Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:30): I am very pleased to support my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie on this very important issue. Those listening and watching proceedings today would have seen Senator Wong and would have thought Senator Wong's sentiments in response were all light and reason—nothing to see here; we are very cooperative, with briefings offered to everyone in this chamber; we are very transparent and open. The issue is the gap between Senator Wong's rhetoric and what is actually happening in substance. The gap between the rhetoric and the substance is the issue. I want to go back to the questions on notice that Senator Cash was referring to and the responses which we are receiving from the government for some of those questions on notice. I'm going to give an example of question on notice No. 1856, which was asked by my colleague Senator Hume. Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, was quoted in the Canberra Times as saying: Putting a productivity efficiency component into any funding I think is a responsible part of government and making sure we keep the budget on a sustainable footing. I think that is quite a reasonable proposition. I don't find much to disagree with, to be frank. So Senator Hume asked a series of relevant questions in relation to that, very courteously. The questions were: What is the current efficiency dividend rate for your department? That is a fair question. The minister said we should have an efficiency rate. What is the efficiency rate? Are any agencies or any other entities within the portfolio exempt from that efficiency dividend? That is a fair question. Is the efficiency dividend referenced in the portfolio budget statement? Are there any agencies or entities that have an efficiency dividend that is higher or lower than the rate applied to the department? These were very courteous, obvious questions flowing naturally from a quote attributed to Senator Gallagher. Now, the way you would expect if the system were working, if the government was reflecting the principles enunciated by Senator Wong in her statement at the outset of this debate, is a logical, considered response to the questions. What did we get? What did we get from the Minister for the NDIS, the Honourable Bill Shorten? This is what we got. The Albanese Labor government— Senator Gallagher interjecting— Senator SCARR: It is worthwhile reading it again, Senator Gallagher. I know you don't want to hear it but it is worthwhile raising it again. 'The Albanese Labor government inherited a budget disaster from the previous Liberal government'—blah, blah, blah—'featuring a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt'. Even the ABC fact-checked that and found that was wrong. There is a difference between— Senator Gallagher interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Order! Senator Scarr, please take your seat. I think the President has made it very clear that the chamber should be proceeding in an orderly way. I don't think anyone can consider what was going on just then to be orderly. I call you once again, Senator Scarr, mindful of the standing orders, to continue your contribution. Senator SCARR: Even the ABC Fact Check found that statement was wrong. But the thing about this response is that none of it related to the actual question that was asked about where the efficiency dividend is applied across government. All it was was a political diatribe. It was absolutely sneering and contemptuous in relation to legitimate bona fide questions put on the Notice Paper by the opposition. It is absolutely appalling. The issue is when we look at the fact that there are over 1,000 unanswered questions. Budget estimates is there, and it's an extraordinarily important process for the Australian parliament. It gives an opportunity for senators from all parties to ask questions in relation to any government action that involves the expenditure of taxpayer funds. It's an extraordinarily important process and a key way in which the opposition and the crossbench can keep the government accountable. Yet we are in a situation with over 1,000 unanswered questions. As Senator McKenzie said, when we get the answers, quite often they're terribly late or they're non-responsive or we've got to put in a FOI Act request. We get the question on notice, then we put in a Freedom of Information Act request, we get documents and we play 'spot the difference' between the answer that's given and what we find in the documents provided in response to the Freedom of Information Act application. The system shouldn't work that way. The system should be one of integrity, transparency and accountability. As Senator Cash so eloquently pointed out, Prime Minister Albanese said something in opposition and now they're doing exactly the opposite in government.