Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the misfortune of being here at about the same time last week. I had the responsibility of exploring with the Assistant Treasurer the various matters to do with the appropriation bills. Unfortunately, last week it was a total waste of time—an absolute and categorical waste of time. I just wanted to put it on the record because I am still very cross about what happened. The Assistant Treasurer turned up with half a dozen goons, most of whom did not speak except to intervene and interject in an attempt to disrupt proceedings for the whole hour with inane and mainly quite offensive comments. They were not even comical. Every attempt was made to not cover the substance of any of the questions. The questions were asked in good faith. As always, there is politics on either side of this chamber. Points are made, and I am not oblivious to that. I am pleased to see the Special Minister of State because we have had some healthy debates. We will make our political points. If he does not know the answer, because the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is in another chamber, it would be appreciated if we get the answer in due course. I just felt that last week's session was the worst experience I have had. The previous Minister for Finance and Deregulation made a serious attempt to canvass answers in this chamber, to make political points where appropriate and not waste the time of everyone involved.

Firstly, I would like to explore some of the issues to do with the government's proposal to increase the debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion, which was included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012. This is a cognate budget debate and this session is our only opportunity to explore any of these issues. While this is incorporated, we do feel that this is an opportunity to get some understanding of a very important matter which has never been put in an appropriation bill in the past. It has always been properly debated separately, but it was snuck into this bill with no explanation on the evening of the budget. The opposition are very interested to know which minister made the decision to incorporate the debt raising proposal in the second appropriation bill. Firstly, is the minister aware that this is without precedent, and could he explain why the government has gone down this path and not put the proposal in a stand-alone piece of legislation?

Secondly, I would be grateful to know why the government is so averse to having this item debated in detail before the House? We sought to move an amendment to allow us to debate this in detail. I wrote separately to the Leader of the House and asked, again, if he would give consideration to this being debated in some detail and separated out from the other appropriation bills, and I got back what was a fairly nondescript response. Basically, it was trying to take the mickey out of me at every opportunity on this issue, but there were no substantive reasons at all as to why it could not be done. Certainly, it was a very perfunctory 'no' to the question of whether it could be considered in some detail.

Thirdly, is the minister aware of the stark contrast in how the debt issue is being handled compared to the United States, where there is a very public and robust debate in Congress with the Congress being given the opportunity to vote on the fund-raising proposal? (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein says that being here last week with the Assistant Treasurer was the worst experience he has had, but I think that you and I have both shared much worse experiences than that in our lives. He asks three questions, most of which do not fall into my direct portfolio responsibility—but, yes, I will get back to him with an answer to those questions in the way in which he has put them. I cannot promise that the answers I give will be more than the broad outline of why the government is doing what it is doing and how the parliamentary arrangements came about, but I will do that.

In 2011-2012 the Finance and Deregulation portfolio will be appropriated $601.1 million from Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for the ordinary annual services of the government. This will include departmental capital budget funding of $23.8 million, about $400,000 million in departmental supplementation, and administered capital funding of $3.3 million. The Finance and Deregulation portfolio will also be appropriated $210.2 million from Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for non-operating purposes.

A number of new measures were announced in the 2011-12 budget for the Finance portfolio. I will enumerate some of those. The government will provide $7.2 million over five years to increase the number of parliamentarians' personal employees by a total of 10 positions. The additional staff will allow members and senators to better manage their workload and provide them with greater capacity for consultation, understanding and decision making. The unique circumstances of the 43rd parliament have required this, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Members who hold critical positions have required additional resourcing and additional support, and as part of the normal process of ensuring that members of parliament can function properly we have provided additional staff in order to allow just for that. Other measures include appropriations of $2.3 million in 2011-12 to investigate and test ways to improve individuals' ease and use of access to Australian government services. This funding will be used for a scoping study, a technical pilot and business case, improvements to be explored including allowing individuals to communicate updated details to multiple agencies simultaneously, and improve filling in forms using information previously submitted to a government agency. There will also be the ability for individuals to view all of the government communications in one place.

I will say more about the idea of what the government wants later in this session, but the initiative is designed to create both a better digital environment for our citizens and better information management for government, and it is consistent with a drive over time from governments of Australia to ensure that the benefits of the digital revolution are felt by our citizens and can also be used to the advantage of government, reducing both the cost of service delivery from government and increasing the efficiency. The capacity to do this is important to our citizens and I will speak about it in detail as we progress through the session.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister's reference to the $7.2 million over five years to increase the number of government and non-government personnel employees to a total of 10. Would the minister, firstly, tell me what the meaning of 'non-government' is—whom does it include—and what is the breakup of those 10 positions? In addressing those answers, could he tell me whether or not those positions were designed or went—even if they were not designed to—to Independents? I am particularly interested in the question of the national broadband network committee established to which Mr Oakeshott was appointed chairman. Presumably, he got more staff. Does that come in that entitlement or does that come in the entitlement of more money being given to the parliament? In looking at that instance, I note that that was created on 3 April by resolution of the Senate, which of course was after the New South Wales election when Mr Besseling, who was the Independent member for Port Macquarie, was voted out dramatically, that being a seat within Mr Oakeshott's own seat and the one he used to hold in the state parliament. Could you tell me whether or not part of that extra funding for additional employees was given to Mr Oakeshott so that he could employ Mr Besseling when he lost his seat of Port Macquarie?

And while I have still got three minutes to go, I will then move on to questions about the appointment of Mr Ken Henry to a position which is described as being 'supported' by the Prime Minister and Cabinet's Office, but would be financed, I guess, out of the Finance budget, because he said he is neither a consultant nor an employee but he is appointed under section 67 of the Constitution. So I would ask the minister if you could tell me: who prepared the brief for the Governor-General to make that appointment? What was the nature of the appointment? When will the appointment be gazetted? Did Mr Henry actually retire from the Public Service prior to his being appointed to this nebulous position? Was he a member of the Public Service Superannuation Fund that required him to retire at the age of no greater than 54 and 11 months to maximise his superannuation payout? Was he in fact in receipt of any superannuation payout? What is the basis upon which he is being paid his old salary of $535,000 a year, which is pro-rated according to the number of days he does, the details of which we do not need? When will the appointment be gazetted?

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for the questions. I will get back to you on those as is appropriate. Ken Henry is a distinguished Australian public servant. He is a public servant who has served the interests of our country well under all governments in the course of the last 20 years. He is a public servant whose high regard is such that the accolades that he has received have been extended by all sides of politics. I think all of us took great pride in the work that Ken has done throughout his years as a senior public servant. It is pleasing to see that he will continue to serve the interests of our nation in providing advice to the Prime Minister, and it is extremely important in the context of ensuring that our public servants are able to carry out their work both at the time and into the future rather than, as many do, see their knowledge and their considerable skill in serving both sides of parliament lost to this place, to the Public Service and to public administration. If we are to be successful at building a Public Service and a public administration environment—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will take his seat. The member for Mackellar on a point of order—and she had better have a good reason, because this is a pretty free-flowing debate in the Main Committee.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we do have a new paradigm even in the Main Committee. We are still governed by the standing orders, and the standing orders do require direct answers. That applies—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the standing orders do not. The member for Mackellar can resume her seat. This is not question time.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; the standing orders apply to more than just question time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing order you are referring to refers to question time.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not make clear which one, did I?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call and will be heard.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I then move to the questions that were asked about staffing resources for Independent members of parliament. It is the case that members of parliament whose status in the parliament is as Independents have been provided with additional resources from the government. That has certainly been the case in my own state for the member for O'Connor, who found himself in a position where he sought to independently represent the people of that electorate in this place but also found himself in the position of needing support to understand the complex issues of public policy and also, being a new member of parliament, of servicing a massive constituency and dealing with the complex issues. Yes, we did think it was important to provide additional support for people in that environment. We have also provided additional staff support for other Independent members of parliament. We do this in order to create the best possible environment for such members to properly, conscientiously and purposefully serve the interests of the 43rd Parliament.

