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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 8 to 22), omit "contractor" (wherever occurring), substitute "non-Commonwealth government agency".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 8), omit "a person", substitute "an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or a body which is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency".

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 20 and 21), omit "If the contractor is an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency,".

I would like to begin my remarks by saying I do not believe that the debate on this bill belongs in this chamber. It is far from being non-controversial. The very essence of my amendments, which I flagged when I spoke on the second reading, is to take out all reference to having private entities audited by the Auditor-General, to increasing his scope of audit in that way. I did say there were other things in the bill that I thought could be supported, but I made the point that extending the Auditor-General's scope of audit to the private sector is totally outside any concept of the role that I believe the Auditor-General should play.

Secondly, I would like to make the point that about 10 minutes ago I had dropped on me this great sheaf of pages, which is the amendment to be moved by the government, which completely removes schedule 1 of the member for Lyne's bill. And I received the explanatory memorandum literally as I walked into the chamber. I have not even had time to read this amendment, let alone the explanatory memorandum, which I have just received. I think this is a shocking way to run the business of what is a serious issue.

I would like to reiterate the remarks that I made while speaking on the second reading about the Auditor-General playing a hugely important role in our system—the role of keeping government honest. It is the role that is designated to him and, as a longstanding member of the joint public accounts committee, I long supported the role of the Auditor-General and his powers to audit government agencies and departments.

I have always thought it was important to change the old interpretation of the existing legislation that, where a Commonwealth company has a majority of government appointed directors, the Auditor-General, as of right, cannot audit that body. I have always thought that that should be changed, and that was a recommendation of the public accounts committee. But I think it is wrong in principle to extend that to a right to audit a private sector company simply because that company has done business with the Commonwealth. It is an extension of the Auditor-General's powers which brings the whole concept of public sector auditing, which is different from private sector auditing, into an area where I do not think the Auditor-General has the expertise, and nor should it. I know that the Auditor-General very often does subcontract with private sector auditors, even in doing government auditing work, but that is a different proposition from the Auditor-General having a primary function for auditing a private sector company or indeed a non-corporate entity. I think the difficulties which small companies already face in doing business with the Commonwealth will only be added to by having this bill passed in this form.

As for the amendment which the government will be moving, as I have said, I presume that the government has been in long and private consultations and discussions with the member for Lyne. That is the way the government works. It is not the way the new paradigm was supposed to work. If there were going to be these changes to the private member's bill, I think it would have been, as a matter of courtesy, an issue that the government should have also raised with members of the opposition. If the member for Lyne has simply done another secret deal with the government to say, 'As long as my bill can live, I'll agree to whatever amendments you've got,' that again is a breach of the so-called new paradigm that was supposed to be entered into in this parliament. Once again we see it honoured in the breach rather than being something that improves debate. To have this sort of thing dumped on people at the last minute like this is simply unacceptable, particularly when we are dealing with the very important issue of the Auditor-General. I think it is contemptuous to treat the Auditor-General in this way. The Auditor-General may well have been consulted on this new schedule that is to appear in the private member's bill, but I think that courtesy should have been extended to the opposition too.

I will be pleased when this legislation returns to the main House of Representatives chamber, where it properly should be debated because it is such a contentious issue. With those remarks, I commend the amendments I have moved to get rid of the power of the Auditor-General to audit private sector firms.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the wish of the Main Committee, the question that amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to is deferred until after a debate has occurred on all amendments.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendment (1):

(1)   Schedule 1, page 2 (line 1) to page 5 (line 12), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1—Functions and powers of the Auditor-General

Auditor-General Act 1997

1 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

assurance review means a review conducted in accordance with the standards set by the Auditor-General under section 24 for assurance reviews.

2 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

Commonwealth partner has the meaning given by subsection 18B(2).

3 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

priority assurance review has the meaning given by subsection 19A(5).

4 Subsection 5(1) (at the end of the definition of responsible Minister )

Add:

  ; (d)   in relation to an audit of a Commonwealth partner—the Minister responsible for achieving the Commonwealth purpose concerned.

5 Subsection 5(1) (definition of senior manager )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

senior manager:   (a)   in relation to a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997; and   (b)   in relation to a Commonwealth partner who is an individual—means the individual.

6 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

wholly owned Commonwealth company has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.

