Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 8 to 22), omit "contractor" (wherever occurring), substitute "non-Commonwealth government agency".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 8), omit "a person", substitute "an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or a body which is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency".

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 20 and 21), omit "If the contractor is an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency,".

I would like to begin my remarks by saying I do not believe that the debate on this bill belongs in this chamber. It is far from being non-controversial. The very essence of my amendments, which I flagged when I spoke on the second reading, is to take out all reference to having private entities audited by the Auditor-General, to increasing his scope of audit in that way. I did say there were other things in the bill that I thought could be supported, but I made the point that extending the Auditor-General's scope of audit to the private sector is totally outside any concept of the role that I believe the Auditor-General should play.

Secondly, I would like to make the point that about 10 minutes ago I had dropped on me this great sheaf of pages, which is the amendment to be moved by the government, which completely removes schedule 1 of the member for Lyne's bill. And I received the explanatory memorandum literally as I walked into the chamber. I have not even had time to read this amendment, let alone the explanatory memorandum, which I have just received. I think this is a shocking way to run the business of what is a serious issue.

I would like to reiterate the remarks that I made while speaking on the second reading about the Auditor-General playing a hugely important role in our system—the role of keeping government honest. It is the role that is designated to him and, as a longstanding member of the joint public accounts committee, I long supported the role of the Auditor-General and his powers to audit government agencies and departments.

I have always thought it was important to change the old interpretation of the existing legislation that, where a Commonwealth company has a majority of government appointed directors, the Auditor-General, as of right, cannot audit that body. I have always thought that that should be changed, and that was a recommendation of the public accounts committee. But I think it is wrong in principle to extend that to a right to audit a private sector company simply because that company has done business with the Commonwealth. It is an extension of the Auditor-General's powers which brings the whole concept of public sector auditing, which is different from private sector auditing, into an area where I do not think the Auditor-General has the expertise, and nor should it. I know that the Auditor-General very often does subcontract with private sector auditors, even in doing government auditing work, but that is a different proposition from the Auditor-General having a primary function for auditing a private sector company or indeed a non-corporate entity. I think the difficulties which small companies already face in doing business with the Commonwealth will only be added to by having this bill passed in this form.

As for the amendment which the government will be moving, as I have said, I presume that the government has been in long and private consultations and discussions with the member for Lyne. That is the way the government works. It is not the way the new paradigm was supposed to work. If there were going to be these changes to the private member's bill, I think it would have been, as a matter of courtesy, an issue that the government should have also raised with members of the opposition. If the member for Lyne has simply done another secret deal with the government to say, 'As long as my bill can live, I'll agree to whatever amendments you've got,' that again is a breach of the so-called new paradigm that was supposed to be entered into in this parliament. Once again we see it honoured in the breach rather than being something that improves debate. To have this sort of thing dumped on people at the last minute like this is simply unacceptable, particularly when we are dealing with the very important issue of the Auditor-General. I think it is contemptuous to treat the Auditor-General in this way. The Auditor-General may well have been consulted on this new schedule that is to appear in the private member's bill, but I think that courtesy should have been extended to the opposition too.

I will be pleased when this legislation returns to the main House of Representatives chamber, where it properly should be debated because it is such a contentious issue. With those remarks, I commend the amendments I have moved to get rid of the power of the Auditor-General to audit private sector firms.

See this speech in context