We have been explicit and transparent as a government both in making those appointments and in reporting publicly that we have done that. We think it is proper, we think it is appropriate and we think it is in the interests of the best parliamentary practice, of good governance and of good government. We do not resile from that. At the same time, when such decisions are made it is critically important to ensure that they are reported publicly and transparently and can be questioned.

I return to the point of Dr Henry, the former Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, with a couple of concluding comments. A lifetime of dedication to good public policy and good public administration should be celebrated in this country and should be applauded, especially in the context of a willingness to continue to serve the nation and to serve the good governance of the country. Dr Henry's willingness to do that has again been completely transparently and publicly reported, acknowledged and understood, so there is no great matter of discovery in the questions that refer to Dr Henry. There is, however, the important principle that I think we all would live with in this place, and that is the principle that our Public Service is a great institution that serves our country well. The people who are at the head of our Public Service are people whose years of service have built an experience base that can continue to serve us well, and we wish as a government to ensure that that can take place in whatever form and whatever way is optimal both for former public servants and for the government of the day. In summary, the questions that I have been asked go to matters that have been transparent and publicly reported by the government, behind which we see underpinned a pattern of behaviour, the hallmark of which is transparency and clarity. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the minister's answer I take it that, when you referred to Mr Henry as being a public servant, you are stating that he has, in fact, not resigned from the Public Service but remains a public servant and has been reappointed. He has been on some sort of 'swinger' list. Would that be correct?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member wishes the minister to answer she needs to resume her seat, I will give him the call and she will not get the time. This is not question time. It is consideration in detail. The member for Mackellar has the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. That is question No. 1. Question No. 2 is: was Mr Oakeshott given an extra staff position after 24 March, which was the date of the state election? Let's take it from the end of that month. Was Mr Oakeshott given an extra position after the state election in New South Wales?

I also note that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is going to increase by another 200 people. Is Ms Lampe, who was the previous chief of staff to the Prime Minister and who was farewelled with great parties in February of this year, yet allegedly remained on the payroll until 3 June this year, counted as one of those 200 people? Indeed, why was she kept on? The reason given was that the Prime Minister's new chief of staff, who had worked for her when she was deputy leader, needed a four-month handover period. Was it, in fact, because she was supposed to end up with the national secretary's job—your old job, I think—but was vetoed and therefore without an income and the poor old taxpayer had to pick up the leeway? Perhaps we could understand whether she is one of those desperately needed 200 people, particularly when I notice that the Department of Human Services is going to lose 1,200 people while we will have 1,100 people on the Prime Minister's staff. It does not seem to be helping her out much, but it is a valiant effort, I suppose.

In that 200 people that she has now got on her staff, could you tell me whether or not the executive service appointment of Mr Henry has any precedent and whether precedent was relied upon? Perhaps in your answer this time you might be able to tell me who prepared the brief for the Governor-General and when we might expect it to be gazetted.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points there. The first is whether Mr Henry on a 'swinger' list—I do not know. You would need to ask other people if he is on such a list. I doubt it. The Oakeshott staffing matter I have addressed. As for DPMC and Amanda Lampe, we made clear that Ms Lampe's continued presence on the staffing arrangements of the government was because it was part of her handover in that critical role as chief of staff for the Prime Minister.

I mentioned in my earlier comments the importance of the work which the government is doing on service delivery reforms, particularly those aimed at improving the delivery of Australian government services. The government's preliminary work on possible service delivery reforms is aimed at providing more personalised, convenient and quicker services to people. Advances in IT mean that we are able to provide innovative ways to improve service delivery to citizens and better meet the public's expectations of personalised services that are convenient and quick. It is the case that today our citizens are used to rapid services delivered from banking systems, airline booking systems and they expect the same sort of speed and quality of service from government departments. Worldwide, governments are looking at ways of delivering services that better meet the needs of individuals and that make it easier for individuals to interact with government. Today, Australians expect government services to be as intuitively easy to use, to understand and to access as they can be.

As a government we are constantly looking to see what we can do better and how we can effectively harness technological advances to improve what we are doing. Important reforms currently underway include the merging of Medicare, Centrelink and the Department of Human Services to provide a more connected and seamless service to people in the community. We are at the first step of a process of investigating the capacity for people to provide their personal information such as name and contact details, but potentially more complex information such as income and employment, to one government agency and to consent to it being used by other nominated agencies—a kind of 'tell us once' capability.

The early work is focused on testing concepts and scoping the environment for possible options. We have asked the Department of Finance and Deregulation to explore options that would allow people to communicate updated details to multiple agencies simultaneously, to prefill in forms using information previously submitted to other government agencies and to view all government communications in one place. The aim is to do away with some cumbersome processes such as those which require individuals to resubmit the same details multiple times to gain access to services. This could provide great benefits, for example, for people in crisis and emergency situations such as those affected by the recent floods and cyclones and for all Australians who may need to change their address details when moving house.

In exploring these capabilities, individual privacy is at the forefront of our minds. This exploratory work will focus on only frameworks that operate on the basis of individual consent so that any flow of the information will be controlled by the individual and not by the agencies involved. Individuals will be able to opt in and out of the facility at any time. People could choose not to opt in and could be selective about how much they make use of such a facility.

There will be no central database of people's personal information. Agencies would not be able to swap or match client information; rather, such an account would enable people to share their own information with each individual agency, should they choose to do so. We will not be merging agency databases. We are not looking to create a centralised national identity database and there is no hidden agenda.

We are exploring frameworks that will put greater control in the hands of individuals. The reason for this is to create greater efficiency and intuition in government information management systems to make more efficient for our citizens the information distribution that they provide, to create a more current and up-to-date information set about key metrics available for good public policy making and to ensure that our citizens obtain those benefits and rights that they are due to receive under our various rules for such entitlements. It is also the case that we will be doing this over time and in a way that is as effective as possible. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, we are now in the consideration in detail stage and we are supposed to be talking about the appropriations. The minister's speech was very nicely read, but I hardly think it was relevant to anything we have been addressing. The minister said at the beginning that he had answered my questions about Mr Oakeshott's personal staffing arrangements, and I disagree. We do not know whether or not Mr Oakeshott was given extra staff as a result of these budget allocations, which enabled him to put on extra staff after the last election in New South Wales. I specifically request an answer to that and, if he does not have it—or if any of those people sitting at the back cannot give it to him—then I would like to place that question formally on notice. I think we deserve an answer to that. With regard to the question about Ms Lampe, clearly the answer must be that the poor old Prime Minister is so incompetent that she needs two chiefs of staff, whereas when poor old Mr Rudd was bundled out the door, his chief of staff was sacked that same night. Maybe Mr Rudd was more competent than Ms Gillard and you knew it right from the beginning.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No handover.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No handover at all for him. Four months to handover to a bloke who had worked for her before—that is extraordinarily incompetent.

I want to ask a question about solar panels and this building. I note that $187,870 is to be paid to Silex Solar Pty Ltd for solar panels for a rooftop trial for work between April and June. Solar panels will be installed on the roof of the Senate wing and the gardeners' compound. Was a thorough cost-benefit analysis done on the project to install these solar panels? On average, how much electricity will they generate? Will the electricity generated be fed back into the grid or will it be solely used for Parliament House? Will an outrageous payment be made for it if it is fed into the grid? If this trial proves unviable and there are negligible savings or no savings in electricity costs, will there be a further installation of solar panels at Parliament House—in other words, will the plan be abandoned? In the meantime, I note that the electricity costs for this building have gone up from $290,000 a month in September last year to $320,000 a month. Have any low-carbon solutions been put in place in the interim that may have caused this increase or is there some other reason?

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for her questions. I will get back to her on the staffing arrangements for Mr Oakeshott. She asked questions about solar panels. I will have to get back to her on the details of the solar panel questions because it is important and do accept the good intentions behind the questioning. She has asked about a range of detailed matters around the operation of such panels and whether there are interconnections with the ACT grid and whether there is reselling into that grid. I am not able to provide answers to those questions at the moment but, yes, Shadow Minister, and I will come back to you as soon as I possibly can with the detail of answers to that.