7 At the end of subsection 15(2)

Add:

  ; and (d)   to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.

8 Subsection 16(2)

Omit "the responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".

9 Subsection 16(2)

Omit "The Finance Minister is to consult with the responsible Minister before making a request.".

10 Subsection 16(3)

Omit "a responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".

11 At the end of subsection 16(4)

Add:

  ; and (d)   to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.

12 Subsection 17(2)

Omit "the responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".

13 Subsection 17(2)

Omit "The Finance Minister is to consult with the responsible Minister before making a request.".

14 Subsection 17(3)

Omit "a responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".

15 At the end of subsection 17(4)

Add:

  ; and (d)   to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.

16 Subsection 17(5)

Repeal the subsection.

17 Paragraph 18(2)(g)

After "operations of a person", insert "who is not a Commonwealth partner".

18 At the end of subsection 18(2)

Add:

  ; and (h)   to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.

19 After section 18

Insert:

18A Audit of performance indicators (1)   The Auditor-General may at any time conduct an audit of:   (a)   the appropriateness of the performance indicators (however described) of:      (i)   an Agency; or      (ii)   a Commonwealth authority (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; or      (iii)   a Commonwealth company (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; and   (b)   reporting by the Agency, authority, company or subsidiary against those indicators.(2)   If the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit requests it, the Auditor-General may conduct an audit of:   (a)   the appropriateness of the performance indicators (however described) of:      (i)   a Commonwealth authority that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; or      (ii)   a wholly owned Commonwealth company that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; and   (b)   reporting by the authority, company or subsidiary against those indicators.(3)   Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request under subsection (2).(4)   As soon as practicable after completing the report on an audit under this section, the Auditor-General must:   (a)   cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; and   (b)   give a copy of the report to the responsible Minister; and   (c)   give a copy of the report to:      (i)   the Chief Executive of the Agency; or      (ii)   an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or      (iii)   a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company.(5)   Subsection (4) does not apply if the report is, or is to be, included in the annual report of the Agency, Commonwealth authority or Commonwealth company.(6)   The Auditor-General may give a copy of, or an extract from, the report to any person (including a Minister) who, or any body that, in the Auditor-General's opinion, has a special interest in the report or the content of the extract.

18B Commonwealth partners (1)   The Auditor-General may conduct a performance audit of a Commonwealth partner:   (a)   if the partner is, is part of, or is controlled by, the Government of a State or Territory—at the request of the responsible Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; or   (b)   otherwise—at any time.(2)   A person or body is a Commonwealth partner if:   (a)   the Commonwealth provides money for a particular purpose (the Commonwealth purpose); and   (b)   the person or body receives some or all of the money, whether directly or indirectly, because the person or body:      (i)   agrees to use the money in achieving the Commonwealth purpose; or      (ii)   has entered into a contract that relates to the Commonwealth purpose; and   (c)   an audit of the person or body could not be conducted under another section of this Division.(3)   The audit may be conducted only to the extent that it assesses the operations of the Commonwealth partner in relation to achieving the Commonwealth purpose.(4)   The audit may be conducted as part of an audit under section 15, 16, 17 or 18.(5)   The report on the audit must include the reasons for conducting the audit.(6)   As soon as practicable after completing the report on the audit, the Auditor-General must:   (a)   cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; and   (b)   give a copy of the report to the responsible Minister; and   (c)   give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.(7)   Subsection (6) does not apply if the report is, or is to be, included in the report on an audit under section 15, 16, 17 or 18.(8)   The Auditor-General may give a copy of, or an extract from, the report to any person (including a Minister) who, or any body that, in the Auditor-General's opinion, has a special interest in the report or the content of the extract.(9)   Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the responsible Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

