“Step Up or Step Aside” — PM Challenged Over Inaction on Reports

‘Too Hard Basket’: Kate Chaney Blasts Government Over 50 Unanswered Reports

Is Parliament doing the work — only for it to be quietly shelved?

That’s the explosive claim from independent Member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, who says the federal government has failed to respond to dozens of parliamentary committee reports within the required timeframe.

Her accusation?
A growing “too hard basket” at the heart of Canberra.

50 Reports. Zero Responses.

Under parliamentary rules, the government is expected to formally respond to committee reports within six months.

According to Chaney, that hasn’t happened — not once — for 50 House and Joint Committee reports.

And that’s not counting around 80 outstanding Senate committee reports.

“These are really important issues,” she argued, listing topics such as terrorism, immigration, energy security, artificial intelligence and education.

The concern isn’t necessarily that the government disagrees with recommendations — ministers are free to reject proposals.

The issue, Chaney says, is that there has been no formal response at all.

“Disrespectful” to the Process?

Parliamentary inquiries often involve months of public submissions, expert testimony and cross-party collaboration. Chaney described them as “the best part of parliament,” where ideology is set aside in favour of practical problem-solving.

But without a response, she argues, that work risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

“It’s disrespectful,” she said — not only to MPs, but to members of the public and experts who contribute.

Under Standing Orders, if the six-month deadline is missed, ministers are required to explain why. Chaney claims that hasn’t occurred either.

Now, members of the crossbench are reportedly considering referring the matter to the Speaker.

Political Risk or Administrative Backlog?

The government has not publicly characterised the delay as avoidance. Critics, however, suggest politically sensitive topics may be contributing to hesitation.

Chaney frames it as a question of courage — arguing that difficult national issues require transparent engagement, even when the answers aren’t easy.

She also pointed to comparisons with New South Wales, where similar response rules exist and are generally adhered to.

What Happens Next?

If the matter is formally referred to the Speaker, it could trigger further procedural scrutiny inside Parliament.

But beyond the mechanics, the broader issue remains:

Are parliamentary committees becoming a parking lot for politically challenging topics?

Or is this simply a case of process lag in an overloaded system?

Either way, with 50 reports awaiting replies, pressure is building — and the crossbench appears ready to escalate.

The “too hard basket” debate may just be getting started.