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

Pursuant to standing order 74(5) and at the request of Senators Askew, Brockman, Davey, Hughes, McGrath, Rennick, Reynolds and Ruston, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services as to why all 209 questions on notice from coalition senators asked of Services Australia during the 2023-24 budget estimates hearings remain unanswered.

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

It is a bold opposition who complains about the timeliness of answers to questions on notice. Those opposite had a shocking track record of responding to questions on notice when they were in government. The Liberals and the Nationals left almost 1,000 unanswered questions sitting on the Notice Paper when they were voted out of office, some dating back to October 2019. In any event, the opposition will be pleased to learn that the minister's office instructed Services Australia to lodge answers to questions on notice from the most recent round of Senate estimates with the secretariat of the community affairs committee this afternoon.

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 minister's failure to provide either answers or an explanation.

I note the explanation doesn't give clarity as to whether all answers have been provided, and we look forward with interest to reviewing whether that is the case. It seems to set a brand-new approach or precedent to what is necessary to extract answers from the government, and I guess it is one the opposition will have to pursue now: when answers are overdue, will have to advise that we are going to ask questions about that and see whether that prompts the government to actually answer their questions.

It was quite remarkable to see that not just the 209 questions from coalition senators had gone unanswered by Services Australia; indeed, every single one of the 275 questions taken on notice by Services Australia had been unanswered prior to the question being asked of the minister's office just prior to question time—every single one of the 275. There were 209 from the coalition: 133 from Senator Askew; seven from Senator Brockman; two from Senator Davey; 40 from Senator Hume; three from Senator McGrath; three from Senator Rennick; 17 from Senator Reynolds; and four from Senator Ruston. All of them had gone unanswered. And that was not just for a day or two; the due date for these answers to budget estimates questions was 14 July. So it's not like we're asking the question on the first available sitting day after the due date; it is some 26 days that these questions had been overdue, some 26 days in which these answers had not been provided.

I am willing to take a bet that it is not Services Australia's fault. In fact, the mere matter that answers could be provided at the drop of a hat—in the space of the last hour—tells me that Services Australia had already done the answers. They had already prepared the answers. Where do you think those answers might have been sitting for the last 26 days or even maybe the last two months?

Some blue carpet indeed, Senator Brockman, but I suspect a particular piece of blue carpet, a particular piece of blue carpet occupied by none other than Mr Shorten—that repeat offender of Senate disregard, Minister Bill Shorten. It is not the first occasion that this Senate has had cause to take note of Mr Shorten's handling of answers to questions—or, in this case, the lack of answers to questions that have been provided. We have previously seen Mr Shorten provide the most outrageous of answers on the most sensitive of topics, where he is quite happy to politicise answers in relation to sensitive questions about the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, quite happy to provide partisan, political answers to very straight, factual questions on an important area of national public policy.

Do you know what happened the last time this Senate dared to question Mr Shorten and the way he and his portfolio and office go about handling answers? His response was that we should take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. That's the degree of respect shown by Mr Shorten and his ministerial office, by that Albanese government minister—as much as he doesn't like being part of the Albanese government and as much as he is very unhappy with the phrase 'Albanese government'! But Mr Shorten is showing complete disregard and contempt for the operations of the Senate.

As I said before, it's not just the 209 coalition questions that had been unanswered. There were 49 questions asked by Senator Rice that were unanswered, two questions asked by Senator Faruqi that were unanswered and one question asked by Senator Thorpe that was unanswered—all of them overdue. You know what is even more remarkable? There are two answers to questions from Senator Urquhart overdue. And Senator Pratt—I'm pleased you're here, Senator Pratt—has 12 questions that Mr Shorten hasn't bothered to answer yet. He's not even happy to answer questions from his own Labor senators in a respectful or timely way. He's not even happy to answer what are presumably the dixers—

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder he's not their leader!

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

'No wonder he's not their leader,' I hear from the back! No wonder he finds himself a member of the Albanese government rather than of a Shorten government, if this is the contempt shown to the Senate, the opposition, the crossbench and even his own senators.

These are not trivial areas of government policy. Services Australia is, as shadow minister Fletcher has pointed out, one of the largest Commonwealth agencies. Each year it's responsible for delivering billions of dollars worth of vital services and payments to some of the most vulnerable Australians. The questions we pursue are firmly in the public interest, just as the questions we've asked previously in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme are in the public interest. They're seeking to hold the government to account. They're seeking to ensure that government agencies—those operating within Mr Shorten's portfolio—are accountable, are transparent and are living up to the types of things the Labor Party said they would deliver but have not delivered.

I hear Senator Ciccone wanting to talk about when we were in government.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than 1,000!

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

Senator Gallagher, I'm happy to take your claim of 'more than 1,000'. I'm standing here talking about one single government agency with 275 alone.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are more questions asked now!