20 Subsections 19(1) and (2)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:(1)   After preparing a proposed report on an audit of an Agency under section 15, the Auditor-General must:   (a)   give a copy of the proposed report to the Chief Executive of the Agency; and   (b)   to the extent that the proposed report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner:      (i)   a copy of the proposed report; or      (ii)   extracts of the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner; or      (iii)   extracts of the proposed report that include the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner.(2)   After preparing a proposed report on an audit of a body under section 16 or 17, the Auditor-General must:   (a)   give a copy of the proposed report to:      (i)   if the body is a Commonwealth authority or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority—an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or      (ii)   if the body is a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company; and   (b)   to the extent that the proposed report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner:      (i)   a copy of the proposed report; or      (ii)   extracts of the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner; or      (iii)   extracts of the proposed report that include the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner.(2A)   After preparing a proposed report under section 18A on an audit of the performance indicators of a body and the body's reporting against those indicators, the Auditor-General must give a copy of the proposed report to:   (a)   if the body is an Agency—the Chief Executive of the Agency; or   (b)   if the body is a Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority—an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or   (c)   if the body is a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company.(2B)   After preparing a proposed report on an audit of a Commonwealth partner under section 18B, the Auditor-General must give a copy of the proposed report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.(2C)   Subsection (2B) does not apply if:   (a)   the proposed report is included, or is to be included, in the proposed report on an audit under section 15, 16 or 17; or   (b)   the audit of the Commonwealth partner was conducted as part of an audit under section 18.

21 Subsection 19(3)

Omit "or 18", substitute ", 18, 18A or 18B".

22 Subsection 19(4)

Omit "within 28 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report", substitute "as follows".

23 At the end of subsection 19(4)

Add:

  : (a)   in the case of a proposed report on an audit under section 18A (audit of performance indicators)—within 14 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report;   (b)   otherwise—within 28 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report.

24 After Division 2 of Part 4

Insert:

Division 2A—Assurance reviews

19A Assurance reviews (1)   The Auditor-General may at any time conduct an assurance review of:   (a)   an Agency; or   (b)   a Commonwealth authority (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; or   (c)   a Commonwealth company (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries.(2)   If the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit requests it, the Auditor-General may conduct an assurance review of:   (a)   a Commonwealth authority that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; or   (b)   a wholly owned Commonwealth company that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries.(3)   Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request under subsection (2).(4)   The Auditor-General may determine arrangements for the conduct of an assurance review, including arrangements for reporting to the Parliament.(5)   The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit may identify an assurance review as a priority. A review so identified is a priority assurance review.(6)   As soon as practicable after completing the report on a priority assurance review, the Auditor-General must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

25 At the end of section 20

Add:(4)   Divisions 2 and 2A do not limit the power of the Auditor-General under this section to enter into an arrangement with a GBE.

26 Paragraph 21(1)(b)

After "company", insert "or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company".

27 Paragraph 23A(b)

Omit "a performance audit under Division 2", substitute "an audit under Division 2 or 2A".

Note:   The heading to section 23A is replaced by the heading "Information sharing".

28 Paragraph 24(a)

Omit "referred to in Division 1 or 2", substitute "or review referred to in Division 1, 2 or 2A".

29 Section 30

Before "The operation", insert "(1)".

30 Paragraph 30(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:   (b)   is not limited by:      (i)   any other law (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), except to the extent that the other law expressly excludes the operation of section 32 or 33; or      (ii)   any rule of law relating to legal professional privilege or any other privilege, or the public interest, in relation to the disclosure of information or the production of documents.

31 At the end of section 30

Add:(2)   Disclosure or production of, or access to, information or a document under section 32 or 33 does not otherwise affect the operation of a rule of law relating to privilege or the public interest in relation to disclosure of the information or production of the document.

32 Before paragraph 31(a)

Insert:(aa)   an assurance review that is not a priority assurance review; or

33 Paragraph 33(1)(a)

Omit "or a Commonwealth company", substitute ", a Commonwealth company or a Commonwealth partner".

34 After section 56

Insert:

56A Constitutional safety net (1)   If a provision of this Act:   (a)   would, apart from this subsection, have an application (an invalid application) in relation to:      (i)   one or more particular persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases; or      (ii)   one or more classes (however defined or determined) of persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases;

     because of which the provision exceeds the Commonwealth's legislative power; and   (b)   also has at least one application (a valid application) in relation to:      (i)   one or more particular persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases; or      (ii)   one or more classes (however defined or determined) of persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases;

     that, if it were the provision's only application, would be within the Commonwealth's legislative power;

it is the Parliament's intention that the provision is not to have the invalid application, but is to have every valid application.(2)   This Act does not enable a power to be exercised to the extent that it would impair the capacity of a State to exercise its constitutional powers.

