Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, I call on the minister to provide an explanation.

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

I seek to make a statement on behalf of Senator Gallagher in relation to item 11. It is disappointing that Senator Hume has chosen to wilfully waste the Senate's time this afternoon by seeking this attendance.

As the government indicated when opposing this motion, Senate estimates questions on notice have increased to more than 19,000 in the first year of the Albanese government. We have answered all questions from the October 2022 budget estimates and the February 2023 supplementary budget estimates. With regard to the May 2023 budget estimates hearings, our government has now answered over 8½ thousand of the 8,600 questions, 2½ thousand of which were asked by Senator Hume. There is an existing right under standing order 74(5) for Senator Hume to seek an explanation for unanswered questions on notice, and this remedy has been available to Senator Hume on any sitting day since the deadline set by the committee for the return of answers passed. Similarly, nothing prevents Senator Hume from reaching out to the Treasurer's office to inquire about the status of responses prior to seeking unnecessary remedies in the Senate. With respect to the four Senate estimates questions on notice nominated by Senator Hume, I can inform the Senate that those answers have now been provided to the committee.

In closing, I will compare our record to that of the Morrison government, which, for the equivalent budget estimates in May 2021, answered only 67 per cent of questions by the due date. We urge those opposite to focus on substantive consideration of legislation that will benefit the Australian people, rather than requiring attendance on matters that are within the capacity of existing processes to resolve.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation provided to the Senate by the Minister representing the Treasurer on the failure of the government to comply with the resolution of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee.

I thank Senator McAllister, who was a member of that committee for many, many years, for the explanation that she has now given on behalf of the Treasurer. Of course, the Labor Party talked a very big game about transparency and accountability when they came to government. The Prime Minister said last year that Australian people deserve accountability and transparency. But, when it comes to Labor, you have to look at what they do and not at what they say. There were, in fact, 16 questions asked of the Department of the Treasury at budget estimates back in late May and early June this year. Those answers were tabled the day before or on the actual day of supplementary budget estimates in October, three months later.

The government has pointed to—and, I'm sure, will continue to point to—the number of questions received on notice as an excuse for lateness. I'm terribly sorry if governing is so hard for you. The evidence provided by Treasury to the committee was very, very clear. Treasury departmental officials did their job. They drafted those answers, and then they provided those draft answers to either the Treasurer's office or the relevant Treasury minister's office. In all but one case, they did this before those answers on notice were due. After that, what happened seems a little bit unclear. The offices had plenty of time to review them, but then they didn't provide them to the committee. They didn't provide them to the Senate economics committee, and it's not clear why. What we do know is that the office had them for, in some cases, up to 134 days. That's how long the Treasurer's office sat on these questions on notice. In one case, the answer to one of those questions was one sentence. I'm not sure how hard this should be. These answers to questions that were put by the Senate of Australia languished somewhere in the Treasurer's office for months and months before they were finally provided to the committee, as I have said, the day before—and some were provided the day of—supplementary budget estimates. How transparent. How honest. Such integrity and openness to scrutiny! Let's do government differently, shall we?

At estimates, as these responses were trickling in and officials were at the desk, I asked:

… we have just received questions on notice from Treasury that were asked at the last estimates, and to be honest it's outrageous and quite frankly almost contemptuous that we should be receiving those questions on notice less than 24 hours before they appear again.

The Treasury secretary responded:

I do understand there are 11 questions on notice that haven't been answered. I apologise to the committee for not having done that. We'll do our best to get those answers to you quickly.

But it became very clear very quickly that in fact the Treasury secretary was covering for his boss. It was soon discovered that Dr Kennedy and his team at Treasury had sent the responses to the Treasurer's office months before he said that. Imagine the Treasurer putting his departmental secretary and—let's not forget—his former colleague, Dr Kennedy, in that professionally uncomfortable, invidious position, to have to cover for what can only be one of two things: it's either the Treasurer's incompetence or his contempt for the Senate and the Senate's processes.

At least Senator Gallagher, as the Minister representing the Treasurer at Senate estimates, understood how unacceptable this approach was and the disregard that it showed to the Senate. She agreed with the Treasury secretary. She said:

Yes, I think—and you have heard from officials—that answering questions in the time that's provided by committees is really important. … Also, I do hear the commitments from Treasury to continue to work to improve that response time.

