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

In response to Senator Xenophon's direct question: if there is ever any audit of a small business it will be, by its nature, the exception not the rule. That logically derives from the comment provided in writing by the Auditor-General. I will read it again:

… very unlikely that this would ever be the case in relation to a small business.

So the Auditor-General does not, on the basis of the statement he has provided, anticipate a heavy workload in this area. That is why I characterise it as exception rather than rule and that is why, Senator Xenophon, I characterise Senator Ryan's argument as a straw man argument. If the responsible entity does not intend to have a heavy, a medium, a small, a sequential or an ongoing workload in relation to audit of small business, then it is a straw man argument to build this up into a massive issue. These arguments were run in the House under the sponsorship of Mrs Bishop—she moved amendments which were in substance the same but different in form—and were specifically covered in the explanatory memorandum.

On the issue raised by Senator Xenophon concerning the cost to small business, no analysis has been done. It is too early to do the analysis. We disagree with the inference that audits will be traumatic for small business. We disagree strongly that any audits, should they occur—no matter how minor in number—will be traumatic for small business. The Auditor-General's office is not operating some sort of gestapo unit which runs near and far with truncheons, invading offices and saying, 'Give us your papers; give us your notes; give us your files.' They are a set of government officials who always conduct themselves properly and only according to law.

The reason I can assert that, Senator Xenophon, is that—and Senator Xenophon knows this—for the best part of 10 years I have been heavily engaged with officials of the Auditor-General's office and departments at all levels, particularly in the areas of defence—the Defence Materiel Organisation and contracting responsibilities of line officers. If no-one else in this parliament has been assiduously following the accounting lines of responsibility, I have. But in all of those inquiries we did in opposition and which have been followed through in government, we have never, ever had a complaint raised—formally or informally, in writing or verbally—about, even at worst, inappropriate behaviour by officials of the Auditor-General's office. So I think, on the basis of the behaviour experienced over the last 10 years, it is not unfair to say that we could expect that behaviour to continue in the future.

So if Senator Xenophon, in addressing the concerns of Senator Ryan, asks what assurances we can give, the response of the government is this. First, we expect any audit of small business to be absolutely minimal. Second, no analysis has been done of the costs to small business—we believe it to be too early. Third, and finally, if the point were to be pressed, we say that the past conduct and performance of the ANAO has never, in all the years I have been here both in opposition and in government, been challenged by any senator or member of the House. On that basis we would say that the integrity and past practice of officials should be regarded as sufficient guarantee. Even if one were to go to the worst case, as outlined by Senator Ryan and raised by Senator Xenophon—that is, if there were outrageous abuse, if there were exceptionally poor behaviour by officials or if tactics of the type described but not specified by Senator Ryan were employed—there is, of course, a set of regulations which provide recourse. So, Senator Xenophon, that is the response of the Commonwealth to your legitimate question.