Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (15:36): I have to say to Senator Ludwig, through you, Mr Deputy President: your face should be the colour of your tie, such is your hypocrisy today. Senator Ludwig, you are right. I stand by the words that I said when, time after time after time after time after time, I stood on that side of the chamber and, a week prior to estimates, we still had answers to questions on notice outstanding under your government. You are right. We have set the bar very, very high for ourselves on the government side and at all times we will strive to ensure that we reach those high standards not only that have we set for ourselves but that should be demanded of us by the public. We will at all times strive to meet those standards, unlike those on the other side when they were in government. There are two choices: you either had no bar—so, quite frankly, you could fail as many times as you liked and it did not matter—or, alternatively, you did have a bar but you set the bar so low that, even if you provided one answer out of several thousand, you considered it a win for your side. That is not how we are going to behave on this side of the chamber. I timed Senator Ludwig when he read out the question numbers that my department, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, have outstanding from the May 2014 budget estimates. It took him exactly six seconds to put the question numbers on the record. To put that into context, if I were to ask for an explanation as to why, in the October 2012 Senate estimates hearings, the minister had not provided answers to 331 of the questions I had placed on notice and I listed the question numbers, quite frankly, Senator Ludwig, you and I would be here for the rest of the afternoon! But I am quite sure that the chamber has been detained enough today by the rank hypocrisy that is being shown by those on the other side. In relation to my own portfolio, I place on the record that we took some 616 questions on notice at the May budget estimates hearings earlier this year. Senator Ludwig would be well aware that the questions that my department takes on notice are very complex and, on a number of occasions, will have numerous subparts. To date, two weeks prior to the next round of estimates hearings, I am pleased to advise the Senate that, out of the 616 questions that we took on notice, 598 have been answered. Senator Smith: Well done. Senator CASH: Thank you, Senator Smith. I do say 'well done' to my department because I know from putting questions on notice myself just how complex some of those questions are. As I said, we have set a very, very high bar for ourselves on this side of the chamber, unlike those opposite, who had absolutely no regard at all for the Senate standing orders which Senator Ludwig is here today pretending that he actually has some form of respect for. Because, whilst you can stand here and say that, Senator Ludwig, unfortunately your record during six years in government is of failing to provide answers for estimates after estimates after estimates in relation to, yes, every single portfolio that you, Senator Ludwig—through you, Mr Deputy President—have raised today. Your government consistently, blatantly and flagrantly abused the standing orders of the Senate and did not meet the deadlines that, to quote you, were set by the Senate itself. In terms of percentages, I go back to the October 2012 Senate estimates hearings. If I were on the other side now and raising it, in excess of 50 per cent of the questions that I had put on notice would still not have been answered—in excess of 50 per cent. If I put that into context today, Senator Ludwig, yes, some remain outstanding, but that figure is but three per cent, again because we set ourselves a very high bar on the side chamber and that is what we will strive to achieve. When I used to come into this place to raise questions pursuant to standing order 74(5), as did many on this side and as Senator Ludwig has quite rightly done today, even after the minister at the time had stood up and given me the explanation—which was at the time a very poor explanation—of why answers had not been provided, I was still not actually provided with them prior to estimates. In fact, I used to often dread the Sunday night before the Monday when I commenced my estimates because I could almost be guaranteed that in the dark of night I would receive a dump, from the relevant minister, of answers. I am assuming he hoped that we would not have time to go through them before we actually commenced estimates on the Monday. Alternatively, on the Monday, I would still not have received answers to questions and I would have to, unfortunately, ask the departmental secretary. I am sure it was not his fault, but I would have to ask him why we had commenced estimates and I still was not in receipt of answers to questions I had placed on notice. So, Senator Ludwig, whilst I stand by the comments that I made when I was on that side of the chamber, we have set ourselves an exceptionally high bar on this side of the chamber. I can assure the Senate and I can assure the Australian people that at all times we will strive to achieve that exceptionally high bar that we have set ourselves. Certainly, I have done so in relation to my portfolio, with three per cent of answers being outstanding, or 18 out of 616 questions—which I have raised with the department. Senator Ludwig, I have to say I am a little disappointed that you would come in today and, with such venom and such conviction, act like you on your side of the chamber have ever in any way tried to comply or had any respect at all for the standing orders of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Clerk has quite rightly brought to my attention that standing order 74(5) is the request for an explanation of a minister. It then enables the senator who has asked for the explanation to move a motion to take note of explanation, and that is the part where the debate about the reason should take place. In some respects, it really just changes where this debate can take place. I do not know if Senator Ludwig has more of these to do. But if he does I will ask the minister to make an explanation and then make further contributions if they so wish on the motion that is then before the chamber. But I certainly did not want to interrupt you, Senator Cash, given that this is the way we have carried on the debate so far.