House debates
Wednesday, 16 August 2017
Bills
Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017; Second Reading
4:31 pm
Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I will take the interjection each time they raise it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Mallee of the National Party defended that decision by saying:
I guess much public policy is constructed in coffee shops around Canberra by public departments.
It's good to know that the government is happy not only to slug the taxpayer with expensive and unneeded relocation costs, much like in the bill that is before the House, but to leave public department workers with nowhere to work.
Who could forget the government document that was leaked to Fairfax in April which gives the APVMA staff suggested scripted replies to recite if they were asked about the relocation? Do you remember that one? They were for use during 'barbecue conversations' and 'other social settings'. The guideline came from the chief operating officer, under a section headed 'Script and Standard Words', a series of bullet points offering conversation suggestions to use for 'all audiences'. One piece of barbecue banter included:
It's no secret the agency is changing—and that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Employees unsure if they will make the move are advised to say:
I'm listening to what our executive have to say about the transition, but for the moment I'm getting on with the job.
What episode of Utopia did this government rip that out of? Talk about unwilling to listen, talk about unwilling to govern—now they're just simply willing to pork barrel.
On top of that, we've seen a Senate committee report, The operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016. We note the terms of reference for this report noted the committee would focus on the policy of relocating Commonwealth corporate entities with agriculture policies or regulatory responsibilities. In the report handed down on 9 June, the recommendations included:
The committee recommends that the move of the APVMA be paused until the APVMA concludes its review of its business model.
And it recommended that:
… the Finance Minister apply greater scrutiny to future requests or orders to be made under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 with a specific focus on consideration being given to the following:
They're a bit anti a cost-benefit analysis on the other side. They don't like the taxpayer getting value for money.
No comments