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

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Farrell, as to why answers to overdue questions on notice asked by me of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Australian War Memorial, the Department of Finance, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Export Finance Australia, Tourism Australia, the Australian Sports Commission, the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Postal Corporation, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Social Services, the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Treasury during the 2023-24 budget estimates hearing remain unanswered.

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

I thank Senator McGrath for the opportunity he has afforded me to explain the government's performance in answering questions on notice from estimates. I'm delighted to inform the chamber that, for the May 2023 budget estimates hearings, our government has now answered over 85 per cent of questions. For the equivalent budget estimates in May 2021, when, of course, your government was in power, the Morrison government had only answered 67 per cent of questions by the due date. Further, the Morrison government had nearly a thousand unanswered questions on notice remaining when it left government, some dating back three years, and many Morrison government ministers returned answers from the previous round of estimates whilst the next round was underway.

We've heard a lot about transparency from those opposite this week, but let us remember the appalling record of those opposite when it comes to transparency. Who could forget former Prime Minister Mr Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple ministries? We had a Prime Minister undermining our parliamentary system of government, undermining our democratic traditions of accountability and responsibility, and undermining the integrity of this place—and, of course, refusing to take any responsibility for it.

When those opposite had the chance to take some action in this place to improve the standard of transparency in government did they jump at the chance, Senator McGrath? No. They refused to act, and time and again they acted against transparency.

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

Senator Scarr is seeking to make a point of order.

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

Deputy President, it's on relevance. I'm listening very carefully to Senator Farrell and I really don't see how his response in relation to the previous government's actions is at all relevant with respect to the questions raised by my colleague Senator McGrath.

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

Minister, I draw you back to the request. Having said that, Senator Scarr, I cannot direct the minister how to answer.

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

Where was the transparency when the former Morrison government refused to hand over key documents about the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program to the Senate?

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

Senator Birmingham, a point of order?

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

Deputy President, I have a point of order. You did just draw the minister back to the request. He showed flagrant disregard for your ruling in that regard. The question about responses to questions on notice was a very standard question asked in a standard way in this place. I have had to answer it before and I have been drawn back to the question in answering it before. I believe I respected the chair in doing so and came back to the point of answering the actual questions on notice, not reflecting on other extraneous matters of the current or previous government's activities.

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

Minister, you have heard Senator Birmingham. I ask that you—

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

I reiterate that I'm delighted to inform the chamber that for the May 2023 budget estimates hearings our government has now answered over 85 per cent of questions.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Isn't it fascinating that the explanation from the government as to why they aren't answering questions is Scott Morrison? That's who they are blaming for this. Welcome to transparency under the modern Labor government. This allegedly transparent government promised before the election that they would be the most transparent government ever. Prime Minister Albanese keeps talking about how transparent he is. Guess what? He's not transparent and the ministers in this chamber aren't transparent, because they are hiding from being held accountable for their actions.

I sought an explanation from Senator Farrell as to why 30 questions that I put through estimates are unanswered. Estimates, by the way, weren't yesterday, last week or last month; estimates were in May. Let's work backwards. We're in September now, so that's August, July and June—four months. Four months ago these questions were put during the estimates process. What is estimates about? It is about the accountability of the executive to the parliament. Estimates are about the accountability of the executive to this chamber. In plain English for those listening at home, we ask questions on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia because it is expenditure of funds by the executive. We in the opposition and the crossbench ask questions as to how taxpayers' money is being spent.

You'd think that in a moment of reflection the executive of this Labor government, which promised to be the most transparent ever, would answer questions and would be proud to answer questions. You would think that they would be proud to put the answers on the record as to their actions. You'd think that they would be proud of it, but what is clear—

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

What do they have to hide?

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

I will take that interjection from Senator Scarr: what do they have to hide? Is it because there's a set of golf clubs somewhere that they don't want to talk about? This is what sums up this government. Where are the golf clubs? Are they on the blue carpet? Are they in the back of a Comcar? Are they on a RAAF jet flying somewhere? What I've heard, which has not been denied, is that there are multiple sets of golf clubs that you distributed all around the place to make it easier for the Deputy Prime Minister to lower his handicap. This is what it comes down to: we ask questions on behalf of the taxpayers because we want to know, on behalf of taxpayers where this money is being spent.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister is a handicap.

