Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 74(5)(a) I rise to seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The unanswered portfolio questions are as follows: Nos 2026, 2027, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2045, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2055, 2059, 2065, 2066, 2072, 2077, 2078, 2272, 2357, 2358, 2426, 2427 and—at long last—2972.

These questions have remained unanswered for some time and it's not just the problem of not answering those questions—of not providing responses to those questions on notice—there's a larger problem for the Prime Minister and his government. Clause 74 of the Senate standing orders provides that a minister has 30 days in which to provide an answer to a question. As at midday today, 15 March 2021, there are 22 overdue questions on notice lodged via the Table Office. The oldest of those is 151 days overdue.

As an ardent question-on-notice lodger—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, I might just remind you that you've listed the questions that remain unanswered. We need to seek a response from the minister and then you can take note of that response.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to seek a response.

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

I thank Senator Kitching. I will be brief in my response. I thank Senator Kitching for some advance notice in line with the traditional courtesies on these matters. I understand that the questions relate to questions in the Prime Minister's portfolio. In the short time since the advice, I have sought to raise these issues with the Prime Minister's office. Together, we will have them tabled as soon as possible.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's answer.

I thank the minister for his explanation. As at midday today, 15 March 2021, there are 22 overdue questions on notice lodged via the Table Office. I do hope that, given the oldest of these is 151 days overdue, the Prime Minister's office might see a way forward in responding as promptly as possible, given it has had so much time.

I am an ardent question-on-notice lodger because I believe in the principle of government accountability and because I believe this government in particular is quite an unaccountable government in the history of governments of the Commonwealth, and this is one of the most flagrant disregards for the Senate and its standing orders that I have ever seen. Remember, we are all bound by those standing orders—except, it appears, the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister is meant to lead by example, an example that flows down to his ministers and his backbench, but this particular answer is more than five times over the mandated time frame set by this chamber for the return of answers. There's a clear pattern of disrespect and a lack of transparency and accountability by the Prime Minister, and, by extension, the minister representing him in this place, Senator Birmingham.

Beyond my questions on notice, there are presently nine freedom-of-information requests lodged with the Prime Minister's office. These are under review with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner because all nine FOI requests were refused by the Prime Minister's office. This is an extract from a recent email sent to me by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner:

As set out below, the OAIC continues to experience a year upon year increase in the number of IC review applications received.

The OAIC's Annual Report 2019-20 indicates that there has been a focus on resolving matter which are over 12 months old:

While the OAIC continues to face resourcing challenges in the FOI area, we implemented further process improvements and resolved more IC reviews during the reporting period than ever before. We achieved a 26% improvement, resolving 829 IC reviews in 2019-20.

The significant increase in the number of applications after sustained increases in previous years, along with our focus on reducing the number of cases over 12 months old, meant we finalised 72% of IC reviews within 12 months, short of our target of 80%.

As stated in the Annual Report, the OAIC continues to face challenges in the FOI area. The OAIC continues to see an increase in the number of new applications lodged which in turn impacts on the ability to finalise existing reviews. The percentage of matters finalised relates to all matters on hand and includes those finalised through our 'Intake and Early Resolution' processes. These processes often result in matters being withdrawn or closed on the basis of jurisdictional issues.

As noted in the Annual Report, the OAIC received 1,066 IC review applications last financial year. We remain committed to finalising all IC reviews as quickly as possible. In doing so, we have been focused on resolving the oldest matters first.

As you can see from the extract of that letter from the information commissioner to me that I've just read out, the OAIC, which is an independent umpire, is clearly starved of funding, and this would appear to be a deliberate move by the Morrison government to avoid accountability. I think that is a great shame.

As some of you may know, and, Madam Deputy President Lines, you may know this as well, there has been a gold standard set in this building for constant evasion and masterly obfuscation by the Department of Parliamentary Services. But, as someone who has entered—I almost hate to say this—over 11,000 questions on notice over the life of this parliament alone, I have never seen a question on notice that's 151 days overdue. So what can you do in 151 days? If you're in Victoria, you can have a lockdown and a quarter. You can get more than halfway to Mars. You can walk nearly one-third of the way along the Great Wall of China. And you can easily walk from Melbourne to Cairns. That's what you can do in 151 days—except if you're the Prime Minister's office, which doesn't respond to questions on notice within the time frame that most other departments and agencies, most other portfolio ministers, manage to be able to do.

This is disrespectful to the Australian people, who are paying all our salaries. They are paying the salaries of the people in the departments and agencies, and they are paying the salaries of the people in the Prime Minister's office. We had seen half a trillion dollars in debt well before coronavirus. The Australian people are going to be paying that debt for a long, long time, as will their children and probably their grandchildren as well. We would ask that the Prime Minister and his office respond to questions on notice. They do not get to remove themselves from this process. I would like them to answer those questions on notice.

Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world. We don't deserve a culture where there is a lack of transparency lest we believe the old adage—and I hate to say that this might actually be true—that the people who keep the most secrets have the most to hide. I would like those questions on notice answered. I would also like the FOIs dealt with as well, but one step at a time.