I would like to continue the discussion around the new policy measures in place from the Department of Finance and Deregulation to do with information technology and embracing the new digital environment. In that context, it is important to understand the importance of cybersecurity and the investments which the government is making in cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is one of Australia's national security priorities and our approach to this issue is clearly outlined in the government's Cyber security strategy. The same principles, key actions and measures will apply in our work on service delivery reform and underpin our evaluations of options in this area.

It is extremely important to ensure that those who do not have a computer will not be disadvantaged in this new digital age. Such a capability would not exclude people who do not have access to a computer. People who choose not to opt into the system which I have described would access services as they do currently—that is, by approaching the relevant agency and providing sufficient information to establish eligibility. Members will be aware that in the context of the need to provide the Australian government with that information, there may well be people who are not digitally enabled or not able to get access to a computer in order to take advantage of such a streamlined and capable system. We still need to ensure that such people do not have the disadvantage of needing to inform the government several times before that information is held in a common way by the government. We will be taking steps to ensure that those who are not digitally enabled are able to take advantage of the technology changes. The reforms in this area are likely to be very complex and they will evolve over time. They will need to be considered as long-term projects, subject to the government deciding to invest in competing frameworks. We will work closely consult widely with all relevant stakeholders, users of Australian Government services, privacy interest groups, Australian Government departments et cetera in developing the future reform options in this area. However, at this stage what is happening is that the government is trying to scope the nature of a possible framework that it might want to go into. The government is not, at this point, considering whether to introduce the new service delivery arrangements. What the government is doing is considering the possibility of the service of informing the government once of a range of personal details that our citizens hold and that they may require to provide to multiple government agencies.

These reforms are an extremely important part of what we call, in general, the digital democracy and enabling our community to better contact, access and obtain information from governments. As the NBN rollout across the nation continues, the capacity to do this becomes more and more important. The current budget includes funding for the Department of Finance and Deregulation to assist in the oversight of a new entity to ensure—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, consideration in detail is designed for information to be sought by members who wish to have more information about the appropriations bills dealing with particular areas. The way in which this is occurring right now does seem to be contrary to the intent and to the way in which the standing orders are framed, in that questions have been asked, the minister is unable to answer the questions and then he merely reads out material about issues that have not been dealt with at all in the questions.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening to the minister and I feel that he is within the parameters of the portfolio. I did not hear the question that was framed earlier because I was not here, so I am not going to make a ruling on this particular issue, but he is within his portfolio area, from what I understand. There is no point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is this: this is a part under the standing orders designed for members to ask questions about the appropriations. There were no questions asked relating to the material that the minister is merely reading out and taking up time with, thereby denying people their proper function.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will continue.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ability through this session to provide detail of the government's initiatives in the budget is extremely important and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to conclude some areas of discussion around the initiatives in the digital economy. When I speak next I will come back to broader issues in the budget to do with the NBN. (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleague the member for Mackellar has raised it would be beneficial, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to receive some detailed responses. We have lots of issues that we would like to go through. Whilst the minister has been giving us lots of wonderful detail about the budget papers, most of it I have read already. Perhaps we can take some of that material as read.

Much was made ahead of the budget—especially by the minister the minister is representing, by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister—about the toughness of this budget. In that regard I would like to refer the minister to the table on page 10-6 of Budget Paper No. 1. I would be grateful if the minister could explain why government spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been higher in every year of office of this government. The forward estimates in the budget papers show spending in the last year of the Howard government at 22.9 per cent of GDP and since that time, and all the way through to 2014-15, the best that happens is 23.5 per cent. There is a consistent pattern of a government that is claiming to bring down an extraordinarily tough budget, that is going to take pressure off small and medium business who are seeking finance, continuing to borrow $135 million every day and putting enormous pressure on others looking for finance. They are adding to interest rates, which is adding to exchange rate pressures and adding to the cost of taking out mortgages and getting finance.

On all fronts the spending of this government is critical to economic outcomes and the cost of living pressures faced by households and the pressures faced by businesses, and yet the government, whilst talking about a tough budget, has laid out a four-year program which is still a country mile from spending levels, as a percentage of GDP, under the previous government. I would like to know why there has not been any effort to keep spending as a percentage of GDP below 2007-08 levels, as is the case with taxation receipts. The government has made a particular point about not going higher with taxation receipts than the previous government but, when it comes to spending, it sees no reason to make the same provision. This seems to be a significant inconsistency and I would appreciate an explanation for that.

From the point of view of a tough budget and the difficulty being faced by many in the economy and the uncertainty that currently exists, the reason for that uncertainty is that people have gone from minus one per cent savings to 11½ per cent, so something close to $70 billion has not been spent this year that would have been spent in a typical year. It is no wonder the retail sector is on its knees. That is a function of uncertainty. People are anxious about what might lie ahead. Do we have some sort of satisfactory protection or resilience against future economic shocks? The structural deficit within the budget is a critical factor. Why has the government not featured the structural deficit estimates over future years? If any of the assumptions for receipts or expenditure are out, the structural deficit could cause enormous problems and increase anxiety in the community. Why, as distinct from 2009-10 when they were featured strongly, has the government not this year featured the structural deficit figures? (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question but it is almost as though he missed the fact that there was a global financial crisis. It is almost as though, in his commentary, he ignores the reality of government measures to support employment across the economy. Employment was under threat in every single sector, from retailing through to construction, through to the agricultural sector and in vehicle building—in every way our economy was threatened and so the government put in place measures in the third quarter of 2008 and throughout 2009. All were opposed by those opposite, and opposed for reasons entirely of basic politics. That means that the successful defence of jobs and the support of economic activity is due entirely to the quick action of the Australian government. It has been action roundly applauded both internationally and, most importantly, in local communities where jobs have been preserved, businesses have been kept intact and families have not been ripped apart by the devastating impact of high unemployment. I think it is also important that the shadow minister concedes that the current federal government has a lower, smaller taxation footprint than did its predecessor. Indeed, it is a proud tradition of the Australian Labor Party that we are not a high-taxing government, in comparison to the government that we replaced in 2007. The taxation of our community of course is the removal of funds from our community for use by government, and it is important that that footprint be proportionate and appropriate. It is revealed in the budget figures, as I am sure the shadow minister has fully understood and his reflections here demonstrate, that the low-taxing Australian government is able to do that because of both the efficiency of the way in which the Australian government spends money and the effectiveness of the way in which the Australian government raises its revenue. It is inevitably the case that because of that the massive measures that had to be undertaken to protect employment, to ensure that industries and commerce continued to operate throughout the tough and dark years and the very tough and dark weeks and months of the global financial crisis, could be supported by the rapid action of the Australian government.

We also made clear that, as a consequence of the measures that we undertook, the government does see the budget moving into surplus. The government does see the importance of those measures. And the government, through its fiscal discipline, is moving to ensure that the budget returns to surplus as quickly as it possibly can. Why do we do that? We spend money when we have to and we do not spend money when we do not have to. We spend money in order to protect employment and to protect our community. As the honourable member well knows, we spent large amounts of that money building enduring community infrastructure: enduring infrastructure that will be used to educate future generations of Australians; enduring infrastructure that will provide hospitals and roads; enduring infrastructure—ports, rail infrastructure—to support economic activity. It was about providing infrastructure that will survive generations, but a decision which was taken in order to support employment, to support our economy and to support our community.

You asked the question, quite reasonably: how is the government able to maintain its extremely low taxation footprint? The answer to that, very clearly, is through tough fiscal discipline, through insight and thoughtfulness in the way in which the government structures its own spending programs and through ensuring that our taxation footprint remains smaller, that the tax paid by our community remains proportionately less, than it did in any year under the Howard government. It is an astonishing performance, a remarkable performance, but one that we will continue. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware that one of the big government initiatives is the National Broadband Network. It touches many portfolios. It touches the health portfolio, with the introduction of e-health. It touches the education portfolio, with some of the opportunities that will be happening there. It touches the small business portfolio, and in my own electorate I have seen various initiatives which will be enhanced greatly, including cyber wine-tasting across continents, across seas—tasting wine from McLaren Vale over in New York. My question to the minister is: could the minister outline some of the NBN related initiatives in his portfolio and some of the developments that are happening there?

