Senator COOK (Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3:06 PM) —I move:

Could I go to the first part of the explanation, which was really a veiled allegation against me or my office. In September, when time to answer these questions had expired, the minister assured me that the answers would be provided forthwith. I then asked him about the answers later in September. He assured me again that the answers would be provided in a matter of days. The answers are still outstanding. Minister, when my office—before question time—gave notice to you that I would be asking this question, it is bordering on the indecent for you to turn around and infer that we are playing games. These are serious questions, Minister. You are out of time now. It is November now; these questions were due in the early part of September. After you were given proper notice, you are well out of time, and to make that allegation against my office is despicable in the circumstances.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Address the chair, please.

Senator COOK —Thank you, Madam Deputy President, I shall do that.

Senator Kemp —That is a trifle overreacting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Kemp!

Senator COOK —I take that interjection, Madam Deputy President. It is not a trifle.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —All interjections are disorderly, and Senator Kemp's was even more so because he was not in his seat when he interjected.

Senator COOK —I note what the minister, walking through the chamber, said. The only way many Australians have to find out information is through a question being asked in the Senate, and it is the obligation of the executive—in this case, this minister—to answer those questions. There are settled rules about how those answers should be given. One of those rules is that, when the questions are asked in writing—as is the case on this occasion—the answers are to be given within a specified time. If that specified time cannot be complied with, it is entirely appropriate for senators who have asked those questions to rise in their places and ask: when will those questions be answered? I did that on 6, 7 and 18 September respectively, and I was advised on all those occasions that the answers would be provided in a matter of days. It is now November, and we are still waiting for the answers.

I go to the next point. In his comments, the minister said that sometimes these questions can be complex, that sometimes these questions can be voluminous and that he is unhappy that people are taking a long time to answer them. I understand that, as part of the Westminster system, ministers take responsibility for their departments and, if their departments do not act according to the needs of the parliament, the ministers have a decent course of action, which is to apologise to the parliament or—in certain circumstances—to resign their portfolio if they cannot make their departments answer the needs of this parliament. It is not an excuse for a minister, who has the responsibility, to blame his department. This is a classic case of blaming the office staff when the minister makes a mistake—but, in this case, he has blamed officers of his department.

The second part of that answer referred to the complexity of these questions. These questions relate to important matters in the Treasury and economics portfolios, for which the minister is responsible. They are not matters that are arcane; they are mainstream issues. They are not matters that are difficult or complex. They are matters that this department deals with all of the time—I repeat: all of the time. It is just a matter of spinning the dials, consulting the files and composing an answer. So to blame the department for not doing it and to hide behind departmental inefficiency is, in this system of government, to pass on a responsibility that the minister must accept. The minister's refusal to take responsibility for that today is a reflection on him.

Finally, the minister's attitude does leave something to be desired. If in these circumstances there are genuine mistakes, we in the opposition will understand that. Genuine mistakes do occur and people should be given latitude when they occur. But he has not said that there has been a mistake. He has not said that he misled us when, on the three previous occasions on which I asked about these questions, he promised an immediate answer. He has not said that his definition of `immediate' may span two or three months. There is no apparent mistake here, the minister has offered no apology to the parliament and, worst of all, he did not today say when these questions will be answered.

I do not want to unnecessarily delay the affairs of the parliament—there are other important matters to proceed with—but I want to say that the parliament's efficient operation does depend on ministers doing their duty and meeting their responsibilities to this chamber efficiently. If they do not act efficiently and do not meet their responsibilities, it does delay the whole process. This minister is now serially guilty of declining to answer these questions in an appropriate time span and in the terms of this parliament. I would have thought that some reasonable explanation would have been made. It has not been. I would have thought that, if the minister had exercised proper due diligence and taken responsibility for this, he could have said when these answers would be given. He did not do that. I now ask him—although he has left the chamber; one presumes he will follow this debate—

Senator Faulkner —He scurried out.

Senator COOK —`Scurried out' is indeed a proper description. He should read the Hansard and see these words. He ought to now guarantee that, before this parliament rises for its recess at the weekend, the answers to these questions will be provided to the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.