Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it has been touched upon by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, in relation to Senator Conroy, I ask him why after more than 90 days answers have not been provided to the following 15 questions: 884, 908, 909, 931, 932, 946, 954, 955, 974, 992, 993, 1000, 1008, 1017 and 1026?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is helpful. I think I have provided a response at first issue to ensure that we do not continue this debate longer than need be. We will look at those numbers particularly to ensure that the responses are coordinated across the portfolios and provide an early response. We will also check to see whether any of them have not already been tabled and we will also ensure that none of them have been referred to another minister for a coordinated response to be provided. We do take this very seriously and we are working diligently to provide early responses.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two motions to move: one will effectively be a take note motion and the other is a formal motion. I seek leave to move, pursuant to standing order 74(5)(c), which concerns the issue of appropriate explanations not having been given in response to this matter:

That all outstanding answers be table by Thursday, 19 March, together with an explanation from each of the relevant ministers as to why their answers were not provided pursuant to standing orders.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I think it is misplaced to move such a motion. We have already indicated that we take the matter seriously, unlike the opposition did when they were in government previously. We have indicated that we have answered a range of those today. What Senator Ronaldson has not been able to do is go through and detect which ones have been answered. He also has not taken into consideration that there are a range of matters that are in train and will be answered shortly. The questions that the government is working on are complex, and many of them are quite large.

I think the motion is premature. I am sure that within a short time Senator Ronaldson may want to consider moving that motion again. At this juncture I submit that it is a little pre-emptory and it should not be moved at this point. If he was minded to move it at another point, it is always the case that we are very loath to deny people leave. We think that sufficient time has been provided for this debate so far. We know that we will also have another debate about this issue. In this instance I think that it is a bit premature and, through you, Mr Deputy President, I would ask Senator Ronaldson to reconsider it. After summing up his questions that have been answered—and looking at the ones that have been transferred and also the ones that may come in within the next couple of days—he may want to consider moving the motion again, but at this point in time I am not minded to provide leave for his proposed motion.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you do not wish to grant leave?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. My reading of standing order 74(5)(c) is that where there has not been a satisfactory explanation I can move that motion without notice. If that is not correct, please tell me, but my understanding of both paragraphs (b) and (c) is that leave is not required because it deals with moving a motion without notice.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rule on this point of order. The standing orders say that where there is no explanation you can move a motion in respect of the answer, but where an explanation has been given—and whether or not you think it is a satisfactory explanation is irrelevant—you need to seek leave to move a motion. But you can move a motion to take note of the answers.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regrettably, I thought I was lurching in that direction. I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanations.

I think that 90-plus days is pretty reasonable time for answers to be given. Quite frankly it is not good enough for the government to say, ‘Well, under the former government we did not get answers.’ You had the ability to do what I have done today. If I had not given notice it might have been 90 days, 100 days, 120 days or 150 days. So the government that talks about openness and transparency has been dragged kicking and screaming into this debate to answer these questions. Isn’t it fascinating that for 90-plus days 154 questions remained unanswered but, as soon as a bit of pressure came on and the ministers were required at my request to front up today and extend the normal courtesies, it went from 154 to 109 questions because there was this mad panic to get the questions answered? If it could be done in 36 hours, why did it take 90-plus days to get an answer? The clear answer to that of course is that the openness and transparency that they talk about is only as relevant as the information and the notice that is given for them to come in here and explain why they have not done it. That is the only reason. If it could be done as quickly as that, why wasn’t it done beforehand?

I repeat that I thank Senator Ludwig for the courtesy he extended to me today by making a phone call. I very much respect him for doing that and for providing an explanation. I am not saying that I thought it was a satisfactory explanation, but at least he had the courtesy to ring me and provide an explanation. Quite frankly, why weren’t Senator Sherry, Senator Carr, Senator Conroy and others in here to answer this?