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

Senator Henderson, I think it would be unparliamentary to say the Deputy Prime Minister is a handicap, so I could not agree to that particular suggestion. It is something that perhaps the government could answer.

But what I will say is that there is a trend here. There is a real trend in how this government is refusing to deal with the issues of accountability. Actually, I misspoke there: they are dealing with the issues of accountability by refusing to deal with them. We have seen orders for production of documents. For those listening at home, the plain English for that is that the Senate says, 'We want to see the documents because we want to hold the executive to account.' Well, guess what: there is motion after motion after motion to which the government refuses to agree. So the Senate passes the motion and the motion thumbs its nose at it.

There are also the questions on notice, of which I have 30 outstanding. By the way, the questions that I've asked are not overly complex questions. I'm not asking for the government to develop a solution for the Middle East peace process. I'm not asking for them to develop a solution for the differences between Northern Ireland and the republic. I'm not asking for things like that. I'm asking some quite simple questions about social media posts by secretaries of departments. I'm asking for very simple things. You would think that, if the government were all about accountability and transparency, they would be able to answer. But—shame upon shame upon shame—no. This government has a track record of not answering questions.

Of course, we've touched upon golf clubs. We can talk about this shocking scandal, and it is a scandal. The Deputy Prime Minister of this country has spent $3.6 million on airfares in the last 16 months.

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

How much a week?

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

I'll get down to the weeks. That is $225,000 a month. It's about $56,000 a week, or $8,000 a day, on airfares. So, since the Labor Party have been elected to power, the Deputy Prime Minister has spent $8,000 a day on airfares. Three point six million dollars—that's what he spent on airfares. There may be very legitimate reason for the Deputy Prime Minister to take his golf clubs around Australia and around the world. Some adults take a teddy bear with them. It may be that he needs his golf clubs to go to sleep at night.

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

Senator McGrath, there's a point of order.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to the standing orders on relevance, particularly with the subject matter that we're dealing with.

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

Senator McGrath, you are straying a little. Perhaps you should reflect on Senator Ciccone's wisdom.

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

Deputy President, I will stray back. The point about the golf clubs and the flights is that there is a track record here of the Labor Party refusing to be transparent. Whether it's refusing to answer questions on notice, refusing to provide the details of flights taken by the Deputy Prime Minister or refusing to provide documents that have been ordered by this Senate, there is a clear pattern of behaviour by the Labor Party, the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister: they do not want public scrutiny. Having made all sorts of wild promises before the election, they've got into office and gone, 'Eh, nah, I'm not going to do this.' They've got on the blue carpet, and they're very happy being on the blue carpet, and they've gone, 'You know, taxpayers' money—my money.' It's blue carpet, blue skies, a bit of blue-sky thinking.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for that. To your point, Deputy President, I am directly relevant here in terms of the behaviour—

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

Excuse me, Senator McGrath. Senator O'Neill has a point of order.

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

I make the point that the standing orders do have some clear direction about reflecting on fellow parliamentarians, whether in this place or the other. I encourage you to have a look at the transcript of some of the commentary that has been provided in this contribution—which I suppose would be the way to describe it—to the debate this afternoon. It is clearly, in my view, straight into adverse reflections on parliamentarians.

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

Senator McGrath, please restrain any comments you have which may have undue inferences. I will have a look at the Hansard.

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

What is fascinating is how concerned the Labor Party are. What we've seen with the interjections and the points of order taken—for those listening at home and those who may be unfortunate enough to have to read the Hansard afterwards—is that the Labor Party are concerned because they've been caught out. This is what this is about. There are 30 questions from Senator McGrath here that have not been answered. Other questions haven't been answered. We've got a clear activity by this government refusing to be held accountable to this chamber and the committees of this chamber. I would encourage every senator in this chamber to read back the Hansard. Perhaps those on the left side of politics might learn something about being accountable to the taxpayers of Australia. That's what this debate is about. At its most fundamental point, it is about being accountable to the taxpayers of Australia and to the voters of Australia—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why they voted you out.

