Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 31:52 to 37:46
Senator Paterson questions the Department on the late return of answers to questions on notice, focusing on potential political sensitivities and logistical miscommunications.
Topics: Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: James Paterson, Meghan Quinn, Hon Murray Watt, Unknown Speaker, Raff Ciccone, Interjection
>> Thank you, Admiral. We echo that and welcome to Senate Estimates for the folks up there. Um now, Senator Paterson, kick off with questions.
>> Thank you, Chair. And at the outset, can I associate the opposition with your opening remarks about Corporal Brendan Hannam uh and express our sincere condolences to his family and uh teammates. Um Secretary and CDF, thank you for your opening statements. Um at the outset, I'd just like to table a letter I wrote to you uh earlier this week outlining the areas of questioning that uh I will be pursuing today to give your um give you all an opportunity to be prepared to answer questions uh in response to those. Uh and I want to start with the cuts to the integrated investment program. Uh and in doing so, I note that a large number of questions on notice arrived at 9:40 last night and another large number arrived at 9:07 a.m. this morning. These were very overdue uh and have arrived at a time that makes it very difficult for senators to get across the material in order to ask informed questions today and make the best use of our time on behalf of taxpayers to scrutinize the decisions of the government in this space. Do you know why those questions were returned so late and so close to
>> Sorry, um Senator, just before Miss Quinn answers, of course, we reject your suggestion that there have been cuts to the IIP. I realize that you'll make that political point over the course of the day, but I want to be very clear that the government does not accept that there have been cuts to the IIP and as you well know, there have been significant increases in funding under this government, but Miss Quinn can obviously answer the question.
>> Uh so, Senator, thank you for your letter uh foreshadowing um areas of interest for this committee. uh it does help witnesses to prepare um their answers and they will come uh prepared to be able to answer to the extent fullest extent that they can. Um in terms of the questions on notice um there I wish to apologize to the committee there were some uh logistical issues uh with miscommunication and parts of the organization. Um that was one of the contributing factors. Um the the second is to be able to provide you with as much information as we could. Uh so apologies for the elements that were miscommunication within the department.
>> Okay. Could you explain what those logistical issues were or miscommunications within the department?
>> Um as you know the department drafts um elements of the questions on notice uh consulting across the different areas as required to provide the answers. Uh they then there's then then back and forward with um ministers to ensure that they're aware of the questions that they are comfortable as we are answering on their behalf. Um, there were some issues with that communication back and forward on our behalf.
>> Back and forth between the minister's office. Yes. >> And the department.
>> Yes.
>> When were the draft answers first submitted to the minister's office?
>> Uh, in late June.
>> In late June. We're now in late October. >> That's that's an enormous amount of time that's elapsed. These were due in early September. So, I mean, what what happened? How did how did that
>> So, just given the large volume of questions on notice, there's a lot of uh back and forth between the department and and officers. Uh and um some got lost in the in the process. Uh upon receipt of your letter, we did a a a sweep through everything. Um I agree the questions you raised were very important and we wish to provide the information and unfortunately that there were delays
just a coincidence that they're in the most politically sensitive area in the portfolio? Uh
>> as far as I'm aware, yes.
>> I mean that the minister's demonstrated by the statement he's made on behalf of the minister this morning how anxious the government is to um deal with criticism about cuts and we can have a debate about that if we need to. Um and just so happens that questions about cuts to the IIP are the ones that returned at the last minute. Kind of seems like doesn't seem like a great
I have nothing to add. I'm not aware of any specific issues.
>> Okay. I understand also that the defense minister's office provided uh a statement and information on background to the media this morning uh which related to these issues uh just before uh the committee was due to meet. You familiar with that statement that was provided uh to the media this morning? consulted on uh any material uh to go into that statement to the media.
>> Uh I'm I'm sure elements of the department would have been. We have a very active uh media area that kind of provides briefing back and forth.
>> Was there anyone in the room who has that knowledge? If you do have that knowledge, please come forward.
So, we'll we we're not I don't think there's anyone here right now, but we will follow up.
>> Right. Okay. Um because it appears that answers to questions taken in Senate estimates and taken on notice by the department were effectively provided to the media before they provided to the
>> So, I I have no visibility of that, Senator.
>> Yeah. Um I mean you would understand the obligations the department has to the Senate and through us to Australians and taxpayers that um if a question is asked and taken on notice has to be returned in a timely way and if the information is available to the minister's office to provide it to the media then it should have been available to provide it to the Senate and it doesn't it's not a great look that it was given to the media before it was provided to the Senate.
>> So we understand our obligations to the Senate.
>> Okay. It doesn't seem to me that the obligations have been fulfilled in this instance
>> and I accept that and I've apologized for the late delivery of the questions on notice.