I didn't hear that commitment reiterated by Senator McAllister today. Clearly, Minister Gallagher too, as someone who has repeated the assertions of transparent government, did not appreciate being put in the position from her colleague in the other place of having to apologise to senators on his behalf in that committee. Both the Treasury secretary and the Minister representing the Treasurer were sitting there covering up for the Treasurer, who had made the active decision to hold questions in his office for months and then table them during the hearing. Now Senator McAllister has to stand in here and apologise to the chamber for the Treasurer's contempt of the Senate and its role as a house of review.

If the Treasurer has left it to others to clean up his mess, to cover up for his incompetence and to cover up for his contempt for this chamber that is disrespectful to his cabinet colleagues, to the Minister for Finance, to Senator McAllister and to the committee chair, Senator Walsh. It is not just disrespectful to the opposition; it is disrespectful to this entire chamber. The Treasurer has sent you in to do his dirty work, Senator McAllister. Perhaps the Treasurer should send in another nameless spokesperson, as he seems to favour doing, to make a comment about his decision to delay these answers and bury them in the Treasurer's office, yet another person from his staff to send in to do his dirty work. If the Treasurer's staff are listening today, chuckling to themselves down in the ministerial wing with the blue carpet, just remember that the Treasurer is using you, too. He is using you, as he has used so many others as another person sent in to clean up the Treasurer's incompetence or malice—talk about embarrassing and humiliating.

The Treasurer and his junior ministers, including the coalition's favourite, the self-opening pinata of Assistant Treasurer Jones, are hiding behind Treasury officials and their Senate colleagues rather than admitting that these are political delaying tactics. Why are they refusing to answer these questions? What are you trying to hide? Let's be honest, they are not difficult questions to answer. This is the Australian Senate, and Australians deserve to know what the government is doing—not the spin that they are putting on what they are doing, but what they are actually doing. The scrutiny of the Senate is for exactly that. These are the kinds of questions the Treasury have had to cover up because the fact is that the Treasurer hasn't answered them. Let me give you an example. One question was about tax. The question was:

… whether there have been, for either the Treasury or Treasury ministers, any briefings, discussions, calls, meetings or contacts at a ministerial level with the Victorian government on this issue already or whether there are any planned?

For months the Treasurer sat on this illuminating, scandalous response:

Treasury is not aware of any briefings, discussions, calls or meetings between the Treasury or Treasury Ministers and the Victorian Government on the recent tax changes announced in Victoria’s 2023-24 Budget.

Oh, my goodness, alert the media! Why was that one late?

In June, as part of budget estimates, my colleague Senator McKenzie asked:

Has Treasury done an internal response to the 5-year Productivity Inquiry as it relates to infrastructure?

Again, it was not really a big ask. The response provided to the committee was this:

Treasury has not developed a single internal response to the Productivity Inquiry report, Advancing Prosperity, including as it relates to infrastructure.

That sounds like it took an awful lot of work! It's not exactly what you'd expect from the department of a treasurer who recently came out and said that he was going to cut infrastructure because he simply has no other plan to fight inflation. This is pretty basic stuff.

In May, Senator Bragg asked how many measures from the productivity inquiry advancing prosperity report are in the 2023-24 budget. The response drafted by Treasury was provided to the minister's office on 26 June, but it wasn't until 25 October, four months later, that a response was received. We've now received a few more additional responses—I'm hoping, to question No. BET130 on the RBA's monetary statement and to question No. BET161 on the labour market. I think they still might remain at large. However, they may well have sat in that black hole of the Treasurer's office.

Rather than giving the Senate and the people of Australia via the Senate the responses to the questions on these key policy issues, the Treasurer continues to hide behind his department. We will continue to pursue these matters, and we will use these motions to draw them from those opposite. I remind the Senate that it was those Labor senators opposite who referred the tax commissioner to this chamber's Privileges Committee for preventing information being given to the Senate. I trust that they are ready to do the same if people outside this place continue to treat it with the contempt that has been shown by this Treasurer.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, I think your colourful remark about the assistant finance minister was probably bordering on needing to be withdrawn, but we'll let it go at this point.

