Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Just by way of summing up this debate, I will do my best to ensure that everyone present knows exactly what is being proposed here by virtue of Senator Conroy's amendments. We have before us the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. This bill, as its title suggests, was introduced last spring and deals with a range of rather modest matters but matters nevertheless which have the cumulative effect of reducing compliance costs for a range of businesses by $1.4 million. It has nothing to do with submarines and nothing to do with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. It has no connection whatsoever with either of those two issues or that piece of legislation at all.

Senator Conroy has used this vehicle, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, to propose amendments to the omnibus bill which would insert an entirely new provision into the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act—the PGPA Act. The PGPA Act is, as its name suggests, an act which deals with the proper and consistent procedures for a range of public governance, performance and accountability issues—and, of course, amongst those, it deals with proper consistent procedures for the acquisition of military equipment through procurement. The PGPA Act does not have specific provisions for specific equipment. Nor does it have specific provisions that apply even to specific procurement processes that apply in individual departments. That is because the principle behind the PGPA, set out in section 5 of that act, is that the act's purpose is to 'establish a coherent system of governance and accountability across all Commonwealth entities'. So not merely does it not deal with any specific processes for specific Commonwealth entities, portfolio areas or departments, but it certainly does not in any way contemplate that you would have specific legislated processes in this act for a single particular piece of procurement of a single particular piece of military equipment, no matter how important you might think that that is.

When you actually have a look at the history of this act, it is instructive. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act had absolute bipartisan support at the time it came into being. Both sides of this House thought it was incredibly important in matters of public governance, performance, accountability extending to procurement processes, that there be coherence and consistency and that the principles be known in advance of any major process of procurement. That concept was absolutely bipartisan at the time the PGPA Act was passed. By necessary inference, that bipartisanship also meant quite clearly that there was agreement in this place on both sides of the chamber as to what would be terribly unwise in an act of this nature. What that agreement must be inferred to be is that it would be terribly unwise to insert into act an like this, which is meant to promote absolute openness, transparency, consistency and coherence across all levels of Commonwealth government, a particular process for a particular single piece of equipment. To do that, just as a matter of good process, is absurd.

In rejecting this, as I say, we are saving Labor from themselves. They seek to make a political point. But just take a quiet moment to think about this: if these amendments were actually passed, it would fundamentally shatter the most important piece of public governance for processes of this type, just to make a rather absurd political point—and that is highly unwise. The PGPA Act clearly establishes that there is a proper process. The process which we have nominated is consistent with the PGPA Act, specifically the Commonwealth Procurement Rules issued under section 101 and the Defence Procurement Policy Manual.

But what is even worse and more substantive in this debate is that we heard the wonderful announcement that Labor today announced their policy with respect to the submarines. What a shame they did not bother to do that during six years in government. It is little bit late in the piece. They govern amazingly boldly from opposition but with the timidity of a lamb when they are actually in government. We are advised that the process that you are suggesting would add five years delay to your already existing six years delay.

See this speech in context