Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 12:38 to 19:14
Senator Hume questions the Clerk regarding the procedural differences, limitations, and relevance of verbal versus written questions on notice during estimates proceedings.
Topics: Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: Mr Henry Pike, Hon Jane Hume, Unknown Speaker
>> thank you Senator. So, I'm going to start, if I may, with some pretty regular questions that I've been asking you now for some time. Questions, ironically, about questions. Uh, just to make it clear for senators and witnesses and and government about how questions should be treated as part of the estimates proceedings. So in relation to questions on notice, Clark, can you please tell me the difference between a question that might be taken verbally on notice and in a hearing and a question on notice provided to a witness in
>> There's little difference uh Senator in relation to how such questions should be treated. Committees set day dates for questions to be asked and questions to be answered. And the expectation is that questions that are taken on notice during a hearing and questions that are placed on notice in writing after a hearing um should be answered with the same uh elacrity uh to the same uh timelines. Um and uh there's no reason to treat one type of question any differently than another.
>> Terrific. All right. And in terms of the number of questions that may be taken on notice by a witness, they are unlimited in their discretion to take a question on notice. Is that correct? Um well yes
Senator except that senators and the Senate more broadly expects that um witnesses who come to uh give evidence at estimate should be well prepared. So it should be um unnecessary to take questions on notice where um public servants are prepared and aware of the sorts of questions that might be asked. Um, but there are a range of reasons why people might need to take questions on notice. Either because they don't have the information to hand, it goes to a level of detail that isn't immediately available to them, or there might be uh considerations as to whether a public interest immunity claim might need to be made in relation to to some of that information. But uh procedurally there's no limit to the number of questions that can be taken on notice or placed on notice with the caveat that um you know there there is an expectation that uh officials coming before hearings will be well prepared
>> and if a senator has given a department advanced notice that it will be asking questions about a particular topic there would be an expectation that they would not just become well prepared but they wouldn't need to give answers questions questions. They would not need to take questions on notice if that were the
case. >> I think that's broadly right, Senator. There will always be levels of detail that people won't have or aspects that um people aren't u necessarily people aren't going to know what aspects of some questions that senators are going to go to. Um and uh of course it depends on the the period of notice. It can take a little while to um put together a public interest immunity claim and think about all the different consequences. So there will always be those situations.
>> Okay. And are there any limitations on the number of questions that can be placed on notice by a senator?
>> There there are no procedural limitations. Uh, Senator, I think I've said before there's there's an opportunity cost involved though in in asking more and more questions in that um public public service departments and agencies have limited resources themselves and an official who is preparing answers to questions on notice isn't doing something else that they might um has have as part of their duties. I I sometimes worry that um questions going to more profound matters might get that the answers to them might get delayed or lost in um the course of people answering more formulaic questions and and we've seen in the Senate from time to time um senators needing to um move orders for production of documents uh to get answers that they would might have expected at estimates um and a response saying well there are there are so many answers required or so many questions asked of a particular department that it necessarily leads to delays. Um it it would be a shame to clog up a system that is you know meant to be and has for many years been the the kind of jewel in the accountability
crown. That said, obviously the Senate has never placed a restriction on the number of questions that it's considered unreasonable, has it?
>> No.
>> Thank you. >> And if a senator were to reflect on the intent of a question on notice or the use of questions on notice, is that parliamentary behavior or
like the rough and tumble of debate to me. Senator,
>> in terms of relevance of questions that might be asked at Senate Estimates, does uh oddes provide any guidance on what is a relevant question?
>> Uh, the chair in her opening statement referred to the test for relevance and estimates which is any question going to the operations of departments and agencies that are seeking funds in the budget. That's the that's the broad test. people occasionally try to import into the questions into the estimate setting the um rules for questions at question time. It's not a a it's not a relevant standing order. Um the the broad test of relevance is one that was laid down in about uh 1989 I think and has been adhered to ever since.
And uh many questions on notice taken at the estimates table are in response to the provision of a document to assist the committee either a single member or all senators. That's correct, isn't it? That's standard practice.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Yes. Okay. Uh so questions on notes I should say are not limited from asking for similar information.
>> Uh that's right.
>> All right. Thank you. I just want to ask um a question which might may seem out of left field, but can I ask you whether your department has ever considered charging fees for advice on how the Senate works? You do such a good job of