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

My contribution is going to be quite short. I just want people who are listening to the proceedings, including the people in the gallery, to understand and appreciate what this debate is about. This institution of the Senate is a house of review; it is a house of scrutiny. We're all sent here as senators representing our respective states and territories to do our best to play our role as an important check and balance on the power of executive government. That means it's incumbent upon us to ask the questions that should be asked, to probe the government and to get the information that we need in order to put the uncomfortable questions to the executive government. That's in the best interests of our whole Australian democracy.

As part of that process, the Senate estimates process is absolutely critical. That means we have different committees, such as the economics committee, the legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee, of which I'm deputy chair, and other committees. During the Senate estimates process, we have the opportunity to ask questions in relation to any matter involving the expenditure of government funds, which basically means anything involving payments of money—your taxpayer dollars. It is incredibly important when we ask questions in the context of those committees that we get the answers back as quickly as possible so we can ask the follow-up questions.

What has been happening—and Senator Hume has given detailed examples—is that questions have been asked of the relevant officials, particularly Treasury; they have drafted the answers to those questions; they have provided them to the Treasurer, who is from my home state of Queensland, the member for Rankin; and they've sat in his office. In one of the examples given by my colleague Senator Hume, the answer sat in the Treasurer's office for 134 days. Why? I know the Treasurer is extremely active in his electorate. I often run into him at various events on his patch—

always being cooperative and collaborative, Senator Farrell, as I am.

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

Just like me.

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

Well, not quite just like you. You're enigmatic. What has been happening is that the Treasurer's been sitting on those answers. Why is he sitting on those answers? For political reasons. That is the only conclusion you can come to. He releases the answers on the day before the next estimates or on the day of estimates. Why would you do that? If you had the answer in your office and it could be dispatched, why would you do that? The only reasons why you would do that are base political reasons. Those watching this debate should expect better of their elected representatives. So I congratulate Senator Hume for raising these important issues.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did just remind Senator Hume about references to junior ministers, and yours probably sailed close, about Minister Farrell.

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

Enigmatic? I thought that was a compliment.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it could be a compliment, but it could also not be. So I'm just reminding senators: make your jokes outside of the chamber.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a limited number of tools that we can use to ensure that we are doing our job as senators in this place. We have the questions on notice, we have the estimates processes and we have the orders for production of documents. It's often been the case under this government that you've been able to get more through an FOI request as a citizen than you can as a senator through those processes, which I think is hugely regrettable given that this is a core accountability function that the Australian people want us to perform, irrespective of our political colour or our policy interests or particular positions.

The reason that I asked about these productivity issues in the estimates in June—and I note that we have received the answer to this question in the last hour; it's remarkable, actually, that it's hit right on today—is that the nature of the productivity agenda of the government impacts the welfare of all the Australian people. If the government of the day is not running a productivity agenda in accordance with the advice from the Productivity Commission, which most of us would generally accept would be good advice, then that is a concern and we need to understand exactly why the government is not progressing the changes that the PC has recommended.

My question, which was on 16 June 2023, was simply: what measures from the Productivity Commission's latest reports has the government adopted in that budget? Having received a response on one piece of paper in the last hour, I think the answer to the question is zero. That's fine, but the answer should have been provided in a reasonable period.

I understand that the government wants to support its favourite vested interests. If you could go back and look at the last 100 or so years of Australian politics, one of the major criticisms that have been levied at the Labor Party over this period has been that it is beholden to vested interests, and I believe that is a legitimate complaint that we would raise in our role as an opposition. In relation to these matters, the Productivity Commission has recommended in its latest report that there should be the introduction of menus into industrial awards, which would enable a more flexible workplace, particularly for small businesses. We know that through the government's own policies they are pursuing a different agenda—multi-employer bargaining and the abolition labour hire—for various reasons. It is, I think, fair and reasonable that an opposition member could, through the Treasury secretary at the time, ask a question which relates to how much of the work of the Productivity Commission has been adopted by the government. That's all the question is. There are no tricks or gimmicks. That's all the question was. The answer provided today effectively says that none of those suggestions from the PC have been adopted. That is regrettable, but that is a legitimate point of difference that we may have.

But the point here is one of transparency and sticking to what the government said when it was the opposition.

As I think former senator Patrick has said, 'Transparency is a word that is only ever uttered from the opposition benches.' That is hugely regrettable because the institutions can be eroded by governments deliberately avoiding the orders of the parliament and then deciding that, for political reasons, they will file endless—and I would say in some cases illegitimate—public interest immunity claims. In fact, the vast bulk of the orders that I've seen passed by this Senate chamber in relation to Treasury matters in this parliament have been emasculated by the government and have not been properly complied with. That is regrettable because the institution is going to be less effective if we allow the government of the day—no matter who that is—to erode these transparency and integrity arrangements, which are necessary.

