Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't sure, given the hard marker, what would happen with this, but I thank the opposition for the opportunity to talk about the government's performance in answering estimates questions on notice. I make the point that this government is still answering questions on notice that the Morrison government never answered. There are more than 300 questions placed on notice outstanding from the previous government. A total of 6,733 questions were asked on notice to the current government following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in February. We have provided answers to 5,543 of these. That is 82 per cent. I will give those numbers again. I note Senator Hanson-Young today and yesterday spoke about transparency. There were 6,733 questions asked, and 5,543 of these have been answered. This is a better compliance rate than the Morrison government achieved.

I make this point, and I'm happy to engage with senators about this directly. I encourage senators to consider the impact of questions which are particularly voluminous or orders for production which are particularly voluminous. I can say to senators that I know in my own portfolio that the diversion of resources of public servants to answer questions on notice that are very wide ranging, very wide in scope, is challenging. I made the point that Senator Whish-Wilson asked a question where my department spent 290 hours complying with a Senate order. Fourteen people across a period of several weeks were required for the question, and it diverted attention from the delivery of high-priority climate and environment related policy advice, multilateral engagements, development assistance programming as well as finalisation of material for the federal government.

I can't speak for all ministers, but I can indicate to the chamber that I am always happy to provide briefings to the opposition as required and, in fact, we offer them regularly. We are also happy to work with senators who put in place very-wide-ranging inquiries to try to narrow the scope so that the interests of transparency on a particular issue can be resolved but perhaps without the sorts of hours that I've described in relation to my own department's answer.

Responding to the Senate is a legitimate part of government. I've been here for some 20 years. I regard the transparency of the interrogation—that's probably the wrong word—or the questioning of executive government that this chamber enables to be an important part of our democracy. I would ask senators to be mindful of the volume and nature of requests, as that impacts on the government's ability to respond to them. I'm happy to have further discussions with opposition senators or with Senator Cash, who moved this motion, as required, but I would make the point that, in terms of estimates questions on notice, obviously it would be better if it was 100 per cent, but I venture that a rate of 82 per cent plus—this was obviously drafted for me last night, so questions may have been answered in the time since—demonstrates a government that is seeking to respond to a great many requests from the Senate. I thank the Senate.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I rise to take note of the minister's statement. The issue I have with the explanation that the minister has just given is that it is full of excuses. It was excuse after excuse after excuse: 'There were too many questions asked,' and, 'The questions asked have too many parts to them.' That was never a luxury that was afforded to us when we were in government. When we were in government, those on the other side, at the drop of a hat, did not hesitate to stand up and ask for—in fact, not even ask for, but demand—accountability and transparency. Yet how the attitude changes the minute they are elected to government. There's excuse after excuse after excuse. But one of the issues is this: prior to the last election, what did Mr Albanese and his ministers trumpet from the highest mountain they could find? The problem was that he kept on telling the Australian people that, if he was elected to govern, his government, for the first time in Australian history, would deliver the transparency, integrity and accountability that no other government in Australia had ever delivered before.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How's that going?

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

That's a really good question. Day after day in this place, what we see from this government is complete contempt for the Australian people; complete contempt for any form of transparency, integrity or accountability; and complete contempt for the way they treat this Senate. The number of questions outstanding is 1,192.

Let's now turn to how they answer the questions that they are asked, and I refer to question 1788, asked on 31 March 2023. Senator James Paterson asked Minister Shorten, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a very simple question: 'Has the minister, the minister's office or the minister's department met with any representative et cetera of Anacta Strategies Ltd in relation to TikTok, either in person, via videoconference or by phone? If so, what was the date, time and duration of the meeting?' I would have thought that you'd have a quick whip around the office to find out whether you had or you hadn't. If you hadn't, you could submit straightaway, and, if you had, then you'd flick through the diary and—guess what?—you'd see the date, time and duration of the meeting. Instead, what we got from Minister Shorten was quite frankly an absolute disgrace. He has given a political answer to what is an incredibly serious question.

But what's worse is that, in giving his political answer, he tried to trash the record of former prime minister John Howard. On any analysis, John Howard was a prime minister who presided over the largest and most successful times of Australia, for Australia and for Australians, since the postwar period. There are many Australians out there who, to this day, will come up to me when I'm in the street or walking through a shopping centre and will say: 'The biggest mistake I ever made in 2007 was believing the 'Rudd 2007' hype. It's the biggest mistake I ever made, and I've been paying for it ever since.' But, in making the answer political, this is what he said, 'John Howard became only the second Prime Minister in Australian history to suffer the ignominy of being rejected by his own electors when he was unceremoniously dumped.'

