Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to address both of the issues raised by Senator Barnett in his introduction to the motion to take note of answers. First is the reference to the youth allowance bill not passed yesterday and second is the issue relating to consultancies and allegations of waste, mismanagement and ineffective use of public moneys.

Yesterday was almost like being in Alice in Wonderland. We had a most remarkable outcome for a government bill, whereby the opposition moved to block passage of the youth allowance bill by refusing to adopt the report of the committee once the matter had come out of committee. As I am advised, that is the first time that has occurred since Federation—so was a remarkable process in itself. But the effect of that process is even more remarkable when one considers that the effect of that decision was, and is, to deny families in this country with ordinary incomes—incomes of $44,000 a year—a benefit in terms of direct payments to their children to advance their aspirations via education, whilst at the same time allowing families with children and incomes in excess of $150,000 a year to continue to access a benefit that the government seeks to regularise, make more efficient and more distributist in practice.

That is a remarkable outcome: to take from those at the bottom end of the chain, on an income of $44,000, and maintain the same payment to those on an income of $150,000. It was supported by the opposition, both the Liberal Party and the National Party, and one wonders why representatives of the National Party would seek to achieve such an outcome when they hold a number of seats in northern and central New South Wales and the lower parts of Queensland which, on any objective determination, are the lowest income seats in Australia—not traditional Labor Party seats in the inner cities: the lowest income seats are in northern New South Wales and the Central Coast area. Not only are they low-income seats but representatives of the National Party in this chamber sought to make things worse by denying a benefit to those people, whose average income is something in the order of $40,000 a year, whilst maintaining payment of the same benefit to families with an income of $150,000. It is just an absolutely outrageous stunt that occurred, with no benefit at all to the people that the coalition seeks to advance.

The other issue that Senator Barnett raised was one of allegations of waste, mismanagement and disregard of inefficiency in the payment of public moneys. Senator Barnett opened with a flourish by advising that he was going to announce that huge amounts had been paid out in wasteful consultancies. It is always useful when you do that to make reference to what the facts are. The facts are these: the actual expenditure on consultancies for the top 40 consultants reported by agencies in annual reports under the FMA Act was $463 million in the financial year past, not the $750-odd million referred to by Senator Barnett. That figure of $463 million was over $50 million less than for the same comparable period for when the full figures are available in the financial year 2006-07.

In that context, not only are the figures alleged to be incorrect but the actual outlays are considerably less, and considerably less in the current financial year than they were in the financial year 2006-07. Indeed it is fair to say, as was said at estimates by officials, that government expenditure in 2007-08 and 2008-09 on consultants has reduced by over $130 million compared to the peak year—the last year of the Howard government—in 2006-07. Why has that occurred? It is because the Rudd Labor government has imposed stringency and requirements on government agencies to the effect that value for money remains the core principle of the Australian government procurement and supply, also to— (Time expired)