[assurance reviews; Commonwealth partners; government business enterprises; performance indicator audits; Corporations Act audits; privileges]

The functions performed by the Auditor-General continue to be a matter of great significance. It is important that the Auditor-General has the appropriate powers to respond to the audit challenges of today. Report 419 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit made a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that accountability and the role of the Auditor-General are kept current in today's challenges. The report recommended a range of measures. The most significant recommendations related to amendments to the act to allow the Auditor-General to assess the performance of bodies that receive Commonwealth money when there is a corresponding or reciprocal responsibility to deliver outcomes. In other words, the report recommended that the Auditor-General have the ability to follow the money when Commonwealth money is provided to other bodies, such as state agencies or contractors, for the delivery of Commonwealth outcomes.

The Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 is intended to implement various recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit following its inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997. I advised the House on 21 March 2011 that the government intended to move an amendment to the bill to ensure that it operates as intended. This amendment to the bill will, with one exception, implement the recommendations of the JCPAA report as intended by the bill introduced by the member for Lyne. That exception relates to the performance auditing arrangements for government business enterprises. The Auditor-General Act currently provides that government business enterprises can only be audited by the Auditor-General at the request of the JCPAA, the minister responsible for the government business enterprise or the finance minister.

The JCPAA report recommended that the act should be amended to give the Auditor-General the authority to initiate audits of GBEs. Successive governments have taken the view that the Auditor-General should not have the ability to audit GBEs of his own motion. GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to other Commonwealth bodies and, to the greatest extent possible, should be subject to the same audit arrangements as their competitors.

The government considers that audits of GBEs should be requested by the parliament in response to genuine public interest concerns about aspects of their operations, rather than as an incidental part of an annual work program. The JCPAA, which compromises members from across the political spectrum and can conduct hearings in private, is the appropriate body to consider whether a particular GBE should be audited. Accordingly, the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended, will allow the JCPAA alone to request an audit of a GBE by the Auditor-General. As is currently the case, the Auditor-General could ask the JCPAA to request an audit of a particular GBE. The most important change that would flow from the implementation of the JCPAA recommendations will result in the Auditor-General having the power to follow the money—that is, the Auditor-General will be able to undertake audits of Commonwealth partners, private sector and state and/or territory entities that receive Australian government funds to implement an Australian government program.

The Auditor-General's powers are limited at present to an assessment of the way that Australian government bodies implement government programs. This means that the Auditor-General is unable to assess the extent to which the individuals or entities that receive Australian government funds achieve the purpose for which those funds were provided. The amendments implement that unanimous recommendation of the JCPAA report—that the Auditor-General be given the authority to undertake audits of the Commonwealth partners, whether they are state or territory entities, or other individuals or bodies. The bill, as amended, contains appropriate restrictions on the extent of these powers, particularly in relation to state and territory entities, and the government anticipates that they will be used sparingly. For example, the Auditor-General will be able to assess the operations of a state or territory entity only after a request by JCPAA or the responsible minister, and only to the extent that they relate to achieving the purpose for which the funds were provided.

These amendments will ensure that the Auditor-General has the tools to respond to today's auditing challenges. The remaining amendments would make relatively minor changes to clarify the way that the act operates. They would, for example, provide clear authority for the Auditor-General to undertake assurance reviews and audits of performance indicator audits, which are currently carried out as audits by agreement under section 20 of the act, and clarify that the Auditor-General's powers to acquire the production of documents upon which legal professional privilege is claimed does not amount to a waiver of such privilege.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for the report, and the Chair, the Member for Lyne, who originally introduced the bill, for his cooperation in the development of the government amendments to ensure that the amendments to the Auditor-General Act operate as intended.

