Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 3:00:59 to 3:06:54
Debate regarding delays in providing answers to Questions on Notice and the resulting staleness of data.
Topics: Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: Senator David Shoebridge, Stephanie Foster, Senator Jana Stewart
Uh, thanks very much, Chair. See you, Secretary. Um I think given the time, rather than traversing over some of the questions that we've heard about restructuring, I might just move to a couple of um discrete issues about answers to questions on notice.
Yes, Senator.
Um I just one of the first issues is that um what we find repeatedly is say, for example, when we ask for we put questions on notice in the May sessions. Um we will wait three, four, five, six, seven months, and then we get an answer that comes in. And the answers that come in give us data up until the end of March. Um and I could point to you to like 30 examples of this. So we ask a question in May, we get an answer in September, and the data is backdated to March. Um by the time we get that answer in September, it's pretty much useless because six months have moved on and it's not timely. Now, I'm trying to understand from a department's perspective, Secretary, what why this happens? Perhaps some of it's the delay in matters being with the Minister's office. And if so, if you know that a question hasn't been answered, is there a process where you can update the draft answer that's sitting with the Minister's office so that the answers can actually be timely and helpful?
So, Senator, I'll get the um experts in the area to help me, but my understanding is that we set a date. Um, in order to be able to answer the questions, we say we will do these questions as at particular date. To my knowledge, we've never contemplated a process of revisiting it if they're not um lodged.
Yeah, but the the issue has become kind of chronic because of the delay, and and we'll come to where that delay happens later. It appears a lot of the delays in the minister's office that questions have been provided to the minister's office by the department. And then are you tracking when the minister actually signs off and answers them? Is that does that responsibility lie in the department, or is it solely a matter for the minister once you put a draft across?
So, Senator, um I need the team to answer the tracking question, but I believe we do keep a record of when they're actually lodged. Um I think um for May it doesn't quite go to the question of timing, but we have actually lodged 99 per cent of the 1202 questions we received in May. So when you say lodged, do you mean Lodged with the with the committee?
With the committee. Oh, that may well be the case. But of course now we're in October. And so, you know, um answers that we got, for example, um we were seeking questions, answers about the number of partner visa subclass 300 and 309 um visas provided. Um that answer came in September, well past the deadline for um provisions. And the answer referenced to March data. Whereas we know that as at September when we got the answer, you would have had the end of financial year data. Um what I'm asking is when you know that that delay has happened, when you know that the data is then stale, is there a process in place where you knowing the questions haven't been answered, can actually update the data. So it's actually useful. I mean, this process is meant to be useful. Your obligations here are to provide as much assistance as you can. And this seems like a space where given the delay appears to be in the minister's office and not yours, um, you could update those answers.
Uh Senator, I indicated before I'm not aware that that a process of that nature has been contemplated. Um I understand the perspective you're coming from a departmental perspective, that would be doubling the workload of responding to the questions because we would do it once and then we would do it again.
But the work would be purposeful because the answers you give would actually be useful. And it would be far better to actually spend a little bit more time and make the answer useful than what we're getting currently stale out-of-date data because of the incredible delays.
So I'm I'm acknowledging your point, Senator, but saying at the time that they're prepared, um they are being prepared with relevant data. Were we to update them before lodgement, that would be the department?
Well, at the time I buy milk, it's fine. At the time I buy milk, it's fine, but if I leave it in the fridge for six months, it's undrinkable. This is the same issue, you know. You you've you've bought the milk, you've given it to the minister's office, it's turned into yogurt. And um we'd kind of like a timely answer. Could I ask you to take on notice this as to whether or not there's um systems that can be reviewed to ensure that the answers are purposeful and useful for the Parliament's use and therefore the public.
Extra points if you include jokes about milk.
Um yes, Senator, I was hesitant to take it on notice for fear that um you would feel that that was um.
In this case, I promise I won't take offence. I I won't make it I won't make a yogurt joke. I won't make a um in this case I think it's entirely reasonable to take it on uh notice.
I will take it on notice, Senator.