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

Oh, bring out the violin strings—there are more questions asked nowadays! I remember saying that, Senator Gallagher, and you weren't at all sympathetic then. Indeed, you said on Monday, in relation to a question from Senator Nampijinpa Price, 'We're doing the best we can.' How is it 'the best you can do' for no answers to have been provided by Minister Shorten and Services Australia? How is it 'the best you can do' for them to be sitting on a desk somewhere when, within the space of 60 minutes, they can suddenly miraculously be turned around and provided to the committee secretariat and tabled but couldn't be provided beforehand? That doesn't sound like 'the best you can do'. That sounds like deliberate evasion, deliberate trickiness and deliberately trying to hide information from the Senate in relation to how these matters are handled.

They're pretty straightforward questions. Senator Askew is asking about compliance with committee directions around the return of questions on notice—indeed, asking about time lines for providing those return of questions. We've got questions that have been unanswered about the provision of answers to questions! You'd have thought that they'd be looking to provide those pretty quickly. Senator Ruston is asking questions about those on the BasicsCard—a matter of intense debate and scrutiny in this place, and a matter where I would have thought the government, in seeking to defend the outrageous policy reforms it's undertaken during this time, would have been eager to make sure it provided answers to some of those questions. Senator Pratt, you asked a perfectly reasonable question: 'Are there limitations of the number of Centrepay payments an authorised organisation can be eligible to receive?' I would have thought it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask that question, and perfectly reasonable for an answer to be provided.

Remarkably, I am informed—it wasn't clear from Senator Farrell's answer before—by those who have been able to check whilst I've been speaking that they've all managed to be tabled—all of them!

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

It's a miracle!

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

Either, indeed, a miracle, Senator McGrath, happened in Services Australia, or perhaps it was artificial intelligence. Perhaps an hour ago they fed all of those unanswered questions into ChatGPT, and within the space of an hour it spat out all these answers, and we have a whole lot of robotic artificial answers that we will now work our way through. Or perhaps it's my theory that, instead, these answers have languished in Minister Shorten's office from where they have refused to actually provide them to the Senate. They have refused to give those answers to the Senate in a timely way.

It is actually more outrageous in many ways to know that they were all there and they were already to go, but not a single one of them had been provided. Why is it more outrageous to know that? Because parliament is in session this week, and it was in session last week, too. Have these answers been sitting there for the last two weeks and yet weren't provided to the parliament? I'm willing to take a gamble that the answers were probably overwhelmingly provided more than 26 days ago because I would bet that Services Australia ensured that they met the deadline and they provided them to the minister, and it is the minister's office that has held them up. And why would the minister's office seek to hold them up? To avoid scrutiny in the parliament and to ensure that it'll be only after we're all out of here tomorrow that the answers are provided.

That, I am sure, is the reason why these answers have sat around in a minister's office for so long so that they can avoid scrutiny. We'll have to see whether these answers actually address the questions, whether they are ChatGPT generated and whether, of course, they didn't show the same degree of contempt and Mr Shorten has taken the last few weeks for his office to rewrite them, to put in the type of partisan political commentary that we saw previously in his answers to questions in relation to the NDIS. Those opposite have sought to interject along the way and challenge the opposition in relation to our track record. And challenge they may, challenge they can. But they also set some pretty lofty standards themselves when they were in opposition and attacking the then government. Senator Watt argued that it was not negotiable and should not be negotiable to comply with the standing orders and properly answer questions on notice. That was the standard set by Minister Watt in this place. Indeed, what we have seen is a government that thinks timing of answers to questions on notice is negotiable. Minister Shorten, in particular, is someone who seems to think it is negotiable as to their timing, their nature and whether or not they are answered.

Senator Ayres argued previously for a change in approach. He was particularly critical in relation to a refusal to provide timely responses to questions on notice—timely responses. That is all that we are asking for right now. At this time we're asking for timely responses, responsible responses and relevant responses to questions that are asked. I welcome the fact that the opposition's intervention on this matter has seen these answers to questions on notice tabled today. It is regrettable that it has taken this type of intervention and this use of the Senate's time to get the government to act. But, of course, that is what we will do if that is what it takes to get the answers and to get those answers in a timely way. I hope that, when we scrutinise these answers, they meet the types of standards the government promised prior to the last election, that they are actually answers and not simply political swipes, that they do address the questions that had been asked and that they do lend themselves to the proper scrutiny and functions of the Senate and this parliament. But, based on the track record of Mr Shorten to date, the games he's played in the content of previous answers and the games that have been played in relation to not providing these answers even though they have been sitting in his office, thereby delaying the provision of them until after the parliament has essentially risen for a number of weeks, I am guessing that we will find there are many, many holes in these answers as well.

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

As I am informed by the Clerk and you, Senator Birmingham, that the answers have been tabled, I must put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Question agreed to.