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I am not really sure how you do cyber wine-tasting.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pretty exciting.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I have to say that, I think like all of us present, especially when contemplating McLaren Vale shiraz, we would all prefer not to be doing it in a cyber way; we would prefer to be doing it in a real and genuine way. It is an important question to go to current initiatives in the budget that deal with the National Broadband Network. In particular there is funding provided for in the current budget through the Department of Finance and Deregulation to assist in the oversight of the new entity to manage the universal service obligation that comes with the National Broadband Network. On 20 June 2010 NBN Co. Ltd and Telstra announced an agreement and the rollout of the National Broadband Network. In support of that agreement the government announced policy reforms to support the transition to the National Broadband Network environment including the implementation of an institutional regulatory and funding regime for the delivery of the universal service obligation and other public interest services and that is what we dealt with in this budget.

Earlier, on 10 February 2011, the government announced that it had reached an in-principle agreement with Telstra for the package of measures announced by the government in June 2010 to facilitate the transition to the National Broadband Network. These reforms included establishing the new entity which will function from July 2012 and to provide funding that will ensure that all Australians have reasonable access to a standard telephone service—the universal service obligation for voice telephony services—and ensure that pay phones are reasonably accessible to all Australians—the universal service obligation for pay phones. It will also include emergency call handling, the triple 0 and 112 numbers, and the national relay service. There will be migration of voice only customers to a fibre based service as Telstra's copper exchanges are decommissioned and the development of technological solutions for continuity of public interest services such as public alarm systems and traffic lights. There will be $1.2 million over five years provided to the Department of Finance and Deregulation to assist in managing the government oversight of the new entity that will be established to manage this universal service obligation.

Given the government's significant financial investment in maintaining the continuity of voice services to Australians, appropriate oversight of this entity is required. Currently, no resources are provided for that function. The Department of Finance and Deregulation will provide advice to government on the governance structure of the new entity and monitoring of the ongoing strategy and performance of the entity including in relation to complex financial matters including the government's financial investment, the USO regulatory environment and related legislation, appointments and performance, stakeholder management between NBN Co. Ltd during the rollout of the National Broadband Network and with the broader telecommunications industry and other related matters.

Those initiatives are part of the all-of-government response that embraces both the reality and the possibilities that are presented by NBN. We know the language and we are commonly understanding the language of government 2.0—it has been around for five or six years—and it denotes a kind of government that has as its hallmark the ability to reach out, the ability to listen to, the ability to insightfully interpret the communities that engage with it and importantly the ability to provide information to our citizens in a timely and efficient manner. That was never more poignantly demonstrated than during the emergencies that our country faced in January and February of this year. The developments in government 2.0 and in cloud computing simply allow the government to be more embracing of the communities that we represent and allow us to deliver in an effective and efficient way. With the development of the capacity represented by the NBN Co. and the requirement to attend to the universal service obligation facilities that we are commonly understanding are part of large and complex utilities then we can see that the all-of-government approach to supporting the activities of NBN Co. is underpinned by the work that is done in the department of the digital economy and also in the department of finance. (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last opportunity I had I asked about the government's spending performance. The minister spent most of his time debating previous budgets. I would be very happy to do that but the session is designed to debate, discuss and seek detail about the current budget. The current budget is struck in a climate where the terms of trade are at 140-year highs—not a bad climate in which to manage an economy. The current budget is struck at a time when we have a labour shortage with the changing demographics in the economy and the skills required for the mining sector, and an unemployment level just under five per cent. The point was made by the minister that they have had a very rigorous fiscal program, notwithstanding the global financial crisis. Given the fact that we are seeing terms of trade at 140-year highs and that those levels are expected to continue during the course of the next four years, how is it that the government appear incapable at the end of that four years to be within a bull's roar of the level of expenditure as a proportion of GDP that was brought down by the last government? That is question No. 1.

Secondly, the minister said that the government is able to maintain its low-taxation footprint because of the extraordinary capabilities of the Treasurer and his colleagues. The fact is that the reason the government has been able to maintain taxation levels lower than the previous government is that it did not include major items in its budget. For instance, it did not include the carbon tax. Minister, why did the government not include the carbon tax as it did two years ago in its expenditure items? If it had done that, it would have grossly exceeded the taxation formula and percentage of GDP of the last government.

The other point I would like to make is that the minister made absolutely no reference to the $107 billion debt. The fact of the matter is if you borrow like a wounded bull, you do not have to tax as much. Notwithstanding that, this government have brought in a carbon tax, a mining tax, a flood tax, a luxury car tax, a cigarette tax—taxes ad nauseam. They are a high-taxing government, but they have deferred taxation. When there is $107 billion debt that is deferred taxation—it will have to be paid off by taxation in the future. They are shifting the burden onto us, so that whenever we get the opportunity and privilege of government we will have to clean-up the mess they leave. Minister, why is this government not exercising the sort of restraint that would be considered in the middle of a 140-year high in terms of trade and in the middle of a world which is potentially likely to move into a double-dip recession? Why is the government not trying to protect and restore the resilience that this government inherited in terms of the economic conditions?

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, Australia enjoys a taxation arrangement whereby the proportion of taxation paid by Australians is less than it was in the last year of the Howard government. It is a simple undeniable fact. It is something that the current government takes great pride in and something that the Australian community takes great relief from. All I hear from members opposite is the preference to tax and to spend, which is something that Australians have never supported. Australians support governments that are capable of keeping their house in financial order and we have said and stated clearly that the budget will be in surplus in the time frame that we have described. We have stated clearly that our taxation footprint is smaller than at any year under the previous government and continues to be the case. Furthermore, we are able to do that because of the extraordinary measures which the government have been prepared to take to better frame our budget and our spending priorities.

Mr Robb interjecting—

The shadow minister interjects, making reference to a carbon tax that is not yet in place. I hear the member opposite lamenting that the tighter fiscal discipline executed by the current government ensured a capacity for our nation to better weather the global financial crisis, to be better positioned and better prepared for the recovery in Australia and to be better prepared and better able to deal with the terms of trade that we currently see. I thank the members for their questions and I take on notice those questions which I have indicated I will. I will come back to them in a timely fashion with answers to those matters.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As members are aware, this year's budget was framed at a defining moment for our economy against a backdrop of natural disasters at home and overseas, softer economic conditions in the near term and a return to boom conditions that will stretch our economy's capacity over the coming years. In this context, the government's focus with this budget has been clear: to bring the budget back to surplus, to invest in skills and training and to get more Australians into work.

This budget responds to Australia's workforce needs through better and more targeted skills and training and new measures to boost participation. The budget expands our healthcare system, invests in infrastructure, makes regional Australia a better place to live and continues to assist families. In line with these strategies, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has 11 new measures in this budget, including the impact of the temporary increase in the efficiency dividend.

Furthering our commitment to mental health, the government will provide $24.4 million over four years to establish Australia's first National Mental Health Commission. This is part of very large new funding for mental health services. The Gillard government is strongly committed to planning more effectively for the future mental health needs of our country, creating greater accountability and transparency in the mental health system and giving mental health prominence at a national level. The National Mental Health Commission will be established within the Prime Minister's portfolio and, through the Prime Minister, will report back to parliament, bringing a truly whole-of-government focus to the task of mental health reform.

In addition to this significant new investment in mental health, this budget provides $6.5 million over four years to maintain support for the delivery of the Council of Australian Government's reform agenda—an important agenda which is aimed at improving the wellbeing of Australians now and into the future. This budget provides for a $5 million donation in 2010-11 to the New Zealand Red Cross earthquake appeal to help with the earthquake recovery effort. These funds are helping in the immediate recovery and in getting Christchurch back on its feet after one of New Zealand's darkest days. Indeed, we have had the opportunity this week, with the visit of New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and his address to a joint sitting of both houses, to convey our direct sympathies to the people of New Zealand for the events of this year, which regrettably are continuing.