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

Having heard the speech of the member for Petrie, I find it again quite unsatisfactory that the government, instead of having the responsible minister come and argue this case, sends along a backbencher. I find that, again, an insult to the importance of this question. I have just had the opportunity to read the opening remarks in the explanatory memorandum, some of which were read word for word in the speech of the honourable member. But what he is doing is once again reading down the ability of the Auditor-General to audit GBEs as a right, which I spoke about a little while ago. I will put precisely what happened when I began to be interested in this question, which was when we were building this very Parliament House. It was quite clear that rorting was going on by the trade unions in kickback payments, and I moved in the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that we allow the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the building of this building. The government of the day and their union mates opposed it rigorously, and no audit was ever done. And now the one decent thing that the member for Lyne's bill did was to allow the Auditor-General to make a decision to make an audit as a right. I presume he has now agreed to this watering down of that power, which was the one decent thing it was doing. Listening to that speech, I presume it also reads down the ability of the Auditor-General to do that important of task of following the trail where money is given to state governments. They were the two big important things that came out of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee. Now we get the government amendments which negate virtually the important issues which is government business work and should be done and we are left with the ridiculous situation where the powers are only extended to allow auditing of private firms. I presume, when we hear from the member for Lyne, that he has agreed to this watering down of those two important issues and left in place the one issue where it is important that my amendments be agreed to. If I read from this exploratory memorandum the words were—just listen to it:

GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to government bodies. To the greatest extent possible they should be subject to the same audit arrangements as their competitors.

Really? And those conditions do not apply to private firms? What a joke! If there were any decency in this place, any real understanding of the importance of the role of the Auditor-General—which is a different function from the auditor and the auditing function in the private sector—if there were any reasonable attitude then the member for Lyne would say that his bill has been destroyed in total in the important parts, and that part which relates to the private sector has now become the dominant issue. It is an absolute outrage. For this to be dumped on the parliament in this chamber, where we are supposed to have non-contentious issues, and taken out of the main debate so that it somehow will disappear off the radar is an insult to the importance of the office of Auditor-General.

The best thing that could come from this is that the member for Lyne should withdraw his bill entirely and start again. No doubt he has been talking with the government and come to some arrangements which he will tell us about. But I think we have to put on the record that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit brought in a report dealing with very important issues—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unanimously.

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

(1) the ability to trace money from the Commonwealth into territories and states.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unanimously.

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

(2) to allow them to audit GBEs

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unanimously.

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

Indeed unanimously, indeed. Here the government is going against its own Labor Party members in that committee and the committee's recommendations, watering them down to the extent that they are now irrelevant, particularly when it comes to the right of the Auditor-General to audit GBEs. I will be interested to hear how we arrived at this watering down of the solid recommendations of the committee.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before calling the honourable member for Lyne I advise honourable members that unfortunately the clock is not showing the correct time. I understand that the Serjeant-at-Arms is endeavouring to correct not only this clock but others that are currently defective.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is an important bill for Australian taxpayers in the delivery of value for money and efficiency. Every dollar that is collected should have an audit trail attached to it. We are talking neither about thousands of dollars nor millions of dollars spent. We are talking about billions of dollars that are being spent on an annual basis at a Commonwealth level without an audit trail in place. That should be of great concern to all members in this chamber, and the avenue to deal with that as the independent arm of the parliament should be the Auditor-General's Act and by association the processes of the Auditor-General.

The previous Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report, report 419, with unanimous support made some very good recommendations, that are now being turned into legislation, effectively under the principle of following the money trail. Every taxpayers' dollar is allowed to be followed in some form by the Auditor-General to make sure we as taxpayers and we as a parliament on behalf of taxpayers can follow that money trail and make sure there is value for money and efficiency delivered. This is not a secret deal that is being done, as I heard from a previous speaker. This has all been done very publicly and in a very open process. In fact, if you look at all the bills going through this place at the moment, this bill is taking longer than any other private member's bill or government bill in what is a very public process. With regard to amendments from the government and the opposition, both have been delivered to the parliament this morning so no pot can call any kettle blacker than any other. Both amendments, in the appropriate parliamentary way I might say, have been put on the table this morning. There are no surprises; there is no conspiracy theory. This will be debated quite openly and I welcome that debate.

As well, on a comment that was made that this is an inappropriate place for discussion on this important bill, as all members who have been in this place for a long time would, or should, know, there was an opportunity for any member of parliament not to allow leave when the issues were referred to the Main Committee. These were referred from the House and with full support, with no member seeking leave for it to be denied. That opportunity was given to members. To then stand in this chamber, in the Main Committee, and say that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, that amendments and tricks are being used in the Main Committee to try to hurry this through, is erroneous; it is false and once again an example of a smear being of more value in debate, apparently, than the substance of the policy itself.

