David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the legislation before the House, the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill. AWPA is an independent statutory body at present, which has the main function of providing advice to the Minister for Industry in relation to skills and training issues in particular as they pertain to the VET sector and related issues. This bill abolishes the AWPA and transfers those functions to the Department of Industry itself. It is important to note that there is no suggestion of anything other than professionalism on the part of the staff of AWPA—and no doubt their efforts have been sincere—but this is a very clear example of the difference between the previous government and this government when it comes to the administration of a government policy.

This government says that when we can do something more efficiently, we should do so. We should not create committees unless they are absolutely necessary. We should not create new statutory bodies unless they are absolutely necessary. We should make sure that existing government resources do as much work as possible because that is what they are there for. Therefore, rather than effectively outsourcing this function to an independent statutory authority with all of the governance and associated costs that goes with that—a board, a separate secretariat and all of the administrative issues that are related to an independent authority—we should bring that back within the department where of course there are very substantial resources and expertise in this space.

It is important to note that the previous government, for all of its support or supposed support for AWPA, never formally responded to any report that that statutory body put forward. Again, if it is so important that this independent statutory body exists you would think that we would see clear evidence of the previous government responding to its reports—but that evidence does not exist.

Streamlining government management is a core value of this government, and it is in huge contrast to the previous government because the previous government never saw a committee they did not like. They never saw an acronym they did not like. They never saw a problem that they did not think could be solved if only they created a greater bureaucracy to address it. We on this side of the House know that bureaucracy must be minimised and that taxpayers' money should be spent in a wise and cautious fashion. The creation of new administrative bodies, new committees and new public sector bodies is generally not the right path to go down. We saw their general philosophy embodied under the previous government with a 50 per cent increase in government spending over six years—a huge increase in government spending. That is what happens when you have the philosophy of throwing more money at a problem, creating more government expense and creating more bureaucracy. For those opposite there is no problem that cannot be solved by just creating some more bureaucracy.

That is the wrong approach. Whilst those on the other side kicked off 'spendathon 2007' seven years ago and merrily went on their way over the next six years, we on this side of the House have a very different approach, and that is to be thoughtful, cautious and judicious in the use of taxpayer funds. We did not see that from the other side. Whilst there is obviously a school of thought that says the philosophy on the other side is just to say no and stand in the way—and there is clearly great credibility in that position—there is another philosophy on the other side of the House. That philosophy is very simple: it is to simply spend more money. That is their philosophy. There is no problem, it would seem, according to those opposite, that cannot be solved simply through the spending of more money.

We on this side of the House have a very different view, which is to spend government money in a very, very cautious fashion. We did not see that caution in the period from 2007 to 2013. Instead, we saw some very troubling examples of government mismanagement. We saw credit card spending by public servants increase by 100 per cent in four years. That is a lot. That is a growth rate of 25 per cent per year. That is a real concern. We also saw $600,000 spent on a study on 'an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economics'. Even the member for Fraser, I suspect, would not find that to be particularly interesting or a good use of government money. So there was a lack of respect for taxpayer funds generally and a bureaucracy centric approach.

This was nowhere more evident than in the grotesque misuse of public funds that was the NBN under Labor. It was an appalling example of how not to manage a government program. When they write the textbook on the early part of the 21st century Australian government experience and they show the good examples of government expenditure and the bad ones, the NBN will absolutely be at the top of the list of bad ones. There was $6.5 billion spent for three per cent of the population to get broadband, and there was no relationship between that three per cent of the population and their need for broadband. There was no correlation between the need for broadband and the rollout of the plan. The reason there was no correlation is that nobody ever asked the relevant question. The previous government never actually asked the question, 'Where do we need this broadband the most?' It seems like a very logical question but it was never asked. In fact, it was not properly addressed until earlier this year by the current government. That is a really dreadful example of a lack of respect for taxpayer funds.

We know the other examples—the misuse of funds in the Building the Education Revolution program, the Pink Batts program and so many more. We also saw this lack of respect for taxpayer funds as it pertained to border security. The previous government pursued a policy which was very unfavourable in terms of humanitarian results. It was in no-one's interests, least of all the people who come on boats, given the consequences of that on occasion. There was a horrendous financial blow-out of $11 billion. Again on the point of management and respect for government funds, it is very important to note that, because the flow of boats has stopped completely in the last six months, the government has been able to move to close a significant number of detention centres, saving about $2.5 billion. That is in very clear contrast to the previous government.

The abolition of AWPA is demonstrative of taking a sensible and streamlined approach to government expenditure. It is important to note that one of the important functions in this space is to make the VET sector function efficiently. The member for Moreton, in his wide-ranging remarks before, said that one of the successes of the previous government was clearer and more accessible information about the VET sector. Having spent a little bit of time looking at that sector in some detail, prior to coming to this parliament, I can tell you that it is an extremely complex area, where government involvement is high and there are many sometimes conflicting rules between different systems. There is a huge degree of complexity for operators in that sector. That is why it is so important that VET reform is so high on the government's agenda.

Those opposite would say, I presume, that VET reform cannot be done successfully in the absence of AWPA. We would say that that is certainly not the case. A well-managed and disciplined Department of Industry, in consultation with the states, through COAG, should in fact be able to address the very significant issues in the VET space.

As you no doubt are aware, there are many different standards applying in the VET sector. There are different funding models. Some funding models pertain to individual students and some run across the whole sector in block-funding type arrangements. There is massive exposure to changing government policy, with many providers literally becoming unviable when government policy changes. That is not a good situation. We do not want the VET sector to be as complex as it is. It is certainly heartening to know that the minister recently met with his COAG colleagues and established the Industry and Skills Council, in Brisbane, to really constructively look at the various problems across the sector.

It is certainly not a reflection on any of the individuals involved in AWPA that the government is moving to abolish this body. It is much more a reflection of the fact that we have got to get serious about streamlining government in this country. It is very easy to say that to solve a problem we need another committee, another working party or another council of some kind, and we need all the attendant bureaucracy that comes with it. It is very conceptually appealing to do that, because people think that it sounds like someone is addressing the problem. But as you know the more you build up the bureaucracy, the more you create these institutions, the greater the burden you place on the taxpayer and the greater the complexity that often arises. So a smart, focused Department of Industry addressing these issues, with the minister and his state colleagues, is certainly the way to go. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context