This budget provides $2 million over three years to the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney to further inform policy discussions on Australia's alliance with the United States. The budget also provides for a departmental contribution of $168,000 over two years to fund the Commonwealth's involvement in the commission of inquiry into the Queensland floods.

In the arts, this budget provides $1.6 million across the forward estimates for the Contemporary Music Touring Program to provide grants for professional artists to perform original contemporary Australian music in regional and remote Australia where this otherwise would be commercially unviable. In order to support this new investment, this budget will deliver savings of $1.6 million over four years from the GetReading! program by promoting books and reading in a more cost-effective way, including utilising digital technology and e-publishing. This budget delivers on our election commitment to provide $10 million over five years in additional support for Australian artwork. In a significant contribution to Australian sport the government will provide up to $38 million to the organisation and staging of the 2015 Asian Football Confederation Asian Cup and to ensure the sustainability of football in the lead-up to the event. In addition, this budget provides some $4.6 million over five years to establish a task force to coordinate the Commonwealth's role in supporting the cup.

The government will achieve further savings of $5.6 million over four years from 2010-11 from the testing and research components of the Illicit Drugs in Sport Program and the research component of the Sport Anti-Doping Program. These savings will be redirected to support other government priorities such as the extension to the Active After-school Communities program. I commend the appropriation to the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I ask specific questions, I would like to have some indication as to whether the parliamentary secretary is going to adopt the practice of the minister previously, which is: if he cannot give an answer to a question he continues to read out blurb from the budget papers, which in no way responds to the question asked and just takes up five minutes of time, or whether we can go to the practice that used to pertain in this consideration in detail—which, if you like, is more of an estimates hearing for the lower house—whereby we can ask a question, have it responded to and have a to-and-fro of information without someone from the government getting up and speaking for five minutes and then the minister taking another five minutes and wasting the entire period.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I ask the member for Mackellar whether her question is to the chair or whether it is part of her five-minute consideration in detail to the parliamentary secretary? I think you are asking the question of me. Is that correct?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. It is a question to the parliamentary secretary. I do not think you would know what is in the mind of the parliamentary secretary. I am making the point that this whole process has really become something of a farce, which it never used to be before. It used to be used to elicit useful information and specific answers to questions. I might be kind to the parliamentary secretary and say that this was the practice that existed before he came to this place. It is a new and novel development that we are seeing here. With that prefix to my questions I will be interested to hear his response.

The questions that I specifically would like answers to relate to the funding of a review of illegal boat arrivals and the Ombudsman. I notice in budget paper No. 2 in the Prime Minister and Cabinet section that $900,000 has been earmarked over two years to continue the Ombudsman's scrutiny of processing refugee claims for irregular maritime arrivals by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The budget paper claims that the funding will be used out of the Ombudsman's current resources. My first question that I would like a response to is: what duties will that mean that the Ombudsman cannot do that he would otherwise would have done with those resources, because $900,000 of his money has been earmarked for this specific purpose? My second question is: in 2007-08 there were 25 unauthorised arrivals. That was the result of our effective Pacific Solution policy, which of course was ended by the government in 2008 and the boat arrivals started to arrive. In 2009-10 there were 5,614 arrivals. If we start to see an increase, or the increase as we have seen continues, will the Ombudsman need more than $900,000 to fund these claims, and if he does will he be able to get that from an advance from the minister for finance or some other mechanism?

My third question is: by giving this responsibility, to the Ombudsman, does this effectively amount to a vote of no confidence in the department of immigration which I note has had its numbers increased to carry out its tasks? My fourth question is: does the scrutiny process entail reviewing every single refugee application, or doing a random sample of applications? Is there an anticipated individual assessment cost for each inquiry it makes? A further question is, has the scrutiny which the Ombudsman has already carried out revealed an increased number of refugee claims from irregular maritime arrivals in the past three years, and can we have precise details of that?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could first start with the procedural inquiry that was raised by the member for Mackellar. It was apparently some kind of expression of concern about the way in which the government here in the consideration in detail of appropriations is answering the questions. I listened intently to the previous consideration in detail over the hour that the Special Minister of State was answering questions posed by members of the opposition.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

What I heard very directly was the Special Minister of State indicating very clearly to opposition members in response to their questions that he would take on notice a range of the questions in respect of which—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

I listened in silence to the member for Mackellar and I think she should do me the same favour. I listened to the Special Minister of State taking on notice in saying he would get back honourable members in a timely fashion. That is how he ended his session here in consideration in detail. So I can assure the member for Mackellar that certainly we will be answering questions, and indeed if the member for Mackellar had looked at Hansard, because she was not here yesterday, she would have seen that I was here in the consideration in detail of the appropriations for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency attending with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Both of us answered questions and I think that were she to consult Hansard she would see that I indeed answered the opposition's questions from yesterday. Going to the question about the Ombudsman's $900,000 indicated for scrutiny of processing refugee claims, and the indication that he is—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, asylum seeker claims.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I am sure that you had said refugee claims, but we will take it as asylum seeker claims, which he is going to fund from current resources. With respect to the other questions that were directed to apparently additional unauthorised arrivals. Can I say that it is an excellent measure that the Ombudsman is now undertaking additional scrutiny for processing asylum seeker claims. Implied in the member for Mackellar's question is the suggestion that perhaps this scrutiny is not warranted. I can assure the House that this scrutiny is absolutely warranted, and it is reflective of much greater care in the way in which these asylum seeker claims are being handled, and indeed much greater care in the way in which the entire system is being run.

I need only refer in that regard to the appalling compensation bill that the Commonwealth is still facing, arising from people, some of them Australian citizens, detained in the immigration detention system by the Howard government before August 2007. There is a budget item that relates to the compensation bill. It is now over $16 million and these cases, and the compensation provision that is having to be made, almost all relate to the 247 cases that were referred by the department to the Ombudsman following the Palmer inquiry and the Comrie report with such notorious cases as the case of Vivian Solon, falsely deported from Australia by the former government, or Cornelia Rau, improperly and illegally detained over an extended period by the former government as a result of the appalling mismanagement of the immigration detention system by the former government and the lack of scrutiny, scrutiny which is now to be provided by the Ombudsman as indicated in the budget papers. The member for Mackellar was referring to the claim that in 2007 there were some 25 unauthorised arrivals, which of course is held out by the opposition as some claim to the success of their policies. It was no such thing. As I have just indicated, arising from the mismanagement of the immigration detention system, under the Howard government there were much larger numbers of people in immigration detention, an indication why we need to have scrutiny. We need the Ombudsman looking at these things. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for those non-answers, Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus. I see that we are going to continue in this vein. I would ask you then the specific questions that I asked to be taken on notice and that you let me have them as soon as possible. I will try one more specific question. Considering the deal that your government is proposing with Malaysia, with the disgraceful trade in human flesh, whereby Australia sends one person to Malaysia to be either tagged or subject to Malaysian law and birchings, and we in return will receive five refugees who have been approved by the Malaysian government, does the $900 cover the costs of the Ombudsman scrutinising each one of those exchanges, those vile exchanges? If so, when will he be reporting upon them? Is that part of the government's overall plan? That is question No.1.

Question No. 2 for this section. I want to now turn to the Australian National Audit Office where there is outlined an expenditure of nearly $2 million to be spent on conducting a financial statement audit of the National Broadband Network and the NBN Tasmania between 1 April 2011 and 30 October 2013. I note that there is no confidentiality clause in the contract despite the government repeatedly making the excuse that much of the NBN's activities are commercial-in-confidence and that any scrutiny of this $50 billion project is impossible. In light of those things, is the audit which is to be conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers a comprehensive audit and will its cover all income and expenditure aspects of the NBN and NBN Tasmania? That is question 2(a).