Let's just compare Mr Howard's record to Mr Shorten's record. If Mr Shorten wants to be political, maybe he needs to be reminded that Mr Howard was elected by the people four times. Mr Howard served as Prime Minister of this nation for almost 12 years. Mr Shorten was rejected by the Australian people in 2016. Mr Shorten was rejected by the Australian people in 2019. Then he was rejected by those on the other side—dumped. They didn't want him as the Leader of the Opposition: 'You failed twice. You're not taking us to another election.' He now gets to stand next to Mr Albanese, and it must gut him every time he's got to look at Mr Albanese and say: 'Mr Prime Minister'. So, if you want to get political in your answers, if you want to compare a record, we will proudly compare John Howard's record with Mr Bill Shorten's any day of the week.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, you have called out Minister Wong's embarrassing and shameful defence of what is an absolute quicksand approach from this government to transparency and accountability by this chamber. It happens time and time again, whether it is the vague non-answers at the estimates table by their assistant ministers and ministers, the refusal to answer very sensible and necessary questions on notice, or the refusal to comply with OPDs or any measure of transparency and accountability that this chamber was designed to bring to our political system. It turns out that, when they get to government, they don't want to have the sunlight shine in on their decision-making.

Senator Wong proudly stands up and says 82 per cent of questions have been answered. That may be the case, but the vast majority of them were late. In my own portfolio area of infrastructure, transport, and regional development, they came in very late—only last week. They've been sitting in Minister King's office. I know this isn't annoying just us in the opposition. It is annoying the public who want to see the answers to these questions and it is annoying the crossbench. It is also incredibly frustrating for the hard-working parliamentary staff and public servants who have done the hard work and who take very seriously the closing date for answers to questions on notice to be handed back.

It was in estimates last time when I had the department in front of us in the RRAT committee, the secretary frustratedly answered that briefs had been sent up. They weren't in the department waiting to be sent up. So I assume the same thing has happened with the questions on notice. The department has done the right thing and sent them up to the minister's office, and they're just piling up on the desk of someone who is refusing to send them off. They are doing it for either political reasons or incompetence. It must be very embarrassing for senators who are also ministers to have to repeatedly come into this chamber and apologise for the behaviour of ministers from the other place who clearly do not take the Senate's role seriously.

Senator Wong made out that the questions that hadn't been answered were somehow hypercomplex and were really going to take the Public Service away from the hard work of delivering on the government's policy agenda. My question SQ 23-003381 was: 'How is the $7 million being spent?' It was a pretty simple question on a white paper into aviation. There is no answer. I'm sure the minister signed off on a brief on what the white paper looks like. Tell us about it. On the issue of consultation around community infrastructure and roads program, the government said they consulted and changed the program around a bit. Fair enough. You won the election; knock yourselves out. I simply asked, 'Could you provide details of what consultation was undertaken?'

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

That's a fair question.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it was a fair question. The very diligent public servant said, 'Yes, Senator,'—still no answer. They either didn't do the consultation or they don't like the results of the consultation.

On the question of decarbonisation across government, you would think this would be one that they would want to answer. My question is: Can you tell me who is the lead department on the electric vehicle strategy and the road user charges, please? Is it all in PM&C? Is it Minister Bowen? Is it Minister King? Please tell me who is in charge of the transport policy area in respect to decarbonisation. I shouldn't be surprised this one wasn't answered, because the government has no idea of who is in charge of what. We have had Minister King being overruled by the Prime Minister on what is in and out of the infrastructure review. For these guys, the confusion about who is doing what and where goes on and on and on.

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

I am very pleased to support my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie on this very important issue. Those listening and watching proceedings today would have seen Senator Wong and would have thought Senator Wong's sentiments in response were all light and reason—nothing to see here; we are very cooperative, with briefings offered to everyone in this chamber; we are very transparent and open. The issue is the gap between Senator Wong's rhetoric and what is actually happening in substance. The gap between the rhetoric and the substance is the issue.

I want to go back to the questions on notice that Senator Cash was referring to and the responses which we are receiving from the government for some of those questions on notice. I'm going to give an example of question on notice No. 1856, which was asked by my colleague Senator Hume. Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, was quoted in the Canberra Times as saying:

Putting a productivity efficiency component into any funding I think is a responsible part of government and making sure we keep the budget on a sustainable footing.