This is a Prime Minister and a government that are not transparent about how they spend public money. This is a Prime Minister and a government that kept secrets about their plan to sack a quarter of this country's posties under the cover of a global health pandemic. But perhaps the biggest, deepest and darkest secret of this government is that which is keeping the member for Chisholm in the other place as a national security threat. Some here might know of the Federal Court documents in which our own domestic security agency, ASIO, made an adverse security assessment of Huifeng, known as 'Haha', Liu—no relation to the member for Chisholm, though they are close because he has donated money. If not for its serious security implications, we would put this story in the 'truly bizarre' pile—an ex-Chinese PLA soldier turned businessman nicknamed 'Haha' who doesn't speak English yet somehow becomes a go-to community representative and party donor for conservatives in this country. It almost reads like a John le Carre spy novel, except, when it comes to 'Haha', the joke is on all of us.

Some members of the government have risked national security by courting donations from this man. In the case of the member for Chisholm, this just confirms more of what we already know. The member for Chisholm hasn't been disendorsed, but that's partly because of factional issues in Victoria. I would say that this is the deepest, darkest secret of this government. What happens when people don't respond, when the government isn't transparent, is you start to get people overriding the standing orders of this place, and that leads to bigger and darker problems for a government. All Australians deserve transparency and accountability from their government.

Beyond unanswered questions on notice, the Senate seeks here today an answer to the following question above all: what exactly is this government trying to hide? Most of those who sit opposite were preselected on a mantra of small government that should not be running interference for those who seek to obfuscate and evade parliamentary scrutiny by refusing to answer questions on notice put to them by the Australian parliament. I would say that everyone opposite did face questions like that when they were preselected, but we've seen that they don't believe in what they tell their preselectors.

I'm going to now go through some of these questions on notice that seem so difficult to answer:

Can details be provided of all incoming guest of government visits, including costs, in 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Now, not a very difficult question:

1. Please list the number of Freedom of Information Act requests ('FOI requests') received by the Department for the following years:

  a. 2019-20 financial year; and

  b. 2020-21 financial year to date.

2. For each year above, please provide:

a. the number of FOI requests the Department granted in full;

b. the number of FOI requests the Department granted in part;

c. the number of FOI requests the Department refused in full; and

d. the number of FOI requests the Department refused for practical reasons under the Freedom of Information Act.

3. For each year above, please also provide:

a. the number of times the Department failed to make any decision on a FOI request within the 30 day statutory period—

They must be very aware when they haven't met the time line requirements, so I wouldn't have thought that was a hard question—

b. the number of times a request to the Department resulted in a practical refusal (ie no decision was made on the request).

4. For each year above, please also provide:

a. the number of times the Department's FOI decisions have been appealed to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC); and

b. the number of times has the OAIC overturned—in whole or in part—the Department's decision to refuse access to material.

These are very simple requests for things that essentially are in a database but can't seem to be found—for, remember, nearly half a year. Here's another one:

Please provide a list of all members of the Deregulation Taskforce Advisory Panel since its establishment, including the periods of their appointments.

One might not have thought that was too difficult. Here's another one:

Are members of the Deregulation Taskforce Advisory Panel entitled to any remuneration; if so, please provide a full breakdown of the remuneration to which each member is entitled.

I wouldn't have thought that was hard either.

With reference to a news article, 'Australia Post licensees and customers flood PM Scott Morrison with $5 notes', I asked:

1. How many $5 notes have been received in total.

2. How many $5 notes has the Prime Minister's Office in Parliament House received.

3. How many $5 notes has the Prime Minister's department received.

4. Have any $5 notes been received at any other locations.

5. Have any other denominations (including coins) been received:

  a. can a breakdown and total value of these be provided.

6. Have any notes or coins in any currency other than Australian dollars (AUD) been received:

  a. can a breakdown be provided …

  b. in AUD, what is the total value (in the exchange rate on the day of the answer being provided).

7. What is being done with the money received; and if nothing, what will be done with the money received?

This was in relation to post office franchisees saying that they would send $5 notes in in order to pay for the purchase of Cartier watches by the former managing director of Australia Post.

This is another question:

In relation to bonuses, short-term incentives, rewards or gifts - monetary or otherwise - awarded to any executive, employee, officer, contractor or any other person, can the quantum of expenditure be provided for each of the following periods for the portfolio (all departments, agencies, government appointed boards, boards and structures) :

a. 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020; and

b. 1 July 2020 to 10 December 2020.

As you can see, Deputy President, these are not particularly difficult questions. A lot of that information will reside in databases or Word documents that people keep on their computers. It's just that, after 151 days, it seems that the Prime Minister's office cannot be bothered to answer these questions. As I have said before, the Prime Minister should be leading by example. It is a wonder that we're not having other ministers and other departments and agencies following the Prime Minister's example and paying no regard at all to the standing orders of the Senate.

I know that there are some ministers in the other place who don't always act respectfully towards the Senate, but one might assume that, when one reaches the highest political office in the land, one might be able to follow some of the rules. It's not like they're short-staffed in there either. I would like the Minister representing the Prime Minister to take this response to his explanation on notice. I still don't really have a response, in fact, as to why it has taken 151 days. It's extraordinary really. But I'll leave it there.

Question agreed to.