Surely, if the government are serious about openness and transparency and if they are serious about trying to convince the Australian people and us that they are serious about openness and transparency, they could afford five minutes out of their ministerial day to stay here. So I take it that Senator Evans and Senator Ludwig and Senator Wong were not as busy as Senators Carr and Sherry and Conroy. Give me a break! I can understand why Senator Conroy needed to leave early—because he has got a looming disaster on his hands with the national network; I am surprised he even had time to come in to question time while he is trying to get this mess sorted out. What is so special about Senator Carr that he could not come in here? What is so special about Senator Sherry that he could not wait? What is so special about Senator Conroy that he could not wait? How come it is good enough for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to be in here to answer these questions but not for the others? They are treating this with complete and utter contempt—contempt of the Senate.

Just so no-one misses this I will, finally, read from Odgersabout three-quarters of an hour after I first tried to do so, before I was so rudely interrupted by the Manager of Government Business. I could have done this three-quarters of an hour ago; you have forced me to do it now. This is a magnificent tome too, I have to say. On page 496, in the second paragraph, it says:

A statement by a minister that an answer is being prepared, or that a question is under consideration, is not regarded as an explanation of failure to answer the question (rulings and statement by President Reid, SD, 28/5/1988 …

What did we hear from Senator Ludwig on behalf of the missing amigos and those who did stay here? What did we hear today from those ministers or those who are purporting to represent them? What we heard was that an answer is being prepared or the question is under consideration—not an explanation at all. Senator Ludwig should well know that, under previous rulings of various presidents, that is not viewed as being an appropriate answer to this question.

I would not mind so much if someone like you, Senator Ludwig, had had the courtesy to ring up on Thursday or Friday and say: ‘We’re getting this together. Yes, we’re a bit over; I acknowledge that—90-plus days over.’ But not only did they not have the courtesy that you extended to me and, more importantly, extended to the Senate; they did not even have the courtesy to stay in here today, for 15 minutes out of their busy lives, and answer those questions. Why would they believe it appropriate to treat the Senate with such contempt? As I said earlier, it is not what you say with this government; it is what you do. We get all the flowery language about openness and transparency, walking it through nicely, but when it comes to the deeds it just evaporates; it disappears out of the window. We get all the weasel words from you about how you care and how you want to change the system and how things are going to be different under you, but, when you actually have some pressure on you to apply those standards you disappear, you just walk out.

The classic was the 2020 Summit about 12 months ago. Remember about 12 months ago at the 2020 Summit? You have never seen so many drums banged in all your life. There would not be a western late on a Saturday night where there were more drums banged in relation to a particular issue. It was a serious drum-banging exercise. We had the Prime Minister sitting around with the open-necked shirt and on the ground, discussing things. What have we heard about the 2020 Summit since they all got on the planes and went home? A huge number of people took the government at face value in relation to the 2020 Summit and absolutely nothing has come from it since.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And how many millions of dollars did it cost?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly: how many millions of dollars did it cost? It was the 24-hour news cycle, the spin and the substance—and, as soon as they turned the lights off in this place at the end of the summit, they turned the lights off in relation to the Prime Minister’s interest in these matters. They just flicked both switches, and he went on to the next one. We have heard the drum bang, time after time, about openness and transparency and about the government listening to the people. Do you know what the website said, no ifs, no buts? ‘This will all be answered by the end of the year at the latest. I’m going to make sure that the views expressed to me are actually acted upon by the government.’ Then, all of a sudden, the website changed: it went from ‘the end of the year’ to ‘the New Year’. Well, even given its most expansive interpretation, we are no longer in the New Year. We are in the middle of March. It is no longer the New Year. We will not get a response in relation to the 2020 Summit, and every single one of those people who came here in good faith has been let down by the government.

In relation to this issue, again it is back to this ‘openness and transparency’; it is about the ‘new way’. Well, the new way has not delivered. There is no interest in changing these processes that apparently were so diabolical. There are 160-odd unanswered questions after 90-plus days. And, as I said before, if I had not done something about it they would still be unanswered. Then we had the discourteous behaviour of a number of ministers who left the chamber today. It was complete and utter discourtesy.

