Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:28): The procedure which Senator Carr has adopted this afternoon is the procedure provided for by standing order 74(5). It is a procedure that I have noticed that the opposition have availed themselves of with increasing frequency in the course of this year and last year. It has been used in effect to create another occasion for what amounts to a 'taking note' debate. The parliamentary tactic, as it were, seems to be that the opposition will identify a question—it could be on any topic under the sun—for which there has been default of compliance by the relevant minister in meeting the relevant time for answer. An explanation is sought and then a debate, often a very long debate, is embarked upon in the Senate, which canvasses broadly that issue, and often beyond that issue, the minister's performance and so on. One must ask, Mr Deputy President, whether that is an entirely appropriate use of standing order 74(5) procedure. I want to make some comments on what I would respectfully submit ought to be allowed and not allowed by this procedure. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, it sounds to me like you are raising a point of order. Senator BRANDIS: No, I am not. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the chair is to take note of the minister's failure to provide answers to the explanation— Senator BRANDIS: under standing order 74(5). The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not sure that the comments you are making right now are in fact relevant to that question. Senator BRANDIS: They are, as I will make apparent to you. This is what Senator Sinodinos can have been asked to do under paragraph (5) of standing order 74: (5) If a minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, or if a question taken on notice during a hearing of a legislative and general purpose standing committee considering estimates remains unanswered after the day set for answering the question, and a minister does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided: (a) at the conclusion of question time on any day after that period, the senator may ask the relevant minister for such an explanation; and (b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation; or (c) in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister‘s failure to provide either an answer or an explanation. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: Senator Carr this afternoon has not availed himself of the procedure provided for by subparagraph (5)(c)—that is, a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation—but rather that the Senate take note of the explanation, which is not subparagraph (5)(c), Senator Carr, as you have just interjected, but paragraph (5)(b). So you have taken the procedure under standing order 74 subparagraph (5)(b). And that asks us to consider the sufficiency of the minister's response or explanation of the failure to provide an answer. Senator Sinodinos has done so, Senator Carr. Senator Sinodinos, who is the minister with responsibility for this area involving the CSIRO, acknowledged in the explanation that he provided to you that there are some questions that are overdue. The first point to be made is that it is not at all uncommon. It is the most common thing in the world for answers to questions taken on notice to be overdue. I am not saying that that is not a failure to comply with the requirements of the standing order—it is—but it is also a very commonplace thing. Although I do not have the statistics to hand, I can assure you, Senator Carr, because I did look at these statistics some time ago, that this government's record in complying with time lines for questions taken on notice—questions placed on notice with the Clerk and, more importantly, estimates questions—is much, much better than the record of the previous Labor government. And if I may say so, Senator Carr, it is much better than your personal record when you enjoyed ministerial office. Senator Kim Carr: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: the minister has grossly misrepresented me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Senator Kim Carr: The committee secretariat has just rung to say that the department is chasing up the CSIRO to get these answers this afternoon. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Carr, that is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. Senator BRANDIS: Thank you, Senator Carr, I am very pleased to hear that— Senator Kim Carr: So stop wasting time! Senator BRANDIS: I will take that interjection. Having a debate about compliance by the government with the requirements of a standing order of the Senate is hardly, on one view, 'wasting time'. Nevertheless, it is a question of whether the procedure provided for by standing order 74 or debate of the kind that you have brought on this afternoon—it was you who brought this debate on, Senator Carr, and not any government senator—is really the most appropriate use of the Senate's time in pursuing these lines of inquiry. A fortiori, Senator Carr, as you have just advised the Senate, you are anticipating receiving the answers this afternoon. