Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 70th annual report of the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—In accordance with section 16 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the committee’s 70th annual report. This report gives an overview of the work undertaken by the committee during the 2006 calendar year. In addition to its 69th annual report, the committee tabled 19 reports on public works, with a total estimated value exceeding $969 million. Throughout the year, the committee conducted 36 meetings, 17 of which were public hearings.

Issues of note arising from the committee’s deliberations in 2006 included: changes to the Public Works Committee Act, the introduction of a revised Manual of procedures for departments and agencies, the committee’s high workload, the timeliness with which public works are referred to the committee and the quality of evidence supplied by referring departments and agencies.

One of the most significant issues for the committee this year was the changes to the Public Works Committee Act. The committee welcomed an increase to the threshold value for works which must be referred, from $6 million to $15 million. The new threshold is more realistic, reflecting increasing costs associated with major projects that have occurred since the figure of $6 million was determined as the threshold in 1985.

Public-private partnerships remain an area of concern for the committee, with the absence of a legislative framework for the referral and scrutiny of works delivered through the public-private partnership process. The change in the act expanding the definition of a ‘public work’ to include works funded through a PPP or similar arrangement will hopefully go some way to addressing the issue. The committee considered its second PPP work with Project Single Living Environment and Accommodation Precinct—otherwise known as LEAP—phase 1, and can foresee an increase in the referral of PPP projects in the future. Subsequent to the changes to the act, the committee revised its Manual of procedures for departments and agencies.

The year 2006 was another busy year for the committee, which tabled 19 reports, or roughly one report every parliamentary sitting week. The changes to the act occurred late in 2006 and did not have a great effect on the committee’s workload. Whilst the committee welcomes the change to the threshold, it does not anticipate a significant drop in the number of future referrals. For example, of the 19 works considered by the committee in 2006, only three would fall under the $15 million threshold.

At times throughout 2006, the committee was the recipient of criticism, with suggestions that the committee was delaying the consideration of projects. I have to say, in defence of my committee—which I consider to be a very efficient, hardworking committee—that this was not so. Indeed, at times when such criticism was made of the committee, the work had not even been referred to this parliament. And the committee really feels it should remind agencies that section 17 of the act specifically states that:

The Committee shall, as expeditiously as is practicable:

(a)

consider each public work that is referred to it in accordance with this Act; and

(b)

make a report to both Houses of the Parliament ...

The committee cannot commit to a public hearing date until a work has been referred to this parliament. It is, therefore, the responsibility of referring agencies to ensure that they have allowed sufficient time in their project schedules for the full and proper execution of the committee inquiry process.

In last year’s annual report, the committee commented that there was ‘a high degree of variance in the quality of evidence submitted’ to the committee. During 2006, the committee noted some improvement in the overall quality of evidence presented and, on many occasions, congratulated the referring agencies on the high level of evidence provided to the committee. However, in several inquiries the absence of transparency in both oral and written evidence was of concern. The committee again reminds agencies that clear and concise evidence eliminates any unnecessary clarification and questioning subject to the hearings, which then goes on to minimise the time required for the completion of the committee’s report and its presentation to this parliament.

To be able to manage such an intense workload, the committee relies very heavily on the secretariat to the Public Works Committee and I wish to express, on behalf of all members of the committee, our gratitude for their continued hard work and support throughout 2006. I would also like to thank my committee members, who have put in a fantastic effort to be able to manage that workload; the Hansard and Broadcasting staff who assist us in our hearings, often away from this place; and those officers in the Department of Finance and Administration who play an integral role in facilitating references and expediency motions. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who assisted the committee to ensure that the necessary changes to the act did go through, and now helps to more properly facilitate the work of the committee. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context