I am aware for the time pressures today and that this discussion has probably gone on a bit longer than we all anticipated, so I will finish my remarks on this basis. I know what Senator Ludwig is going to jump up and say in a second. He will rattle off figures about 90 days or 93 days—we will hear the lot—and he will say: ‘They were terrible. We are better.’ You are not better at all.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has already said that.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien said we are not going to hear that from Senator Ludwig again. Okay, well that is—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn’t say that!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, make your mind up—either we did or we did not. You do not need the puppeteer up the back, surely. Senator Ludwig can answer this question quite adequately himself without any input from Senator O’Brien, who is making no contribution at all. Anyway, if he wants to play his games up the back there, that is all right.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t make a contribution—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you most certainly do not make a contribution. I am glad you have finally fessed up to that, Kerry. No, you are absolutely right.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are so far off the mark it is not funny!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point at all standing up here and rattling off figures about what happened between 1996 and 2007—whatever it is. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that you came in here at the start of your government and said that everything was going to be different under you. Indeed, maybe I should have left it until we had figures that were way beyond the figures you are just about to quote. Maybe I should have left it to 150 or 170 days. But I have not done that because the questions on notice are absolutely relevant to the way this government is behaving—absolutely relevant. I want to know what this government has been hiding. Why hasn’t it provided these answers before? Why does it need this quite peculiar process of the Senate for these questions to be answered?

There are a number of questions and I could go through them in relation to a whole range of issues—overspends, underspends, media monitoring, media contacts, media staff, credit cards, overseas travel. There are a whole range of things in relation to media monitoring—for instance, a one-year progress report and a whole lot of other things. The only reason that they have not been answered is that they are too difficult. Now they have got to come in here and explain themselves. I do not mind, they can have a go at what might have happened in the past—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have spent more.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have spent enormous amounts of money. But they cannot plead openness and transparency and then put in place a process of denial of their responsibility to answer these questions within a reasonable time. If they are going to preach something, they have actually got to be prepared to practise it. Senator Ludwig knows as well as I do that these are not explanations within the rules of the Senate. They are not explanations that the rules of this place have demanded, and I am not going to pursue the matter any further than that. Despite the fact that they are outside the standing orders—that there has been complete and utter contempt for Odgers and a complete and utter contempt for the process—this will be the end of it.

But I will put you on notice now, Senator Ludwig, that if you do not clean your act up, if you do not improve your answers to questions, then we will be back here again and we will go through the same process. If you are serious about openness and transparency, if you are serious about processes, let us make sure that I do not have to do again what has now taken up some three-quarters of an hour of the Senate to do—obtain answers that you were required to provide after 30 days under the standing orders. That is the only reason we are spending three-quarters of an hour in here: to make sure that you deliver what you should have delivered 60-plus days ago—and in some cases a lot more than 90 days. So let us hear no more about openness and transparency and let us hear a bit more honesty from this government in relation to what it is going to do vis-a-vis its respect for this chamber.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My contribution will be a little bit shorter than that contribution and maybe not as entertaining. This government does take the matter very seriously, unlike, perhaps, those in opposition who try to make the debate entertaining. It is a serious matter. What the government have said in respect of many of the questions that have been put on notice is that we are coordinating a response across portfolios. Some of them are complex and some of them are quite lengthy in character and will require some additional time to be able to provide detailed responses to them. And that is, in part, in addition to what I said—and I think I said that earlier as well. It is within standing orders and within Odgers as an appropriate response to the question.

