Download Fragment

Monday, 22 August 2011
Page: 5015

Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (15:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I am not sure if that can really be called an explanation. I appreciate Senator Ludwig was caught on the hop by the fact that Senator Conroy, who was given notice of this matter, was not in the chamber, but his explanation hardly warrants that description. This is a process laid down in the standing orders for senators to be able to find out why questions have not been answered. Those questions were asked nine months ago. I think senators are entitled to answers to those questions well within that nine months, particularly given that the same question, effectively, was asked of a number of other ministers. Thirty days is how long they have to answer these questions. Senator Ludwig, as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was able to answer his same question to that effect on 12 January, only two months after it was asked. Other ministers were able to answer in January, February and March, but this minister seems to have taken nine months in order to do so. I think the Senate is entitled to know why. This is the appropriate time to raise it. It is the appropriate form to raise it in. I suspect any senator who has had to wait nine months for an answer to a question would be very keen to raise the question, as I have done. I think, with respect, that to tell the Senate that you will have an answer 'in due course' is not within the spirit of standing order 74(5), which provides for questions to be explained to the Senate at this point in the day's proceedings if answers have not been provided in a timely way.

Question agreed to.