Question 2(b) is: will the audited financial statement be published? 2(c), if so, how often will the audited financial statements be published and, if they are not to be published, why not? 2(d), how regularly will financial statements be audited and how often will the government receive audited financial statements from the auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers? Are you aware of any other companies who have been asked to conduct an audit of the NBN? And what audits of financial statements of the NBN had been conducted to date? At what cost would these audits have been done? Will the cost of the audit be included in the overall cost of the NBN, which, the best we can guess is likely to be $50 billion? They are very specific questions and if the parliamentary secretary is unable to answer those specific questions, I would simply ask him to take them on notice and reply in that way or, if he has specific information, I would very pleased to receive it.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very specific questions that have just been asked by the member for Mackellar. Before going to them, I had not quite completed my answer in relation to the Ombudsman, in respect of whom I need to point out that he is a statutory office holder. I certainly will take the more detailed questions that the member for Mackellar asked about the Ombudsman on notice and will endeavour to get a response to the member for Mackellar in a timely fashion.

At the moment the portfolio budget statement indicates, as the member for Mackellar said—and I have checked this—that there is a $900,000 measure to be funded from internal sources, so I will take those on notice. In respect of the detailed questions about the Australian National Audit Office, the Auditor-General is also a statutory office holder. Insofar as those questions relate to that statutory office holder, I will take them on notice as well. But the detailed questions that were asked about the NBN are misdirected and really need to be directed to the communications portfolio. I am sure that the member for Mackellar has means available in which she can so direct.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet does provide the Prime Minister with policy advice on matters that relate to the National Broadband Network, but the implementation of the National Broadband Network is the responsibility of NBN Co., its shareholder ministers and their respective departments, which are Senator Conroy and his Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and Senator Wong and her Department of Finance and Deregulation. It is the case that senior officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet attend the National Broadband Network implementation steering committee, which covers a range of departments. But the kind of detailed financial questions relating to the NBN really should be directed to the department of communications.

To conclude—insofar as there is some information being sought in relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet appropriation—the government, through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, engaged the investment bank Greenhill Caliburn in November 2010 to review the NBN Co. corporate plan. The cost of that engagement was $1.1 million including GST, plus about $8,000 in expenses.

The other question the member for Mackellar asked, as best as I understood it, was about the current status of the negotiations with Malaysia—with some quite pejorative and needlessly, but typically, inflammatory statements made about this area of policy which I do not accept for a moment. I need to make it clear that, in answering this question, I reject entirely the way in which it was framed and put and the language used by the member for Mackellar, including her use of the word 'disgraceful'. The only thing which is disgraceful about the discussion of the negotiations with Malaysia is the way in which the opposition is approaching this question. There are advanced negotiations with Malaysia and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Those discussions are progressing well. The talks are being conducted in a spirit of great goodwill. It is a very detailed arrangement. It is very important that we get it right. As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said, further details will be announced in the coming weeks. Our government is committed to breaking the people smugglers business model and to deterring people from making dangerous sea journeys so that we will not have a repetition of the tragic event that occurred on Christmas Island late last year.

While we are talking about 'disgraceful', what is actually disgraceful is that the member for Cook is now saying that he is going to visit Malaysia. It is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition is so worried that the arrangement with Malaysia is going to work and work well that he is sending the member for Cook for another stunt—another dumb stunt, I might say—to Kuala Lumpur in a deliberate attempt to wreck the current negotiations, and, indeed, while they are about it, to wreck our relations with Malaysia. It is a disgraceful act. It is an incredibly destructive stunt by the opposition and it amazes me that anyone who is contending for national leadership in this country, as is the Leader of the Opposition, would authorise one of his spokespeople to go to one of our regional neighbours for this purpose. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister failed to answer my specific question relating to the disgraceful and despicable deal that his government is doing with Malaysia to trade in human flesh. I find the so-called solution absolutely reprehensible. I am astounded the parliamentary secretary can stand there and attempt to defend it. The very specific question I asked him was: can you tell me whether the Ombudsman, out of his $900,000, will be reviewing each of those transfers should the deal be completed so that we will know whether people have been tagged like cattle to be immune from birching or whether they will be subject to Malaysian law and subject to the birching that is part of that law? That was my specific question, and I note he failed to answer it.

I now want to go to appointments to the Prime Minister's staff. I did ask some of these questions of the Special Minister of State, but he was unable to provide any information. We might get some from you. First of all, Amanda Lampe, who was the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, was farewelled with great parties in February but remained on the public payroll until, I understand, 3 June. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me, the rest of the parliament and the public generally why it was deemed necessary for there to be a four-month handover from Ms Lampe to Mr Hubbard, who had previously worked for the Prime Minister. Was it due to the incompetence of the Prime Minister that she needed two private secretaries? Was it the fact that Ms Lampe needed an income because she did not get the national secretary's job? You might then be able to confirm for me that she left the Public Service on 3 June and confirm for me that she has not been offered another position.

My second set of questions relates to Mr Ken Henry. I did ask the minister whether Mr Henry had left the Public Service. I ask that as a very specific question. If he has left the Public Service, is there any policy in place that says someone who has left the Public Service may not be re-engaged on what used to be referred to as a Friday-to-Monday appointment, which was used by people who were under the old Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme? To maximise their return they must leave no later than being 54 years and 11 months of age. I notice that Mr Henry is about to turn 54.

If Mr Henry is still a public servant, what is the nature of the leave that has been referred to in the newspaper? Is it leave without pay? Is he still being paid at the rate of $535,000 a year? If not, could you give me the details? What is the specific nature of the appointment by the Governor-General under section 67 of the Constitution that requires this appointment to be made in this way? If you examine precedent, the sorts of people who are appointed by the Governor-General usually have not included former heads of departments onto the staff of the Prime Minister.

I note in the press that it has been said that he is neither a consultant nor an employee—it is a mystical appointment—but he will be supported by Prime Minister and Cabinet. I would be grateful for details of what that support entails and precisely what the nature of his duties will be. I also asked the minister when the appointment will be gazetted and why it has not already been gazetted.

Perhaps I could have some specific answers to those questions. If I cannot have specific answers today, would the parliamentary secretary please take those questions on notice and give me specific answers as soon as possible.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start with Dr Ken Henry's appointment. The questions that I have just been asked seem to have been drawn from various instances of misreporting in the media. It has been made very clear that Dr Ken Henry AC has been appointed by the Governor-General as a special adviser and his senior appointment was announced on 1 June 2011. The result of this appointment is that Dr Henry's extensive knowledge and experience are going to continue to be a valuable resource, and I am pleased that those skills are going to continue to be available to the Australian government.

Dr Henry has had a very distinguished Public Service career which spanned more than 25 years, 10 of which were spent as the secretary to the Treasury. In that time Dr Henry has made major contributions to the wellbeing of Australians and to the prosperity of the nation, not least of which was the extraordinary, timely and invaluable advice he provided to the government with the onset of the global financial crisis. His appointment does not require a gazettal—there seems to be a misapprehension on the part of the member for Mackellar in that part of her question. He is appointed by the Governor-General. He is presently being remunerated at secretary level, but he is expected to work part time and will be paid on a pro rata basis.

I can point out that the most recent appointment under section 67 was that of Mr Fergus Ryan as strategic investment coordinator, and this expired in 2002. Other examples include Dr Paul Twomey as chief executive officer of the National Office for the Information Economy, Ms Gwenyth Andrews as chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office and Mr Michael Hutchinson as chief executive of the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology, all in 1998—these appointments were made by the Howard government. It is a process recognised under the Constitution and it should be a surprise to anyone here that the opposition were expressing concern about it. We have a distinguished Australian who has provided distinguished service to the nation. It is an excellent thing that Dr Henry is going to continue to be able to provide service to the people of Australia.

Another question asked by the member for Mackellar related to the Prime Minister's former chief of staff Amanda Lampe. Again, as I indicated to the member for Mackellar in relation to some of her earlier questions, that question needs to be addressed to the finance portfolio, since prime ministerial staff are not paid out of the appropriation under consideration here for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is the responsibility of the department of finance to operate the MOPS ministerial and parliamentary staff system.