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

who expect a government—and I will take that interjection, Senator Ciccone—who promised to be the most transparent ever to actually be transparent. What we're seeing is a government who are not the most transparent ever. They are, in fact, the least transparent ever when it comes to answering questions on notice, when it comes to responding to orders for the production of documents, and when it comes to answering basic questions as to where the Deputy Prime Minister has been flying and if the Deputy Prime Minister has taken golf clubs, tennis rackets, croquet sticks or any other sporting paraphernalia with him that may pop into the luggage carousel—

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

Senator O'Neill has a point of order.

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

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point that was made in the request for information from the Senator—which was responded to by Senator Farrell—was with regard to questions that were relevant from the estimates session. I do not believe that the Senator who advanced this point is in any way talking to those particular questions which should be the subject of the debate today.

The:

Senator Scarr?

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

On a point of order, Deputy President. I listened very carefully to Senator Farrell's response and explanation, and he traversed very widely the subject of transparency, including in relation to the previous government. So I would have thought Senator McGrath's approach is entirely consistent with Senator Farrell's.

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

It's not one-for-one. However, Senator Farrell was very expansive in his response and talked about the previous government's alleged lack of transparency. I've allowed Senator McGrath some rhetorical flourishes, and I've allowed him to respond, but it is a fair point that when talking about transparency, Senator McGrath, you need to keep to the questions that you referred to in your request to the minister.

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

Thank you, Deputy President. As part of my contribution, I moved that the Senate take note of the explanation from Senator Farrell.

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

Correct.

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

And when Senator Farrell did travel a wide terrain, including on issues quite irrelevant to questions on notice, that certainly does give me some latitude, I do believe, to respond to the broader questions in relation to transparency.

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

I have said that, but there is a limit. There are boundaries in all things.

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

There certainly are boundaries in all things, and sometimes I do tippy-toe along those boundaries.

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

No, I can't believe that, Senator McGrath; I can't believe that.

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 shocking revelation. I'm sure that will make the front page of the Australiantomorrow. What is interesting is that we've had another point of order in relation to Labor's discomfort about being caught out. Labor has been caught out because they aren't answering questions. They aren't being accountable to the taxpayers and to the voters of Australia. This is what this chamber is for. This chamber is one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. It is here to hold the executive to account. It is here to ensure that, through the mechanisms of the estimates process, questions being asked on the day and then questions taken on notice, through the orders for the production of documents, the executive is held to account. I will put this warning to the executive: if the executive insists on taking questions on notice—which is their right during the estimates, that, if public servants and ministers are unable to answer questions, they can take them on notice—if there's a perception that the process is being abused, then perhaps we need to extend the estimates process to allow further questioning of the executive, of ministers and public servants, so that they can answer the questions.

Here's a radical idea that I haven't taken past the party room or the leadership—it's always dangerous when I think on my feet—that, if the Labor Party are going to so much abuse the estimates process by refusing to answer questions on notice, a week later, after the first estimates week is finished, we come back for all those questions taken on notice and they can answer them in the room. Why don't we do that? Let's split it up. After one week, if they can't answer the questions and need to take them on notice, they come back a week later and we put the questions to them then. It's very disappointing that the questions on notice are not being answered. It is being used as a tactic to avoid scrutiny by the opposition—and when I say 'the opposition', I mean non-government members of this chamber. If this government continues down this path of snubbing its nose at accountability and transparency, if this government continues down this path of trying to hide information from the taxpayers and the voters of Australia through a possible perceived abuse of the process, then perhaps we need a greater conversation about how this chamber operates through the estimates process about how the executive is held to account. I'm pretty sure the last thing that any minister or public servant would want to do is to deal with estimates for one week, have a week off, and then be dragged back again to answer those questions. I'm pretty sure they don't want to do that. I say to the agencies who have not answered the questions, to the government departments who have not answered these questions—

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

They probably have, in fairness.