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: Sorry, Senator Carr, have I misrepresented what you said? Senator Kim Carr: Yes, you did. You do it all the time. Senator BRANDIS: Then let me withdraw and rephrase. What I understood you to say, Senator, is that you have been advised that the department was chasing the answers this afternoon— Senator Kim Carr: As a result of these proceedings. Senator BRANDIS: Well, you did not say that. Are you saying that now, Senator Carr? It seems to me, with respect, that what is happening is that you are accusing Senator Sinodinos—who is a very conscientious minister and, because of his long service at the highest levels of the bureaucracy in the Prime Minister's office, has more knowledge of the machinery of government than any senator on either side of this chamber—of being somehow delinquent in his obligations to the Senate. I rise to the defence of my friend Arthur Sinodinos in saying that that is not so. Senator Kim Carr: You should listen before you put your foot in it again! Senator BRANDIS: Senator Carr, you are being offensive. As you know, I do not stoop to that. If that is the way you choose to conduct your parliamentary behaviour, that is entirely a matter for you. Nevertheless, I understood you to be saying that the department is chasing the CSIRO this afternoon, and the inference I drew from your interjection was that you expected to get these answers imminently. If you expect to get these answers imminently, Senator Carr, I wonder why it is that the Senate is being delayed by this procedure when perhaps a polite letter to Senator Sinodinos might have sufficed. I wonder aloud that perhaps you could respond at some stage, in some manner, as to whether a polite letter or even a telephone call might have been the appropriate course to take. Nevertheless, let us come to the subject matter of the question. The subject matter of the question, Senator Carr, is in relation to certain administrative and, in particular, budgetary decisions that were made within the CSIRO. You criticised the government for having made those budgetary decisions. And they bear, in particular, as I understand it, on decisions made internally, within the CSIRO, not by the minister. Senator Sinodinos, of course, represents the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science in this chamber. The minister, as we know, is the distinguished member for Sturt, the Hon. Christopher Pyne. So if there is a delinquency here—and I am not suggesting that there is; you are the one making that suggestion—it is not the delinquency of Senators Sinodinos. He is merely answering to the Senate and providing the Senate with information on behalf of a House of Representatives minister. Secondly, Senator Carr, in both the debate you have initiated this afternoon and in questions which not merely today but in previous weeks you have directed to Senator Sinodinos, you seem to be implying that the decision in relation to resource allocation within the CSIRO is somehow a ministerial decision. Senator Carr, as a former minister yourself— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, it would be more appropriate if you addressed your remarks to the chair. Senator BRANDIS: I am sorry, Mr Deputy President; you correct me quite rightly. Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, as a former minister in the portfolio yourself, you should know that decisions of the kind which are being inquired into by these questions are administrative decisions; they are not ministerial decisions. Of course, ultimately, under the principles of responsible government and section 64 of the Constitution, the minister must take ultimate responsibility for them. Nevertheless, the decisions are administrative and managerial decisions—not Mr Pyne's decisions and, certainly, not the decisions of Senator Sinodinos, who represents Mr Pyne in this chamber. So what are the decisions about to which the questions were directed? Through you, Mr Deputy President: Senator Carr, you will appreciate that this is not an area in which I have ever been either the minister or the shadow minister. As I understand it, the decisions were in relation to the climate science area of the CSIRO. I have followed this debate, Senator Carr. I have followed it, in particular, through what I have always found to be the very illuminating contributions of my friend Senator Ian Macdonald, who makes the point, time and again, that there is an inconsistency in the Labor Party's position on this matter. On the one hand, times beyond number and for years on end, we have heard you and Senator Penny Wong and others say that, in relation to climate science, 'the science is settled'. That has been your constant refrain; it has been your mantra; it has been in pectore your most cherished belief that the science is settled. Yet you come into this chamber and condemn the government for making a decision which apparently acknowledges a fact that you have for so long asserted as an article of faith—that the science is settled. Senator Siewert interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: Senator Siewert, I will take that interjection. I am not embarking on this debate myself; I am simply challenging the illogic of the proposition being advanced by the Labor Party. On the one hand they say the science is settled but on the other hand they say it is a disgraceful thing that we should make adjustments to our premier public sector scientific research agency that would reflect the 'fact' that 'the science is settled'. For heaven's sake, Senator Carr—through you Mr Deputy President—if