't upset the Victorians, because they didn't lose a public holiday; and it didn't upset the Western Australians, because they didn't lose a public holiday. It upset a lot of businesses. It also upset a lot of families because all of a sudden, in my case, I had a daughter who had to come home a day earlier from boarding school. You had parents who had to find something to do with their kids on the Thursday to then send them back on the Friday for the last day of school.

What you don't know is that Mr Albanese, who's so big on transparency and getting through all this legislation, is not even here for the next two days. So why has he picked this week to come back when we actually have another four weeks that we could have used to come back? Because there are so few sitting days that they have allocated. The Labor Party has allocated so few sitting days and pulled all the dates back because they cannot face the scrutiny. They will not answer questions when they're put on notice and they do not like transparency. They will keep us out of parliament as often as they can because they do not want to answer the questions. That is so obvious in this place, with only four ministers in the Senate.

Clearly your ministers in the other chamber are not providing substantial briefs, because all we ever hear is 'not my job' or 'I'm not the minister for'—that never washed when we were sitting on that side of the house. I can tell you, I remember watching a number of my colleagues sitting here coming in with their folders—hilariously, you could barely see them. Thank goodness we had COVID, because the seats next to them were empty for the 19 folders that they had, which, in the case of Senator Cash, required about six staff to carry them because they probably weighed about four times as much as she did! That was because we had staff who had effectively briefed her. They had provided information so that, when those opposite were sitting on this side of the house and questions were asked, we could answer them. The ministers were briefed. Even if it wasn't their direct portfolio responsibility they had done the work. They had been briefed and they understood that, under this system of government, they have responsibilities for the ministers who sit on the other place. They could answer the question. When representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham could answer the questions he was asked, because he had been briefed.

What we hear in this place when we ask questions of the Prime Minister—I don't even know what we hear. If anyone can tell me what some of those words were today—I'm not 100 per cent sure. There are no answers. There's a killing of time, an inordinate amount of waffle and then you kind of get a bit of a mumble. There was absolutely nothing that would make sense to anyone who would be listening at home. They weren't sentences that would have passed the most basic of English exams. Yet this somehow passes for an answer from a minister in the Senate from this government.

The government comes in here and talks to us about how it is this fantastic government and that in 120 days it has done so much and achieved so much. You talked about your job summit. What job summit? You've talked about a job summit. You came into government with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. It wasn't a job summit where you needed to find work for people. You need to find the labour people. When you make people unsafe in workplaces; when you put the unions back in charge, who represent 10 per cent of the workforce but are given 33 per cent of the seats; when you've got over 50 per cent of Australians employed by small business, yet you give small business one seat at the table, how do you think you're going to actually attract the labour? You're not. All you are doing is working to detract labour. You are working to do everything you can to deter people from wanting to go and work in these industries because they will be bullied, they will be harassed, they will be intimidated, and the CFMMEU will look at that and go, 'That's alright, it is all par for the course. We will pay for it. It is all good. We still get what we want, and our blokes are in there now, who we give millions of dollars to, and they will just continue to deliver what we want.' You lot on the other side are all 'do as I say and not as I do' and, very soon, the Australian people will start see through it.

Question agreed to.