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

I will take that, Senator Birmingham. They probably have answered these questions, and they're probably sitting in an in-tray in the minister's office. I say to them that we expect better from the government of Australia because you should be accountable to the taxpayers and to the voters of this country. But we also expect better from the ministers in this chamber who have the honour of serving as ministers. We expect them to understand that holding a role as a minister of state or an assistant minister or a cabinet minister is an honour. You are there to serve the people of Australia and to be accountable to the people of Australia. Refusing to answer questions put on notice through the estimates process is wrong. It is simply wrong, and it is an outrageous abuse of this chamber and of the estimates system. I hope, on behalf of the taxpayers and the voters of Australia, that these questions are answered.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like my colleague, Senator Farrell, I would like to thank Senator McGrath for providing us with this opportunity to highlight the government's performance in answering questions on notice. So let's be very clear about the numbers. Our government has received over 19,000 estimates questions on notice.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 19,000. That is quite a big number. Can you imagine how many of those we have answered? The answer, colleagues, is that we have answered 93 per cent of those questions. There were 19,000 questions taken on notice, and 93 per cent have been answered. We've also received, just for completeness, 2,573 parliamentary questions on notice in the Senate. Colleagues, can you imagine how many we've answered? We've answered 97.5 per cent of those questions. Do you know why we answer them? It's because we understand in a way that the people on the other side never have—and, I suspect, unfortunately, never will—the role that questions on notice play in transparency and in accountability. We will continue to provide the answers to any outstanding questions as expeditiously as possible. But it is hard to hear it from some of the senators opposite because the hypocrisy is just astounding.

The fact is—and it is entirely relevant to this debate—that their track record was appalling, and they set a very low bar indeed for this government to clear. Not only have we cleared it but we have cleared it with a very large gap. For the May 2023 budget estimates hearings, our government has now answered over 85 per cent of the questions. For the equivalent budget estimates in May 2021, can you imagine how many questions the Morrison government had answered? They answered just 67 per cent of questions by the due date. Many Morrison government ministers returned answers from the previous round of estimates while the next round was actually underway. When they were voted out, they had nearly a thousand unanswered questions on notice, some of which dated back to October 2019. They also failed to comply with 36 per cent of orders for the production of documents, and we don't know why they did that because no public interest immunity claim was made about those. So it's pretty hard to take them seriously on this, isn't it?

These aren't isolated examples of the approach taken by those opposite when they were in government. Who can forget former Prime Minister Morrison secretly swearing himself in to multiple ministries? I know you would all rather forget. It's pretty embarrassing, and it's difficult while Mr Morrison is here as an ever-present reminder of that set of events. We had a prime minister undermining our parliamentary system of government, undermining our democratic traditions of accountability and responsibility, and undermining integrity. Of course in the months since, he has refused to take any responsibility for it whatsoever. Who could forget the promise to establish in legislation a national anticorruption commission—a promise that the Morrison government never kept? They did nothing to improve the standard of transparency when they were in government. They refused to act.

Senator McGrath's contribution dwelled for a period on the special-purpose aircraft. The Morrison government failed to release any details on special-purpose aircraft flights taken in the last 16 months of their government. Can we guess who was the minister responsible at that time? It's the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. He released absolutely no information about the use of special-purpose aircraft during his time as Minister for Defence.

Let's deal with this a little more seriously and a little more honestly, shall we, colleagues? The number of questions being asked has risen significantly. Indeed, 50 per cent more Senate questions on notice have been asked in this government's first year than were asked in the three years from 2017 to 2019. That's not necessarily a problem, and this government, as I've indicated, responds to the questions that are asked. But it's an increase from 11,700 in that period to 18,000 in the last year alone. I don't intend to comment on the quality of the questions being asked or the motivations of the senators asking them. But what is clear and observable is that the information that's being provided is not being used to improve the quality of the opposition's policymaking, because they have no policies. It isn't being used to improve the factual basis of their public arguments, because they continue to be even more divorced from reality in opposition than they were in government, and that is really saying something.

The truth is, colleagues, that our record demonstrates this government's commitment to transparency and integrity across the parliament. The reality is that parliamentary questions on notice have increased from an average of fewer than 1,000 per year from 2016 to 2020 to 2,200 in the first year of our government. Senate estimates questions on notice have increased from 11,700 from 2017 to 2019 to more than 18,000 in the first year of the Albanese government. We'll continue to work our way methodically through those questions, but we will not take lectures from those opposite about transparency.

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

I want to make a very short contribution to this debate and give one example of transparency in response to what Senator McAllister has provided. During the course of the previous coalition government, there was a case involving access under the Freedom of Information Act to the calendar and diary of the then Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis, who is a good friend of mine. That case went all the way through the courts, and a finding was made that that diary should be provided. The current Prime Minister, in the face of that clear legal precedent, refuses to provide a copy of his diary when requested under freedom-of-information legislation. From my perspective, that sums up the current government's views on transparency.