The other matter is one that the member for Mackellar pursued, using inappropriate language and the word 'disgraceful' in relation to present negotiations with Malaysia, and asserting that I had not answered her earlier question about whether the Ombudsman would be reviewing each possible transfer under the yet-to-be-concluded arrangements with Malaysia. The question that she actually asked when she first stood up to ask about the Malaysia arrangement was in relation to whether or not the government would be making public details of the arrangement, not the question that the member for Mackellar now asserts that I have not answered. Again, it is a question that is better directed to— (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can check Hansard to see the context of my question. My intent was clear to me; I am sorry it was not clear to you. But thank you for those answers. I will go again to the question of Dr Henry. You did not tell me whether or not he has left the Public Service or, if he has left, when he left. You said that he has been appointed as a special adviser, without saying to whom he is special adviser. You have said that he has been appointed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and that is useful, but I would like to know the terms and conditions of his appointment.

The parliamentary secretary has been at great pains to say that Dr Henry was a great public servant. In the eyes of many that may well have been true during much of his career, but at the end he certainly became very partisan. I am not at all surprised that he has been given this rather political appointment to take up advising the Prime Minister—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was appointed by the Howard government.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes; that was a mistake, I think. I am not surprised at this appointment, particularly since you have a Treasurer who is seen by the electorate as ineffectual and not across his portfolio at all. I can understand why you would want someone with more expertise around to give better advice. Nonetheless, I would like to know the terms and conditions of the appointment and why it was done under section 67 of the Constitution. There is no adequate reason. You made some comparisons and I can find you many other appointments made under section 67 of the Constitution, but I find it very difficult to find any precedent where a political appointment has been made, to assist the Prime Minister via the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, under section 67. All the other appointments are ones where there is a provision in legislation that the appointment be made under section 67.

I saw an official shake his head, but if he can find an example and convey it to the parliamentary secretary of anyone who has been appointed under that section by the Governor-General, as a political appointee, to assist the Prime Minister and advise the Prime Minister via the department, I would be very pleased to hear about it. Perhaps, when he is advising the parliamentary secretary on that issue, he could help him give the answer to what the terms and conditions are and what the job specification is for the position to which Mr Henry has been appointed. But I would particularly like to know whether he left the Public Service and is coming back as a contractor.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Henry ended his appointment as Secretary to the Treasury on 26 April 2011 and he commenced in his new role as special adviser upon being appointed by the Governor-General. His duties are to be determined in discussions with the Prime Minister. I need to make it as clear as I possibly can to the member for Mackellar that this is not a political appointment, that the government does not accept her characterisation of the appointment of Dr Henry under section 67 as a political appointment and, further, that the comments that the member for Mackellar has just made to this House—that Dr Henry, when he ended his distinguished career or apparently at some unspecified point towards the end of his distinguished career, became partisan—are a disgrace. That is a disgraceful comment to make. We have here, in Dr Henry, someone who has served our nation for 25 years, 10 of them spent as Secretary to the Treasury. He was of course appointed as Secretary to the Treasury by the Howard government. After taking a well-earned period of leave, he will return to part-time government service, the terms of which will be determined in consultation with the Prime Minister later in the year. I want to take further issue with the whole way in which the member for Mackellar has sought to characterise this appointment. A legion of appointments have been made by successive Australian governments, not only under section 67 but in a range of other ways, sometimes not even under statutory authority or specifically under a particular provision of the Constitution but under the executive power of the Commonwealth. It is open to a Commonwealth government to appoint anyone in any capacity to serve the government, and it would be a sorry day if it were otherwise.

The government is entitled to engage the services of anyone to serve this nation if it is for the better government of the Commonwealth. It is not necessary to point to precedent. It is not necessary to point to anything other than the constitutional authority conferred on the government. Nor do we need to look for particular statutory authority because there is a whole range of conventions and institutions that serve the Commonwealth that nobody queries, other than those opposite, who wish to query governmental arrangements that they themselves have used on numerous occasions in government. They wish to challenge them because they are now in opposition and they wish to simply nit-pick or raise problems where none exist.

It is entirely appropriate that Dr Ken Henry, a distinguished Australian appointed to his former post by the former government and having served Australia well over many years, should continue to provide service to the people of Australia. Insofar as there is anything left of the question by the member for Mackellar I will take it on notice and provide anything more that might be needed to answer her questions in a timely fashion.

I would take issue also with her proposition that the examples that I gave of other appointments during the term of the former government, being Mr Fergus Ryan, Dr Paul Twomey, Ms Gwenyth Andrews, Mr Michael Hutchison, were not legislatively required to be made under section 67 of the Constitution. It is a facility put there when the Constitution was drafted in order to make it very clear that the Commonwealth will have at its disposal appropriate services of people with expertise, who could be employed in the manner envisaged by section 67 of the Constitution, as appointments of the Governor-General.

I reject on behalf of the government in the strongest possible terms the connotations which the member for Mackellar has sought to put on the engagement of Dr Henry or indeed the characterisation of his appointment by the member for Mackellar as a partisan or political appointment, which it is certainly not.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the rhetoric. I stand by the comments I made earlier and I would simply ask you again: is Mr Henry still a member of the public service? If not, when did he retire, what is his position and what are the terms and conditions of his appointment? How is it possible that the government can legitimately ask the Governor-General to appoint Mr Henry at a salary of $535,000 a year without knowing what the job is?

He is no longer a person employed as the head of a department where the salary of $535,000 is established by the Remuneration Tribunal. He is now someone who is merely being appointed to assist the Prime Minister with advice of a political nature and he is being paid at the same level as the head of Treasury. I think the Australian people are entitled to know why the appointment is being made with no terms and conditions, no understanding of what the contract is or what his responsibilities are. And how you can possibly justify him being paid at the rate of the head of Treasury? I think it is an absolute disgrace but typical of the attitude of this government that thinks it can do anything in a panic to try and get some advice, which it thinks might help it out of a hole. If Mr Henry is still a member of the Public Service then I would like to know why he was not appointed in the ordinary way as a member of the executive service. Why was the decision taken to use section 67? Was it because this was the only way in which he could be paid this extraordinary amount of money, and otherwise he would be captured by a determination of the tribunal?

The parliamentary secretary can sit there and smirk all he likes. The bottom line is that this is taxpayers' money. We heard from the shadow minister for finance today that we are in debt wholly and solely due to the incompetence of this government—and, I might add, under the watch of the same Mr Henry as the head of Treasury, who backed up the extraordinary expenditure. We have only to look at your track record. We have only to look at pink batts, the waste of money in the BER or the $900 that went out to dead people or to people who lived overseas, only for us to be told, 'Oh, this is all perfectly ordinary.'

I asked you to give me one—just one—example of where anybody else had appointed a political appointee—that is, someone who was not part of a determination and was not someone like the sorts of people that you identified as being appointed quite properly under section 67. I asked you to give me one name of somebody who was appointed to a golden job with no job specification at $535,000 a year while still on leave, and you do not expect me to be outraged by that. Of course I am outraged by it. So I ask you again: is he still a member of the Public Service? If not, when did he leave? What are the terms and conditions? When will we know the terms and conditions of this supposed job? How can you possibly justify that salary when there is no job for him to go to? And what are the terms and conditions of his leave?

I simply sum up by saying that this epitomises the attitude that this government has to the people of Australia: you are totally unaccountable and totally without consideration of the way things should be done properly, whether it is sending people in a trade of human flesh to Malaysia to be subject to birching or to have a label attached to them like an animal, or the incompetence in putting any program in place. This appointment epitomises all the things that are wrong with this government and why, on the question of the carbon tax, we need to have that plebiscite to let the Australian people speak.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It should come as no surprise that the member for Mackellar has ended with the reference to the dumb stunt that the Leader of the Opposition staged yesterday, referring in the news media to a plebiscite proposal that he was supposedly going to put to the parliament at 10 am yesterday, knowing that the parliament was not even sitting at 10 am—indeed, knowing what a piece of wrecking it was likely to be, but presumably guessing that it might just attract some news coverage. But it did not, of course, contribute in the slightest way to the government of this country. It did not contribute in the slightest way to the development of the carbon price that we need and that this government is working on.

