John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 6 for 2019—Referrals made September 2019.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Report No. 6 considers four projects referred to the committee in September 2019. The total value of the proposed works for the four projects is $2.39 billion. The projects will be undertaken across Australia and in Kiribati. The Department of Defence sought approval to proceed with the following three projects: HMAS Watson Redevelopment Project in Sydney, valued at $430 million; the Shoalwater Bay training area remediation project in Queensland, valued at between $105 million and $140 million; and the Navy Capability Infrastructure Sub-Program, in various locations, valued at $1.8 billion. In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs sought approval to proceed with the proposed Australian High Commission Property Replacement Project in Tarawa, Kiribati, valued at $19.6 million.

As part of its statutory role under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the committee scrutinised each project, considering the purpose of the work and its suitability, the need for the work, whether the money expended is cost-effective, whether any revenue is generated, and the present and prospective value of the work. The committee travelled to and inspected the proposed works where feasible. In each case, the committee recommended that it is expedient that the works are carried out.

I'd like to take the remaining time I have available to update the House on the statutory role of the Public Works Committee and its work over the last few years. At the end of the 45th Parliament, the committee completed a very busy program of works, scrutinising 39 separate projects with a combined value of $2.85 billion, taking, on average, 15 weeks to complete its scrutiny. This compares favourably with the timing of approval processes from the Public Works Committee procedure manual, which states that 14 weeks is the average approval time.

It is important to note that the committee undertakes its scrutiny as expeditiously as possible, as prescribed in section 17 of the act. But, more importantly, it does not report to the House unless it is satisfied that it is expedient for works to be carried out. In some instances, this means the scrutiny process takes longer than the suggested time as the committee may need to seek additional information from the entity to assist its consideration. Entities also need to take into account the sitting calendar, obviously, as well as time allocated for calling of submissions and the expected time between public hearings and the tabling of reports. In addition, the committee considered 406 medium works projects, with a total value of $2.2 billion. Medium works projects have a value of between $2 million and $15 million. The number of medium works considered in the 45th Parliament was the highest on record and contributed to an extremely busy agenda for the committee.

In the 46th Parliament, the committee has considered and recommended expediency on nine projects thus far, taking, on average, nine weeks from referral to tabling. Five of these projects were lapsed projects from the 45th Parliament. Lapsed projects occur when an election is called before the committee is able to finalise its consideration; however, the committee generally prioritises their scrutiny and reporting following such a referral. The committee has also considered 149 medium works projects in this parliament with a value of over $700 million, including four medium works for defence purposes with a value of between $17 million and $15 million.

As the oldest continuing committee of the parliament, this committee takes its statutory role in scrutinising proposed public works very seriously. This is amply demonstrated by both the quality of the scrutiny it conducts and the time frames in which the scrutiny takes place. I'd like to take this opportunity, therefore, to thank my colleagues on the committee in this the 46th Parliament and, given the projects we inherited from the 45th Parliament, that parliament as well, including the previous chair, the member for Wright. Without the tireless efforts of my fellow colleagues across the committee, this focus on the effective expenditure of public money on public works would not be possible. I commend this report to the House.

See this speech in context