It is a good thing that the country now has an integrity commission and it is a good thing that these things have been done, but it's also important that the old integrity measures and the old transparency measures of Senate estimates, questions on notice and orders for the production of documents are treated seriously and with respect by the incumbent government. I think Senator Walsh has done a good job of chairing the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in estimates and I think she understands that estimates hearings are for the opposition parties to ask questions. I respect that very much. But it is disappointing that the executive government have decided to debase the Senate's powers, which are there in this way for the Australian people, and I hope that in future estimates we don't have to wait until the next estimates or after the next estimates to get answers back on important matters in this country.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd also like to use this opportunity to support the comments and the call for improvement that Senator Hume made regarding the government's current tardiness in responding to questions on notice through the estimates process. I also want to reinforce the comments Senator Scarr made with regard to the primacy of this Senate chamber in securing information from the executive government and to support what Senator Bragg had to say.

I also have seen a number of examples, with regard to not just questions on notice but FOIs and OPDs, where, as Senator Scarr correctly pointed out, the timing of the release of information is not because the Treasurer's office is inefficient but because the information is released at politically motivated times. Without going into all the detail, one very powerful example was the release of documents with regard to the effigy on the $5 note. I was told that documents weren't available because my question had used the word 'portrait' and not the word 'effigy'—I kid you not—and so the release of the documents was withheld.

More recently, for FOIs with regard to the release of conversations between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments over the GST distribution arrangements, the Treasurer's office has been—as I say in my office—playing ducks and drakes. They say, 'We can't find the documents,' 'There are too many documents,' or, 'There's a delay.' I don't expect the Treasurer himself to be poring over every FOI decision or OPD or question on notice—

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

Yes, you do.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but I do believe, Senator Farrell, he should be exercising prudence and sound judgement when it comes to people in his office that are exercising those functions.

This is a very important point because officials from across the Australian government work to support executive government, absolutely—like Senator Farrell in the ministries that he has—but they also exist to support the work of the parliament. If they didn't have that requirement they wouldn't appear at Senate committee inquiries when we inquire into legislation and references. They wouldn't appear at Senate estimates hearings if they didn't exist to support the work of the parliament. They support the work of the parliament through their respective ministers—that's absolutely true—but what we heard from Senator McAllister was that the government has decided to hold itself to a standard that's the same as the previous government. If that's the case, why wouldn't Australians have re-elected the previous government?

It doesn't actually quite fit because on 16 august 2022 the now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, gave Australia a commitment. He said that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. That was his commitment to electors and he is reneging on that. He is reneging on it through the experience of coalition senators with his first economic officer, Dr Chalmers.

There is plenty of time for improvement. There will be another estimates process in February next year, another one in May, perhaps one later next year if there is no election. But I want to put this particular point on notice. It is a very important one. If officials in the Treasury are listening to this contribution this afternoon, they should take pen and paper and write this down. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters is an official document. Paragraph 4.15.1 says:

While it is appropriate to take questions on notice if the information sought is not available or incomplete, officials should not take questions on notice as a way of avoiding further questions during the hearing.

Just recently, I asked officials of the Treasury some questions about a matter only to discover after that that some people had already been appointed to a panel of inquiry, that a meeting had been already organised. In my questions to Treasury officials, they presented the situation as not yet complete. As the secretary in the Treasury knows, I am not shy to write to him directly asking for a significant improvement in these matters.

So, I go on. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters, paragraph 4.15.1, goes on to say:

If officials have the information, but consider it necessary to consult the minister before providing it, they should state that as a reason for not answering rather than creating the impression that the information is not available.

That is very powerful. When we come to the estimates process in February and again in May—Senator McKim, I am happy to show you the documentation—the taking of questions on notice is not permissible if officials know the answer. I am going to seek the Senate's cooperation that, in opening statements at Senate estimates process, this particular paragraph 4.15.1 is stated at the beginning of the estimates process so officials understand very, very clearly that it is not within their remit to take questions on notice if they know the answer to the question.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to take note, as moved by Senator Hume, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.