Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the document Approaches to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Asked of All Agencies. It's certainly no secret.

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 document.

The minister has just tabled a document titled Approaches to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Asked of All Agenciesthat's from the government. This should be a pretty simple document. It should be: 'Give honest, direct answers.' That would be the case if the government were living up to their rhetoric. The minister has tabled this document saying that it's no secret. I want to be clear at the outset that the government has only tabled this document because the Senate was about to order it to table this document. I acknowledge the Greens as well as the entire Senate crossbench for the fact that there was unanimous support from nongovernment senators in this place to call upon the government to table this document and to require the government to explain its contents.

In the face of knowing that unanimous support from all nongovernment senators was coming—something you don't often see in this place—the government has decided at the last minute to table the document that the Senate was about to force it to table. Of course, we haven't had the chance to review it yet, because the document was a secret, Minister, until you just tabled it. But we came to ask for it because the coalition, the Greens and the Senate crossbench rightly shared in the outrage at revelations about the contents of this document. We shared in the outrage because this is not a document about how to transparently and honestly answer Senate questions. It's a document prepared—we don't know for sure—either in the Prime Minister's Office or the Prime Minister's department but certainly with the Prime Minister's stamp on it. It has been circulated to minister's officers and/or government departments, giving them advice on how to obfuscate, avoid, cover up and ensure that Senate questions go unanswered rather than answered.

The hypocrisy we see from the Labor Party in this regard is quite astounding. The Albanese government was going to be a beacon of transparency, but instead they've come up with their own codified manual on how to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes. I want to give credit to journalists Anthony Galloway and Jennifer Duke from Capital Brief, who broke this story in the last couple of weeks. They were the ones who got extracts of this manual and were able to publish it. In publishing it, they brought to the attention of nongovernment senators the tactics of the government, about which I think we'd all been somewhat curious as we saw more and more consistent responses coming to questions—responses that didn't go remotely close to answering them.

Although we've only just had the document tabled by the government, let's take a close look at some of the examples that the journalists have published to date of what is in this document. For example, a question may say, 'Has the department or agency held any organised external retreats or external speakers?' You might think the suggested response would be 'yes' or 'no' with provided details, but no; the suggested draft response is, 'The data requested is not captured centrally and obtaining it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.' Too bad! If the person drafting the response was sitting at an external retreat last weekend, they should full well know that that external retreat happened and be able to report upon it. But no. The recommendation is to say, 'Oh, that would be too hard to answer; therefore, we cannot answer it.'

What if a question were asked about the number of meetings the secretary or agency head has had with ministers in their portfolio over a defined period of time? The suggested draft response from the Albanese government about interactions between their ministers and their agency heads is this: 'The secretary regularly meets with portfolio ministers and, at times, ministers outside the portfolio'—no answer at all. This is the best of Yes Minister! This document must have been drafted by somebody sitting down in the Prime Minister's office, getting out the old VCR, putting in their old highlights from Yes Minister and going, 'This is what Sir Humphrey would have said,' because that seems to be the approach the government's taking.

How many meetings might there have been? 'The secretary regularly meets with the portfolio ministers.' What is the minimum processing time for consideration of briefs by the minister? 'The department prepares briefs within agreed time frames on a case-by-case basis'—avoiding detail at every possible opportunity.

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

Tell us about this one. Transparency alert!

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

Transparency alert! There is no—

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

Senator Cash!

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

I'm a little excited about the transparency alert!

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

Senator Cash, I urge you to contain your excitement.

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

We see very little by way of transparency in this document or in relation—

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

Senator Birmingham, you have the call.

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

What really strikes me is when we come to very precise questions about, for example, things to do with budget transparency. Now, this is very relevant. Today is budget day. We are going into the two-week budget estimates period after this Senate sitting week. A very focused, precise question would be, for the portfolio, 'Please provide a list of the 10 largest estimates variations in the most recent financial year.' You don't get much more precise than that. It's a specific question, specific to the budget, time limited to the last financial year, on a particular issue—namely, estimates variations, where a government department has changed in the course of the year how much it thinks it's going to spend on a particular item. You should absolutely be able to table precisely what those estimates variations are. What does the Albanese government's secret little manual on how to not answer questions suggest as a response to this very precise question? 'The portfolio additional estimates statements inform the parliament of changes to the proposed allocation of resources since the budget. The PAES, annual Appropriation Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) are tabled in the parliament usually in February each year.'

So when senators, whether it is a coalition senator, a Greens senator, Senator Babet or any other member of the crossbench, go and ask a precise and detailed budget question of the Albanese Labor government, what do they get fed in return? A bunch of bureaucratic jargon referring them to go and try to work it out from the budget papers themselves—information that won't actually be in those budget papers. You will not find, in the detail that is requested, the information the government is referring you to go and find in the budget papers. They're setting senators up to run around in little circles, like a dog chasing its tail, never actually getting the answer. That's the type of contempt we are seeing from the Albanese government when it comes to how it is treating the Senate, when it comes to transparency issues and when it comes to the approach to estimates.