I think that is quite a reasonable proposition. I don't find much to disagree with, to be frank. So Senator Hume asked a series of relevant questions in relation to that, very courteously. The questions were: What is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department? That is a fair question. The minister said we should have an efficiency rate. What is the efficiency rate? Are any agencies or any other entities within the portfolio exempt from that efficiency dividend? That is a fair question. Is the efficiency dividend referenced in the portfolio budget statement? Are there any agencies or entities that have an efficiency dividend that is higher or lower than the rate applied to the department? These were very courteous, obvious questions flowing naturally from a quote attributed to Senator Gallagher.

Now, the way you would expect if the system were working, if the government was reflecting the principles enunciated by Senator Wong in her statement at the outset of this debate, is a logical, considered response to the questions. What did we get? What did we get from the Minister for the NDIS, the Honourable Bill Shorten? This is what we got. The Albanese Labor government—

It is worthwhile reading it again, Senator Gallagher. I know you don't want to hear it but it is worthwhile raising it again. 'The Albanese Labor government inherited a budget disaster from the previous Liberal government'—blah, blah, blah—'featuring a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt'. Even the ABC fact-checked that and found that was wrong. There is a difference between—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Scarr, please take your seat. I think the President has made it very clear that the chamber should be proceeding in an orderly way. I don't think anyone can consider what was going on just then to be orderly. I call you once again, Senator Scarr, mindful of the standing orders, to continue your contribution.

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

Even the ABC Fact Check found that statement was wrong. But the thing about this response is that none of it related to the actual question that was asked about where the efficiency dividend is applied across government. All it was was a political diatribe. It was absolutely sneering and contemptuous in relation to legitimate bona fide questions put on the Notice Paper by the opposition. It is absolutely appalling.

The issue is when we look at the fact that there are over 1,000 unanswered questions. Budget estimates is there, and it's an extraordinarily important process for the Australian parliament. It gives an opportunity for senators from all parties to ask questions in relation to any government action that involves the expenditure of taxpayer funds. It's an extraordinarily important process and a key way in which the opposition and the crossbench can keep the government accountable. Yet we are in a situation with over 1,000 unanswered questions. As Senator McKenzie said, when we get the answers, quite often they're terribly late or they're non-responsive or we've got to put in a FOI Act request. We get the question on notice, then we put in a Freedom of Information Act request, we get documents and we play 'spot the difference' between the answer that's given and what we find in the documents provided in response to the Freedom of Information Act application. The system shouldn't work that way. The system should be one of integrity, transparency and accountability. As Senator Cash so eloquently pointed out, Prime Minister Albanese said something in opposition and now they're doing exactly the opposite in government.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's behaviour in hiding from answering questions and avoiding accountability is not acceptable. Answering questions is important for accountability. The people deserve accountability, and they deserve respect.

Look at the list of questions here. In today's Notice Paper, the Senate notes that, as at 9 am on Monday 8 May 2023, there are 1,929 questions on notice from the 2022-23 supplementary budget estimates which remain unanswered and are overdue. From Prime Minister and Cabinet, 591 questions are not answered; from Defence, 408 questions; from Health and Aged Care, 401 questions; from Social Services, 189 questions; from Foreign Affairs and Trade, 133 questions; from Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 52 questions; from Employment and Workplace Relations, 42 questions; from Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 26 questions; from Finance, 26 questions; from Treasury, 25; from Services Australia, 22; from Industry, Science and Resources, nine questions; and from Attorney-General's, four questions.

Senators, there is only one word to describe this government's attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents, and that word is 'contempt'. The government continues to treat this chamber with utter contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met by the government with contempt, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt appropriately.

We've had explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place, fluff around and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. They just put up with the hassle for an hour, and it's over. The explanations from ministers are not good enough, and it is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It's time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect orders of the Senate.

I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated Privileges Committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. The Senate decides whether or not someone is in contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister's disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we should do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow explanation after explanation is over.

The people of Queensland did not elect me to represent Malcolm Roberts. The people of Queensland did not elect me to represent the One Nation party, although I am very proud to be in One Nation. The people of Queensland elected me to represent the people of Queensland and Australia. That is why we're here. I go out and listen in the electorates and then I speak for the people in this chamber. So when the government holds the Senate in contempt, the government holds the people of Queensland and Australia in contempt. The government is repeatedly holding the people of the states and Australia in contempt. There are jail cells in the basement of this building. It is time for the executive government to be reminded why they're there. Start serving the people or start serving time in jail.

Question agreed to.