The one point I take away from this morning is about the amendments from the coalition with regard to contractors. On the point that the previous speaker made about her concerns, and the story about the building and the trade unions all potentially being a stitch-up, trade unions can be a contractor as well. So this potentially can be an opportunity for following the money trail. As to whether the unions were diddling taxpayers' money in some form—I do not know the truth or otherwise but the allegation was made—this is a meal ticket to try to get to the truth and the substance of whether that is right or wrong and who is, or is not, to blame.

In a sweet irony that we are seeing this morning, the coalition amendment is arguably knocking out the opportunity for the coalition itself to find the truth of whether taxpayers' money was being misused, or otherwise, by the trade union movement in the building of Parliament House or in any other form. It is disappointing that the opportunity to follow the money trail, whether it is in the public or the private sector, is being knocked out. The work schedule of the Auditor-General and the public interest test involved in the work of the Auditor-General will not allow every small business to be chased. These are billions of dollars that are being put at stake here; I hope you reconsider. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011, which resulted from a long inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which the member for Mackellar and I participated in in the last parliament and have continued to participate in in the new parliament with the new chair of the committee following last year's election. It was a committee that had taken some time. It was also a review that was undertaken at a time when we saw the Australian government spend more money at one time than ever before and, I would have to say, waste more money at one time than ever before. We have heard an impassioned defence of the amendments which have just been tabled and I must say that I have only just got them, so it is very difficult to speak on something that has just been tabled by a backbencher of the government in the Main Committee. One point I would make, which I thought the member for Mackellar articulated quite well—but I think the member for Lyne either misunderstood or did not accept it—is that this chamber is designed for non-contentious legislation. The member for Lyne rightly said that no one refused leave when it was moved. When it was moved from the main chamber, it must be said, we did not see what was in this, so there has been quite a change of scenario, and I must say I have not yet had an opportunity to see what is in the government's amendments. I think the member for Mackellar has raised some legitimate concerns, because it does seem quite inconsistent that the Auditor-General can have the power to investigate a private company of his own volition but that, when it is a GBE, the parliament or the committee has to ask the Auditor-General to do so. I am interested in the explanation from the government of why that is the case, and I wonder if the government member at the table might have an explanation; I suspect not.

But let us go back to the review. This review of the power of the Auditor-General was done at a time when the Commonwealth government was spending billions of dollars through the state governments on, most famously, the Building the Education Revolution or school halls program. The school halls program, whether it was a good decision to build school halls or not, was absolutely riddled with waste and mismanagement, particularly in New South Wales and some parts of Victoria; even in my own electorate I had numerous examples. We still have numerous examples where the state Labor governments failed terribly in their duties in implementing this program—using Commonwealth money. We heard the Auditor-General of Queensland, as part of another inquiry just recently, make the point that the reason for this failure in spending was that the way the federal government had gone about laying out the guidelines led to the mismanagement by the states. So there are very good reasons, I think—very good reasons—why we should extend the power of the Auditor-General, who does a very good job in ensuring Australia government money is spent properly. I agree with the member for Lyne, absolutely, that that is exactly what we want the Auditor-General to do: in an independent fashion, investigate and ensure that the Australian government's money, taxpayers' money—other people's money, let us not forget—is being spent properly. And yet in the last three years we have seen waste like never before.

The Auditor-General should have the full ability to find why there was so much waste in those programs, for which billions of dollars were given to state governments. I think the amendments that we have moved, to clarify the role of the private sector and its interaction with the federal government, are wise, because this is about how federal government money, taxpayers' money, is spent by government entities. We need to do that because of the precedents created by the Rudd and Gillard governments—their inability to create programs properly and spend money without wasting billions of dollars.

It has been estimated that, even if you are taking the Orgill review, of a small group of the schools involved in the BER program, there has been well over a billion dollars of waste in that program—extraordinary amounts of money. We do not know, and we cannot get answers from the government because they flick it to the state governments who flick it back to the federal government.

We need that power. I agree with the member for Mackellar's amendments. I cannot speak on the government's amendments because it is so late in the day—they tabled them today—and I expect some answers now from the government member involved.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no surprise whatsoever that the member for Mackellar, who shakes her head before I even utter a word, stands up in this place and moves an amendment that says, 'We should audit unions but we must not audit business.' It just shows that she has tunnel vision. She has her little barrow that she pushes here. She has used the public accounts committee to do it over a long period of time. She says that she does not see the amendments until the last minute, yet she comes up here with amendments that she tables.