What is so galling is that this is a government who made so much about these issues when in opposition. In 2022 Mr Albanese said:

The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy.

Well, this is the complete opposite of what Mr Albanese promised. He has actually taken lack of transparency, lack of accountability and government secrecy to a whole new level. The Prime Minister's office is directing, in a manual, government departments on how to avoid answering questions. You couldn't come up with a more precise example of the opposite of transparency. It's a scandal. The fact that the government, rather than coming in here apologising and saying, 'We're going to instruct our departments to ignore this, and we got it wrong,' instead came in here and said, 'It's no secret, and there's nothing to hide,' shows just how arrogant they are, just how out of touch they are and just how willing they are to break every single promise or commitment they made to the Australian people.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham is right about one thing: we did make a big issue about that in opposition, and there's a reason for that. Exhibit A is right there—Senator McKenzie. Exhibit B is right there—Senator Cash. When it came to avoiding questions at Senate estimates, we saw it all the time. They sat at the cabinet table with a former prime minister who appointed himself to five ministries.

So we absolutely made a big deal about this because the Australian people demanded we make a big deal about it because they were sick of it. They were absolutely sick of it and the way they were being treated by the previous government. Those opposite have come in here, and it was a fine performance from Senator Birmingham—but they have a record of being in government that we remember. The Australian people remember, more importantly, that we have a big task to overcome. That is why we absolutely highlighted this in opposition. We are proud of our record in government of actually turning this around. The Australian people know they can expect us to be transparent, honest and accountable with them on every occasion, unlike those opposite from what we've seen. The Albanese government are delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency and accountability and we are upholding a standard the opposition never, ever did.

The Albanese government has reversed Australia's decade-long slide by lifting the country's ranking on Transparency International's annual Corruption Perception Index from 18 to 13.

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

Defend the document.

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

Order, Senator Birmingham!

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This didn't happen by accident. We have established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's another thing they talked about for years but did nothing about. We've strengthened the ministerial code of conduct, strengthened protections for whistleblowers, increased funding for the ANAO, restored transparency to AAT appointments, reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner and implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations in less than two years.

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

Order, Senator McKenzie!

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've done all of that in less than two years—more than they did in a decade.

The numbers of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents have all skyrocketed in the 47th Parliament. Despite this surge, the Albanese government is on track to answer more questions than any previous government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

They don't like hearing about it, do they? They actually don't like hearing about a government with integrity and accountability and a record of delivering on this. The Albanese government is on track to answer more questions on notice than any previous government. As of 13 May 2024, less than 0.1 per cent of questions on notice remained unanswered from the first four rounds of Senate estimates in the 47th Parliament. We are continuing to respond to the mammoth number of questions received in the most recent round. The number of questions has skyrocketed, and it's important we consider whether answering all of them is the best use of public sector resources.

Here are some examples of a few that have come through to just PM&C alone.

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

Senator McGrath and Senator Ayres, enough!

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Which floor is the secretary's office on compared to that of the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister is working in that city?'—that is a question that they put on notice. 'What planning is underway in the case of the King's death'—

Opposition senators: What's the answer?

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

Senator Chisholm, I'm going to have to ask you to resume your seat. A document was requested and has been provided. The minister is speaking to it. The response by Senator Birmingham to the tabling of that document was listened to with respect. I have called individual senators by name. You are out of order. I call on you to respect the standing orders of the Senate and allow the minister to respond.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham is not immune to this sort of activity either. Senator Birmingham asked what temperature the department's buildings are currently set at. Senator Hume alone has asked 13,000 questions on notice in this term. That includes 331 questions concerning paper use by departments, 125 questions on working on the King's birthday and other public holidays and 31 questions concerning who might be the longest-serving agency member. The government wants the Public Service focused on answering questions that are in the public interest, not spurious questions seemingly written to waste the resources of the public sector. We are working across government to support efficient, timely responses to questions on notice. That is our record, and that is what we are doing.

Despite receiving nearly half the number of questions per estimates round as the Albanese government did, the Liberals had failed to answer 360 questions on notice when they left office, some dating back as far as October 2019. The Liberals had failed to answer nearly 780 questions on notice by the time they left office in May 2022. Some of these were many years overdue, despite receiving far fewer questions on average: 86 a month versus 138 a month. Over the life of the previous government, this equalled an average unanswered question rate of 8.2 per cent, significantly higher than the Albanese government's rate of 1.4 per cent.