To go back to the questions about Dr Henry—and I am glad the member for Mackellar is not actually leaving; it looked like she was for a moment there—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm getting a glass of water to put out the fire.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she has got very excited in asking those questions before. I would invite the member for Mackellar to examine the history of section 67, what was said about it in the convention debates and why it appears in the Constitution. Section 67 has traditionally been used because there is no coverage in existing legislation for the manner of appointment of a whole range of people who provide service to the Commonwealth.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just give me one political example.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject, as I did before, the characterisation of Dr Henry's appointment under section 67 of the constitution as in any way political. He is a distinguished Australian with immense expertise in Treasury matters, in fiscal matters and in economic matters who I am very pleased is going to continue to provide his services to our country. The member for Mackellar said that the Australian people are entitled to know. I think that the Australian people are entitled to know why it is that members of the opposition are in any way challenging the appointment of Dr Henry to the service of the Commonwealth, because the appointment of Dr Henry to the continuing service of the Commonwealth ensures that his abilities and his vast experience, recognised by the former government, are going to continue to be of service to our people. Section 67 is being used for Dr Henry because of the whole-of-government nature of the policy advice that he is going to be able to give the Commonwealth. It goes well beyond anything that a conventional appointment under the Australian Public Service Act might encompass. Dr Henry will be advising the government on issues that are of a whole-of-government nature, and details of that, as I have indicated in my previous answer to the member for Mackellar, will be determined with the Prime Minister. It is bizarre that the member for Mackellar should suggest that there has been even the slightest lack of accountability in relation to the appointment of Dr Henry. If it was so unaccountable, why was it that there was an announcement of Dr Henry's appointment, along with a number of senior appointments that the Prime Minister announced on 1 June 2011? It is hardly an act of unaccountability to make an announcement of the appointment of someone under section 67 of the Constitution. I would ask again, and I think the Australian people are entitled to know, why it is that the opposition are so set on criticising absolutely every feature of the administration of the Commonwealth in talking down this country and the government that they cannot conceive that someone with as distinguished a career as Dr Henry could and indeed will provide continuing service to our country.

Finally we had a reference from the member for Mackellar, who just cannot seem to leave it alone, to the negotiations that are ongoing with our neighbour Malaysia. For weeks now we have seen an attempt to destroy our relations with Malaysia and our government's work with our regional neighbours, something which the former government never did, in order to reach appropriate arrangements in relation to asylum seekers. Coming up now—and no doubt we will hear more about it—we have further destruction being planned by the member for Cook, who has been sent by the Leader of the Opposition to Kuala Lumpur. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason I raised the question of Malaysia was to specifically ask you whether or not the Ombudsman would be using part of his $900,000 earmarked money—which is not extra money but money taken away from other duties he might be doing—to make reports on each and every one of the disgraceful trades in human flesh of one asylum seeker going from Australia and our receiving five here in Australia. I ask whether the ones being sent to Malaysia are to be tagged like animals or subject to the birch. If you find that acceptable behaviour then that is a big difference between you and me, because I sure do not.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just remind the member for Mackellar that she is not directing those questions to me as the chair. If you could direct them through the chair, that would be good.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary, of course, has failed to answer that question. The second question he has failed to answer—and I have asked it, I think, three times now—is whether Mr Henry is still a member of the Public Service. I would like an answer to that question. If he is not, when did he leave the Public Service, and is his re-engagement as a contractor, even though the appointment is via section 67? I ask the parliamentary secretary to give me one name—just one—of any other political appointment or any appointment of a person to assist the Prime Minister out of a hole, which is exactly what this is. I can understand why the Prime Minister thinks she needs some additional advice, because she certainly cannot rely on the person who parades around as the Treasurer. She needs something to dig her out of the hole, so I can understand why they might seize on Mr Henry as being the answer. He served the government very well in the latter stages of his appointment, particularly when it came to assessing the budget savings that were put forward by the opposition prior to the last election.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have lost a quorum in this chamber, so we will suspend until a quorum is returned to the chamber.

Proceedin gs suspended from 18:24 to 18 : 33

The chamber will resume. We have gone over time, but I am going to allow the member for Mackellar to finish her question and then the parliamentary secretary can either respond or take it on notice.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, a point of clarification: I understand that at 6.30 it changes and the time allocated has actually expired. I would like clarification just so we stick to the rules.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify: 5.30 to 6.30 is a guide time and there is not another time frame that will come into play on that. In the interests of progressing the debate I am going to allow the member for Mackellar to finish and then the parliamentary secretary can handle it as he sees fit. The member for Mackellar.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the parliamentary secretary scrabbled off for the quorum and took the only remaining government member with him, of course this place had to close down because we no longer had a quorum.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was called by the opposition in the chamber.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shutting down debate in both places.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at all. It is because of your behaviour previously. The long and the short of it is you might remember next time that, if you do not want to close down this place, you must leave one government member behind.

To go back to my question and to reiterate, it concerned Mr Ken Henry. I still do not have an answer and I specifically ask for one. Is he a member of the Public Service? If not, when did he leave the Public Service and what is the nature of his contract with the government via section 67? Who wrote the brief for the Governor-General? Who put together the information for her to make that appointment? I think that is a very important point to have on the public record. I repeat: how is it possible that you can ask the Governor-General to appoint someone to a position of $535,000 a year with no job specification, no description of the duties they will have to carry out and no notification to the general public as to why it was necessary to have this very special method of appointment? I make the point that it is special. I asked you for one name of anybody who had been appointed to a political position like this and you cannot supply me with one. All the other people that you have given me the names of are perfectly ordinary appointments under section 67 and I am perfectly familiar with the operation of that. This is an exceptional appointment. You, Parliamentary Secretary, have admitted here today that there are no terms and conditions that have been established. It is all going to be a nice chat when he comes back from leave and we do not even know the date on which he is to return. Would you also supply me with the date on which he will return?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have gone over time, but I will respond as quickly as I can. I would say to the member for Mackellar that I will take on notice her questions, although I do feel I have answered quite a number of them now more than once. I will take on notice those of her questions that have not yet been answered and respond in a timely fashion.

I just want to make a point about the Ombudsman because, while attending the quorum call in the chamber, I have had occasion to reflect on the Ombudsman's position. It is a very curious thing that the member for Mackellar should be addressing questions to me about an independent statutory office holder. I know that those opposite do not have the same proper view of the independence of statutory office holders. It appears that the member for Mackellar has not read the Ombudsman's legislation, does not understand that the way in which the Ombudsman functions is to act on complaints and further that, insofar as there is any other jurisdiction available to him, it is a jurisdiction that he determines solely in his own absolute discretion as to how that discretion is to be exercised. The suggestion that I, appearing here in consideration in detail of the appropriations for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, should be able to say or indeed that it would even be proper for me to say how the Ombudsman is going to carry out his statutory functions is frankly ridiculous.

As to the continued appalling calling into question the excellent appointment of Dr Ken Henry, it is a sorry day that the opposition is seeking to deny to the Australian people the services of someone of the immense eminence and expertise of Dr Ken Henry, who I have no doubt could be commanding remuneration many times that which he is being provided from the public purse if he were to go into the private sector. We are all very well aware of the immense salaries that are being paid in the finance sector in Australia at the moment and indeed overseas, and the Australian people are being well served by obtaining the services of Dr Henry.

Lastly—and I say again, I will take on notice the questions that have been addressed to me, insofar as they are proper questions, by the member for Mackellar. Some of them were not—I need to put this on the record: I reject absolutely any statements of fact that were made here by the member for Mackellar and I completely reject the suggestion that I have admitted anything, which is the way in which she sought to characterise something that I said on the last question here. Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.