the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science? Wouldn't it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers' money, and research capacity within CSIRO, for CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science is not settled? Wouldn't it, Senator Carr? Senator Carr, you are the one who says the science settled. I do not. I am aware that there are a number of views about the two questions of the nature and the causes of climate change. It does not seem to me that the science is settled at all. I am not a scientist—I am agnostic, really, on that question—but I can follow a logical argument. It seems to me that if you are the party, the senator and the advocate who says the science is settled, it hardly lies in your mouth to criticise the government, the CSIRO or those who manage and administer its resources for allocating their resources to reflect a fact that you yourself assert. That is the falseness of your position, Senator Carr. You put all these questions on notice to Senator Sinodinos, representing Minister Pyne. You come into the chamber today and hold us up with a debate about why it should be that these questions are 19 days late, when you have acknowledged yourself, through your interjection, that the answers to the questions are imminently to be provided. Senator Carr, if you are concerned about the misallocation of resources, as you allege, within the CSIRO, if that is a matter of such beseeching concern to you, why is it that you are putting the CSIRO, and those who administer it, to all the cost and trouble of seeking out answers to questions that you could just as easily have put in estimates, that you could just as easily have asked in the chamber and, frankly, that you could just as easily have inquired of the officers yourself? But, no, rather than do that, you invoke this elaborate parliamentary procedure, forcing the CSIRO—which has much better things to do than dance at your whim, Senator Carr—to spend so much time and waste so much money pursuing answers to pointless questions. And yet, somehow, this is the socialist dream of appropriate resource allocation. And if anyone was going to dream the socialist dream, Senator Carr, I guess it would be you. There is not much more, I feel, I can contribute to this discussion than to point out that this entire exercise has been unnecessary. It has been entirely unnecessary. The information you are seeking is information in relation to a decision that you criticise in a manner which is completely at variance from the policy position you take. The people you criticised for making the decision, Mr Pyne and Senator Sinodinos, were not the decision makers. The delinquency of which you complain—namely, the lateness in the provision of the answers to the question—is an alleged delinquency which, by your own admission in interjection, is imminently to be corrected because you tell us that the CSIRO are about to provide the answers to the department. The procedure you have invoked this afternoon, the procedure under standing order 74(5)(b), is utterly unnecessary for you to achieve any appropriate line of parliamentary inquiry or any legitimate forensic end. So why do you tax us so, Senator Carr? Why do you delay us so? What I can tell you, Senator Carr—and let me close on this, because I see that my time is fast running out to make this contribution to the debate—is that you will get your answers to the questions, as Senator Sinodinos has assured you. And, when you get the answers to the questions, I am sure you will find that those at the CSIRO who have provided those answers will have done so in a thorough, honest and conscientious way. All the time that they have diverted from their scientific research—the important research work they should be undertaking—to answer your unnecessary and meddlesome questions is time that could be much— Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: You laugh, Senator Carr. You are the one who brought on this unnecessary debate. You are the one who brought this entirely unnecessary debate before the chamber. I am simply pointing out to you that it was an unnecessary and inappropriate use of the procedure. Mr President, you chair the Senate procedure committee. Perhaps, one thing the Senate procedure committee could do in the future is have a look at the appropriate scope of subparagraph (5) of standing order 74. This is an open-ended debate. This could go all day this debate you have inflicted upon us, Senator Carr, in order to achieve an end that could have been achieved by a telephone call. Yet you invoke this very recondite procedure in order to find out answers that you probably already know the answer to. You waste people's time with meddlesome and unnecessary questions and you announce to the Senate, having initiated this unnecessary debate, that the answers are imminent in any event. Senator Carr, why have you inflicted this on the Senate on the last sitting day of the week? Possibly the second last sitting week of this parliament is being detained by you, Senator Carr, by invoking this procedure entirely unnecessarily. Senator Carr—and I see my friend Senator Claire Moore sitting there; as whip, she is no doubt part of the tactics committee of the Labor Party—I wonder whether you might think again about whether there is a more efficient use of the Senate's time than to invoke this procedure in pursuing answers.