As I pointed out, I think the Australian people remember, or I'm confident that they remember, but it's always worth reminding them of the record of those opposite during their decade in power and of the work we had to do to overcome so much damage they had done to accountability and transparency in this country. The former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, secretly appointed himself to five ministerial positions without the knowledge of the public, his own government or the ministers whose positions he'd appointed himself to.

Then home affairs minister Peter Dutton refused to appear before an inquiry into allegations he misused his ministerial powers to intervene in two separate cases to allow a French au pair and an Italian au pair into the country. According to the committee's final report in September 2018:

It should be noted that on 29 August 2018, the committee extended an invitation to the Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Home Affairs, to appear at the hearing. The committee received no response.

After repeatedly denying that she or her office had tipped off media ahead of a 2017 police raid on the AWU offices on behalf of the registered organisations committee, then employment minister Senator Cash was forced to admit that one of her staffers had, in fact, done so. Senator Cash then refused to provide a witness statement to the AFP in their subsequent investigation.

Senator McKenzie only gave evidence to an inquiry into sports rorts after the Senate forced her to do so.

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

Senator Chisholm—sorry; I have to respond to, I'm assuming, a point of order. What is the point of order, Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right, Acting Deputy President, on a personal reflection: the accusation made against—

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

Thank you. I note that. Can I just ask the minister to withdraw the personal reflection.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Thank you. Please continue.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie gave evidence to an inquiry into sports rorts only after the Senate forced her to do so. The Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants had previously requested Senator McKenzie appear as a witness on no less than six occasions, but she'd declined every time. The coalition voted against a motion requiring Senator McKenzie's appearance at the inquiry.

The shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, as energy and emissions reduction minister, changed the law to keep secret electricity price hikes, ahead of the 2022 election, and deliberately concealed from the public and the energy market construction delays and hefty cost blowouts on the Snowy 2.0 project. Then environment minister Sussan Ley suppressed the state of the environment report ahead of the 2022 election because it revealed that the Liberals' and Nationals' environmental performance was even worse than feared.

And, of course, there's the gold standard of integrity and accountability: Barnaby Joyce! He has a long record of disgrace when it comes to these issues. He was appointed a special envoy for drought assistance and drought recovery by former prime minister Morrison, and he spent almost $1 million of taxpayers' money in nine months, spent less than three weeks in drought-affected communities and did not produce a report beyond a text message to the Prime Minister, which was, of course, kept secret.

So, when they come in here to talk about these issues, it is important that we remind people about their record in government. They have absolutely no credibility to stand on when they accuse this government. We have a proud record, in the two years we have been here, of restoring integrity and accountability. It is one that the Australian people understand. They still judge those opposite harshly. Those opposite have shown no remorse for their actions in government. We will absolutely remind the Australian people, at every opportunity we get, of their diabolical record. And the Australian people treated them accordingly.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very rare that the Greens, the entire crossbench and the coalition agree on something. Now, answering questions at estimates is not optional, but it appears that this government would like it to be. We know that from leaks of a document distributed by the Prime Minister's office to ministerial offices in recent weeks that provides advice on how to avoid answering questions in estimates. Here are just a few choice quotes from Capital Brief:

The document … urges everyone to consider referring questions to another department or agency 'where appropriate', and tells them to provide 'only information required to answer the question'.

…   …   …

In the document, departments and agencies are advised to avoid answering a question on how many external retreats and speakers they have organised. Instead, they should respond with: 'The data requested is not captured centrally and obtaining it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.'

…   …   …

When asked how many meetings their secretary has had with ministers, departments are advised to respond: 'The Secretary regularly meets with portfolio ministers and, at times, ministers outside the portfolio.'

We had an earnest defence by Senator Chisholm, but that cannot overcome the fact that this is a Prime Minister's Office instruction manual on how to avoid giving meaningful answers in Senate estimates. We only know of it because someone with ethics and with concern for democracy leaked part of this document last week, which of course led to all non-government senators tabling a motion asking the government to disclose the full document and also asking the Prime Minister's representative to come in and give an account of themselves. About five seconds before that was meant to happen, the government in fact tabled a copy of the document, but it's very embarrassing that it took the threat of this motion for them to do so. It's very embarrassing for the government that they didn't fess up and do this of their own volition and that it took the rest of the chamber to force them to do the right thing. I've had a quick squiz through the full document. I don't know whether it has been altered. I don't know if that is in fact the original document, so we will scrutinise that very closely.

The second part of the motion that was going to be moved would have required Senator Wong to attend and explain 'what the actual' is going on. We called on the government to say who wrote this document, who ticked off on this document and who was sent this document. None of that has happened today in the government's hasty tabling of what they say is the full version of this cheat sheet on how to not answer questions in estimates. So we still don't know the extent of knowledge that the Prime Minister himself had over this entire debacle. What we do know is that the PMO is saying the quiet bit out loud. They clearly don't want to answer questions or provide transparent information about their decisions or their policies.