I would really like to congratulate the member for Lyne on trying to modernise and make some really constructive changes to this legislation by bringing the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 to this parliament. In this parliament, we are used to seeing people grandstand on certain issues. We have seen the grandstanding take place here this morning. The previous speaker in the debate was talking about Building the Education Revolution and the auditor of that particular program. I do not know whether that member has spoken to his electorate and talked to those schools in his electorate to find out whether or not they are happy. I am getting feedback from all the schools in my electorate that they are very pleased with that program. Money that was spent, that was refused—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This debate is about the government's amendments to a bill brought in by the member for Lyne. If you could draw the member's attention to the debate and ask her to at least stick to the topic, that would be helpful.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendments be agreed to. I ask the honourable member for Shortland to address her remarks to that question.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. You must forgive me for straying a little from the content of these very sensible government amendments that have been moved—and I am entitled to speak to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will focus on the amendments. The honourable member for Shortland has the call.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I pointed out, I am entitled to speak to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. I apologise; I was somewhat distracted by the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, and his attack on the Building the Education Revolution. I admit to the House that I slightly strayed from the contents of the government amendments. These government amendments deal with the function and the power of the Auditor-General, and they are very significant, as opposed to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. I endorse and I urge the House to support the amendments that have been moved by the government.

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

From that contribution, it is quite clear that the member for Shortland has absolutely no idea what is in the government's amendments. Again, the whole issue is being treated with contempt. I ask the member for Lyne, whose bill it is: has he agreed to the government's amendments; and, if so, how does he reconcile those with a situation where the Auditor-General, under the legislation as amended by the government amendments, would have the automatic right to audit private sector companies but no automatic right to audit government business enterprises?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. If no honourable member is seeking the call—

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

I am.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; I did not see the member for Mackellar. I apologise to her. The honourable member for Mackellar has the call.

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

I was seated to allow the member for Lyne to answer the question, which he clearly does not wish to do. I think it is very important—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are assuming and presuming.

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

I will sit down again if you wish to ask. Is this truly the example of how ugly it is, if this is the beauty and the ugliness? Is this what it is all about?

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throw it out then.

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

It made no sense then and it makes no sense now. Very simply, we are now at the stage where the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audits came to a unanimous conclusion—that GBEs should be able to be audited automatically by the Auditor-General. It is something that I personally think, as I said earlier, is rightful for the Auditor-General to be able to do. It is now also, by the government's amendments, reading down the ability of the Auditor-General to chase money given to state and territory governments.

This is a hugely important factor in seeing the way in which federal government policy is carried out and is part of the Auditor-General's responsibility. That is his task—to look at whether the way in which monies are spent is in accordance with the policy of the government. That is why we have that type of audit, as distinct from the perfunctory one, which says, 'Money in, money out. Nobody had their hand in the till.' The question is: is the money from the taxpayer being spent so that government policy, as stated, is in fact carried out?

The fact that the government's amendments are fettering the ability of the Auditor-General to do that relating to state and territory governments and putting a stop to the ability of the Auditor-General to automatically audit government business enterprises—claiming as its defence, in the explanatory memorandum to the amendments, that GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to other Commonwealth bodies—is to make a joke of what the public accounts committee had to say. The private sector is subject to a whole host of auditing procedures which are properly carried out by private sector auditors, whereas the public sector auditor has a whole lot of different tasks which it has to perform and which do not apply to the private sector. This situation where the government can always stop the Auditor-General auditing a GBE—as he has done many times before—by simply stopping a request brought up by an opposition senator, or by an Independent for that matter, on the public accounts committee because it has the numbers to say, 'No, you may not carry out this audit,' is shameful. So the good work that was carried out has been negated.

I see the member for Banks has come in, and he perhaps will be the first member who might have actually read the government's amendments, and he might be able to tell us precisely how the government is justifying the action it is taking. He may be able to tell us precisely why the government has brought in these amendments. On the other hand, he might just have come in here to have a bit of a punch-up. But there we go; we will see when he speaks. But I will put on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the amendments that I properly foreshadowed in my second reading speech which would prevent an automatic right to audit the private sector but would support the automatic auditing of GBEs and the automatic right to properly follow the money trail through to territory and state governments.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Petrie is adjourned and is made an order of the day for the next sitting.