Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I have been seeking answers to 145 questions—of which, I understand, 69 were asked by me—outstanding from this estimates committee. That is 84 per cent of the total number of questions that have been asked by this committee at the May budget estimates. It defies all possible credibility that the government can say that the failure to answer questions is on the basis that there is opportunity for the government to answer these questions up until the first day of the next round of estimates.

The date for the answering of questions was 27 July. That was of the date set by this chamber. It was a date that passed nearly eight weeks ago now. It is not exactly a stringent timetable. Of the 172 questions which were asked on the day of the estimates hearings, not one question was answered on time—not one question! As of last Thursday, three months after the hearings, 15 per cent had been answered; 145, or 84 per cent, remain unanswered. Of course, to make matters worse, legitimate inquiries to the committee have been stonewalled, as we saw here today yet again. The Minister for Education, Science and Training’s representative here was asked to read out a highly contemptuous response by the minister’s office. Committee staff seeking information are simply told that no timetable for answers can be provided and that all answers are being considered. We ask the simple question: considered by whom? By the minister’s office?

We all understand that we are facing the prospect of an election. It is quite clear that this is a minister who does not want to have this parliament receive answers to legitimate questions taken on notice by the department back in May. Of course, this is not the first time this has happened. There was one particular question on non-government school funding, EOA8. Not only did I ask on the day and was given advice that the information would be provided on the day; I asked again at the time of consideration of the bill in this chamber nearly three months ago and I was told at the time by this minister at the table that every effort would be made to follow up that answer. I do not dispute Minister Brandis’s bona fides on this question. He did give an undertaking in good faith, but it is quite clear that Minister Bishop has a contemptuous attitude towards the Senate and towards the Senate estimates processes.

If we look through them, we will see that these are straightforward questions. There is no issue here about complexity. What is abundantly clear is that the government is seeking to hide information. We are seeing the government floundering around on questions relating to the Australian technical colleges: the CSIRO’s operations, its commercialisations, its IP royalties; the government’s latest attempts to conclude its somewhat tawdry history in regard to the radioactive waste dump; and many others. I do not believe that the department is stalling for time. I think that this department has understood the importance of these questions. We have engaged constructively with this department over a very lengthy period of time. I am therefore obliged to conclude that the problem here is with the minister and the contemptuous attitude that the minister has to responding to legitimate questions from the Senate.

Either way, whether they are from the department or the minister, the Senate is entitled to these answers. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training to make further efforts to encourage his colleague to answer these questions before other motions have to be considered by this chamber.