Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I give Senator Ludwig a reason why there are 18 questions outstanding out of 616 asked in the immigration and border protection portfolio? It is because, appropriately, most of the staff of the department are out doing what they should be doing—that is, protecting our borders and maintaining our very generous migration system. Because of Labor's inadequacies—there were literally hundreds of boats arriving on our shores unchallenged every month of the year during the six years of Labor government—we had to direct a lot of attention and resources to stopping the boats and to correcting Labor's mismanagement.

I do not want to delay the Senate too much further on this afternoon for opposition business. Suffice it to point out, though, that in my long experience in this chamber, Labor has been absolutely atrocious in this area and not just in the last six years of Labor governments. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments were equally arrogant in ignoring the Senate in answering questions. In relation to Senator Cash's portfolio, I point out that 616 questions were taken on notice. I chair that committee, so I am conscious of the questions that were taken on notice. Many of them were very complicated, difficult and sensitive questions. The fact is that 598 of the 616 questions have already been answered. From the past experience we have had of this government and these ministers, I am very confident that the final 18 out of the 616 questions will be answered by the time the next estimates comes around. This is in contrast to the situation under Labor. As Senator Cash has mentioned, on the Sunday night before estimates started Labor dumped 500 or 600 answers to questions, knowing full well that no human being could properly read, assess and analyse those answers in the limited time available before Senate estimates started at 9 o'clock the following morning.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate both Senator Cash and Senator Brandis. I did not speak on the motion when Senator Ludwig raised the Attorney-General's portfolio, but that was also in the committee that I chair. I congratulate both Senator Cash and Senator Brandis on the way they answer questions at the table but also, more importantly for the purposes of this debate, the way that they ensure their departments provide the appropriate written answers prior to the time set by the Senate or, at the very latest, the occurrence of the next estimates committee hearing.

I do not like to raise this, because it really bring shame to every senator, but a lot of the questions on notice in this Senate inquiry were asked by Senator Conroy after he came in and made that absolutely disgraceful attack on a senior serving officer of the Australian Defence Force. As I say, I hesitate to raise it because, although it was Senator Conroy from the Labor Party who made the attack, the attack on a distinguished, decorated, serving officer doing his duty as he is required to do was a disgrace. It brought contempt not only, appropriately, on Senator Conroy but on the Senate as a whole. As a result of Senator Conroy's rebuff at the time, senators might recall that I shut down the committee hearing until Senator Conroy apologised to the officer. For some time he petulantly refused to apologise, but eventually he realised that he was holding up the whole Senate estimates process, and so he came back reluctantly—not very genuinely, I might say—and made the appropriate apology.