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

I always seek to comply with the chair. I am trying to be helpful, because I am not sure if the member for Oxley is intending to speak on the bill. I will move, with great swiftness now, to a conclusion and outline just a couple of additional aspects of the bill.

Schedule 3 of the bill corrects two misdescribed provisions in the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act 2010. The two provisions sought to update section 27A of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act, by replacing references to 'at common law and in equity' and 'at common law or in equity' with 'under the general law'.

Schedule 4 relates to special account appropriations under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Effectively this is a very minor change but one that is profoundly important. As it currently rests, determinations for appropriations are done by way of a disallowable instrument which takes effect five sitting days after the determination was effectively moved through the parliament. Such appropriations are often used by new government agencies once they are established. For practical purposes this act will now, under schedule 4, move to allow the minister to prescribe a date in the instrument on which the appropriation takes effects. It is a small change but an important change, because it enables the appropriations for new government agencies to effectively not take place five sitting days after it has gone in but rather on a prescribed day, which is a key thing.

In addition there is an area that raises specific concerns for me—that is, with respect to the schedule 4 initiative to offset debt. Effectively it is a provision to give the finance minister the discretionary power to offset debts owed to the Commonwealth by an individual or entity against payments owed to the same individual or entity. As it stands currently, the Commonwealth must pay in full regardless of debts owing. This new provision will ensure that there is a mechanism for the Commonwealth to recover debts in a cost-neutral way and in a more efficient manner than is allowed under provisions.

I want to put very clearly on the record my very profound concerns about this. I think that this is not a good provision. The reason is this: I know of numerous examples where the Commonwealth asserts—I emphasise 'asserts'—that there is a debt owing to the Commonwealth. Under this provision, opportunity will arise for the Commonwealth to not make a payment or a net payment to an individual, company or a recipient of the Commonwealth, an amount that the Commonwealth merely asserts it is owed. My concern is that this could have a very significant impact upon those who have dealings with the Commonwealth, on the basis of a mere assertion. The fact is that there are numerous instances where the Commonwealth's word is not sacrosanct—where the Commonwealth's word is not holier than thou, is not like Scripture from the Bible that goes without challenge.

There are numerous instances where the Commonwealth can assert that a debt is owed to it and be wrong. There are numerous instances where the Commonwealth can assert that a certain quantum of money is owed when in reality it is owed a different quantum of money. My concern is that, where there is already a pervasive culture that I am constantly hearing about from members of my community—that government departments engage in a form of bullying when it comes to payments—this provision will entrench that attitude. I suspect it will be an approach that says: 'It's my way or the highway. We allege that you owe us $500. We owe you $600, so you're only getting $100,' to use a basic example. I think there is very good reason for those two processes to be entirely separate. There is very good reason for the Commonwealth to pay the $600 and invoice the $500, to continue the example.

I believe it is not good enough, in what often is the case—and I particularly emphasise this to the member of the executive at the table—to simply say that the Commonwealth has the right to net out the difference between an assertion of an amount owed to the Commonwealth and an amount that the Commonwealth does in fact owe to an external party. For that reason, I say that I as an individual member of this House significantly disagree with the provisions of this act that go to that particular matter. It is simply, I believe, going to be abused by Commonwealth government bureaucrats to reinforce an assertion they make where a debt is owed, and I do not believe it is appropriate that that should be contained in the legislation.

The final schedule is schedule 5 of the act, which proposes to repeal two redundant special appropriations to clean up the statute book; they are the Appropriation (Development Bank) Act 1975 and the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Act 2009. With that, I conclude my remarks.

See this speech in context