Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise too to speak to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). It is, as the member for Parramatta remarked, not the most existing piece of legislation that has ever gone through the chambers. Notwithstanding that, it is an important one. Like so many things in life, the important stuff is perhaps not as exciting. That notwithstanding, this bill seeks to amend four acts and repeal two acts across three portfolios. It is part of an ongoing move that is being undertaken by government, as I understand it, with respect to tidying up and updating the Commonwealth's financial framework. This is in fact the ninth financial framework legislation amendment bill since 2004. The bill operates to effectively through the various schedules of the bill clarify a number of matters. I will just walk through them, because there are some aspects that I would like to focus on and others that are purely technical that I would move to quite quickly.

Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to amend the Auditor-General Act of 1977 and effectively operates such that the Auditor-General may accept an appointment under the Corporations Act 2001 as the auditor of any company that the Commonwealth controls. As I understand it, the operation of schedule 1 moves to ensure that the definitions of the act with the definitions of Commonwealth control, which were made in 2008 through the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 2007, will be aligned. I know the shadow minister has taken the view that there is a case for placing stronger obligations on government departments and agencies, indeed including the minister's own department, to more strictly adhere to Commonwealth procurement guidelines. There have been concerns that have been raised by the shadow minister and by others about procurement guidelines not being appropriately followed or not followed as closely as should be when it comes to achieving best value outcomes. This is an important aspect for taxpayers. There should be procurement obligations and concern for value for money when it comes to dealing with the taxpayer dollar.

Schedule 2 amends the CAC Act itself to ensure that directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly owned government companies and enterprises prepare budget estimates as directed by the finance minister rather than by their responsible portfolio minister. This is effectively just a formalisation of actual longstanding practice. In this respect, it is a tightening or a clarifying measure. The most significant component of schedule 2 is the obligation on directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly owned companies to notify their responsible minister of decisions about significant events immediately after taking those decisions. Significant events have been defined to include forming a company or participating in the formation of a company, acquiring or disposing of a significant shareholding in a company, acquiring or disposing of a significant business or commencing or ceasing a significant business activity. There are measures that make directors of government linked entities more accountable for their decisions. I think this is perhaps the single most important aspect of this particular piece of legislation.

The reality is that we have seen too many examples of very poor quality spending when it comes to the current government. We have seen, both under Prime Minister Rudd and under Prime Minister Gillard, example after example of very poor quality spending decisions where the government has engaged, through its agencies, in spending that frankly has not delivered value for money for taxpayers. There are many examples I could talk about with respect to the so-called Building the Education Revolution. How many covered outdoor learning areas did we see that were purchased at taxpayer expense for two or three times the estimated cost of acquiring that particular COLA, as they are called.

The reality is that this government has become synonymous with a government that wastes money. This government does in fact waste money. This is a government that has undertaken a number of spending initiatives that have led to very poor outcomes. It is a great shame that we have not seen more emphasis placed on achieving value for money. If this particular piece of legislation can help to reinforce a culture that says there should be value for money then I think it is a good move. It is somewhat meaningless though if the finance minister is powerless to stop poor-quality spending outcomes on what they could in advance suspect are based on bad decisions.

Take, for example, what is Australia's single largest spend with respect to a new government agency—that is, the creation of NBN Co. NBN Co. represents the nationalisation of telecommunications in this country. NBN Co. represents, at the cost of some $40 billion of taxpayer funds, the rollout of almost a Soviet era approach to national infrastructure. You can see how proud they would be to stand up in their caucus and, in the great Soviet tradition, say, 'Look at this magnificent new project that we are building across Australia.'

See this speech in context