The normal course of events—and perhaps it is worth while responding to this—is that, to provide what I would call ‘notice’ from Friday till Monday to provide these responses, this government has been responsive and has provided many of those that were in the pipeline to be tabled. The usual course, though—and the opposition perhaps failed to recognise this even when they were in government—and which I then followed in any event, is to indicate that there are a range of questions that have been unanswered and to give the government an opportunity to provide the answers and to ensure that those questions are answered, rather than bring them in here at the earliest opportunity and trail them through this place to seek to make politically opportunistic points.

This government has taken the matter seriously and as we speak is providing responses or indications that they are in the process. We have not sought to make cheap political points about this, because, unlike the opposition, this government does take it seriously. The opposition has failed to appreciate that it is appropriate for me as Manager of Government Business in the Senate to represent other ministers here so that they can do the usual work that they do. It is inappropriate to complain about that when we are representing, and can represent, other ministers in this chamber.

It is a silly point to make that others, because of their absence, are somehow different from those who are here. Senators on this side take their role seriously across the board. Some have been available to be able to provide that and some others, I suspect, had appointments that could not be altered and they needed to deal with those. The usual course, in any event, is for one minister such as me to deal with all of them en bloc. That is not unusual and that is the course this government has taken because many of your questions were not only to individual senators but across portfolios to all ministers. Therefore, given the way that you have asked the questions themselves, it does in fact suggest that the way we have been dealing with it—and that is to coordinate a response and for one minister to deal with the response—is not an unusual process.

So I find it disappointing that the senator has made criticism in that vein. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to the whole debate and, in fact, misplaced. Of course, what this government has also done is sought to introduce quite reasonable concepts of ministerial statements in parliament explaining decisions and has looked at a raft of transparency measures including the acceleration of tabling of the questions on notice. We have also looked at other transparency measures such as a lobbyist registrar, abolition of the ministerial committee of government, communication of twiceyearly tabling of advertising expenditure to prevent a range of occurrences, tabling of the Members and Parliament (Staff) Act annual report and merit based selection for employment of agencies. We have done a range of things that the previous government failed to do and failed to acknowledge that they had any need to do to ensure that there was transparent government. This government is transparent and able to provide this type of information to also get rid of what—for the opposition when they were in government—were effectively jobs for the boys. They would not provide information about how their selection process went ahead.

What this government has been able to do in the short time that it has been in government is take these matters and transform Australian government into one that takes transparency seriously and one that tries to provide timely information. What the opposition have failed to acknowledge in this debate today is that the questions that were asked were huge and complex. What they have also failed to acknowledge is that this government has taken its role seriously and not only provided responses today but continues to commit to provide responses—unlike the previous government, the Howard government, which did not take its role seriously, would not have had the number of ministers here to respond to Senator Ronaldson, would not have even deigned to provide an explanation as detailed as I have provided, as I have provided on behalf of Senator Sherry and as Senator Evans has provided, and would not have even deigned to ensure that there would be responses. That is evidenced by what Senator Evans read out, which was that the number of questions that continue to remain on notice, 3,482, gives you a sniff of what the previous government was like when it was in government and how it treated the opposition. And 415 questions on notice were never answered. That is an indictment of the previous government.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you ask?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has moved to change that and you should look at the Hansard and look at some of the questions that I have asked over the years before you interject along those lines. Here is a telling statistic: two of those unanswered questions were placed on the Notice Paper on the first sitting day and remained unanswered for 1,103 days. I think that really sums up the previous government’s record.

Senator Ronaldson, what we will do is take the matter seriously and work with you to provide responses. It is appropriate to delay the motion—as I did not provide leave to move it—to a point where if you do have issues such as you have raised you do them in the appropriate way. Usually, we can resolve these very quickly. I indicated in my email on Friday that we were working on providing a response. I spoke to you about how we do that. That is the usual course, rather than take up some 50 minutes in the chamber while we go through what I can only say is an entertaining debate but not a serious debate from the opposition side. It is a serious matter and that is why I am also taking up more time than I would otherwise do to ensure that those who might be not only participating in this debate but reading or listening to the debate can understand that this government does take this seriously.

Question agreed to.