Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share 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.