The Prime Minister should immediately retract this document. The Senate standing orders make it an offence for a witness to refuse to answer a question, unless they make a valid claim of public interest immunity, so questions in Senate estimates are meant to be answered. So much for the transparency and accountability that this Labor Party promised in government! This document does not provide advice that is consistent with the commitment that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. If the Prime Minister wants to live up to that commitment to transparency, he should immediately—today—retract this document. In recent estimates, it has been getting harder and harder to get answers to questions—and detailed answers, at that—and it is not acceptable from any government but particularly not from a government that said they would be better on transparency and accountability.

I want to flag that the author of this document—we don't know who it is because there isn't a name on the tabled version—could be in contempt of the Senate. We don't know if the Prime Minister wrote this document or if the Prime Minister authorised this document. There's an argument that the Prime Minister could be in contempt of the Senate. Privileges resolution No. 6 says that a person should not 'improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority'. It further talks about offences by a witness:

A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not:

…   …   …

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or

(c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.

I think you can mount an argument that this document is instructing departmental officials to breach those rules and is therefore instructing departmental officials to be in contempt of the Senate. This is a cheat sheet on how to mislead senators in estimates, and it's the Prime Minister showing absolute disregard for the process of open democracy. He is trashing his own so-called promise of more accountability and transparency. I reiterate that the Prime Minister should retract this document today and start delivering on their promise of a more accountable and transparent government, because this is a betrayal by the Labor government of their promises for a better government. At this point they are just Scott Morrison in a different coloured tie.

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

I speak to this motion to take note. I have yet to read the document in full and in detail, yet its existence is very disturbing, as other speakers have already said. At Senate estimates, Anthony Albanese's office is putting words in the mouths of department heads. How can we trust their answers? We cannot trust this government. Repeatedly we're getting the suppression of democracy—repeatedly—and we're seeing arrogance. Let's have a look at some data, and then I'll come back to talking more about this document.

As of the end of December 2023—7 December, specifically—after 94 Senate sitting days in the 47th Parliament, Anthony Albanese's parliament, 14 guillotine motions have been agreed to. Under the previous Morrison government, in the 46th Parliament, 14 guillotine motions were agreed to. Now we start to see the difference. A total of 87 bills have been subject to the guillotine in the 47th Parliament under the Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition led by Anthony Albanese. In the 46th Parliament, under the Morrison Liberals, there were 59. So we have seen almost 50 per cent more under this government, under the coalition that Labor formed with the teals, Senator Pocock and the Greens, quite often with Senator Jacqui Lambie's support.

They promised transparency and accountability. Instead we get the suppression of democracy, repeatedly. Arrogance—that's what we say it is. Arrogance. We see that the suppression of democracy is a form of control. Always beneath control there is fear. Of what is the Albanese Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition afraid? It's afraid of truth and afraid, fundamentally, of an informed citizenry. They don't want people to know.

The media has seen copies of the document. 'The PMO's secret manual on sidestepping Senate estimates questions'—that's the headline in Capital Brief. The article says:

Capital Brief has seen a document sent by Anthony Albanese's office advising departments on how to handle questions on notice from Senate estimates. Current and former senators say the edict represents contempt of the Senate.

Contempt of the Senate is a very serious matter. Another article in Capital Brief says:

Current and former senators, lawyers and a former top judge have said the drafting of the document could result in contempt of the Senate.

…   …   …

Anthony Albanese's office has stood by a document it issued to senior bureaucrats which advised them how to sidestep Senate estimates questions on the basis that inquiries have "skyrocketed" since Labor came to government.

Well, that's your job! I don't care if they have skyrocketed. We'll keep asking questions. I'll get to the Prime Minister's office's manual—what we've seen of it so far; I haven't dissected it.

When the interests of several departments are involved, the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters call for departments to consult with other departments as part of the drafting process. This includes instances where the same or similar Senate estimates questions on notice are asked of all or multiple departments and agencies. Why are you worried about different answers from different departments? Look at some of the topics covered—well, we'll go through that another time.

I know this is not a motion by leave to seek a variation of standing orders, but One Nation normally opposes them because the Senate should be focused, firstly, on Senate responsibilities and, secondly, on government business. We want the government to govern. Senate estimates, though, are a vital part of holding governments and bureaucrats accountable for taxpayer funds. Why do you hide from that? Anthony Albanese's department wants to hide the truth from the people.

We have seen the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman stumbling through an answer to my questions attempting to get to the bottom of their complicity with the CFMEU and major multinational labour hire firms in stealing $30,000 to $40,000 per miner each year from thousands of casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They hide the facts wilfully. The Fair Work Ombudsman office relies on fraud, repeatedly. The Labor minister for workplace relations ignores and diverts. It's embarrassing for departments. We look forward to reviewing the formerly secret document in detail, because democracy is at stake.

Question agreed to.