Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. I have just a few points. The first is on the government's approach to the Auditor-General. As someone who has questioned the Auditor-General both at this estimates and at length across various estimates over many years, it is a critical office for accountability and it is a critical office for the functioning of the Australian democracy. And it has uncovered a great deal of corruption and waste on the part of the Morrison government, the most recent of which was of course the Leppington Triangle but there have been many others—I think the sports rorts were uncovered by the Auditor-General.

The Auditor-General ought to be funded properly, despite the 'nothing to see here' that Senator Birmingham engaged in at estimates and in this chamber when the opposition has asked questions. I was interested today to see Julian Hill, the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, release analysis from the Parliamentary Library confirming that over the next four years the Auditor-General's budget will be cut by 22.1 per cent in real terms since the Liberals and Nationals came to power in 2013. Since we were in government, that's almost 22 per cent in real terms.

I'm not surprised, because they're pretty embarrassed. Particularly in the other chamber, in the other place, they've been able to undermine many of the mechanisms associated with the Westminster system. For example, under general standards of Westminster accountability and the accountability to the parliament of ministers, I don't reckon that Mr Taylor would still be a minister. I don't think he'd still be a minister after rocking up and relying on a forged document. And we could go on. So I understand—and I think it's deeply, ethically undemocratic and abhorrent—why the government wants this hidden. It's because it was the Auditor-General and that office which uncovered the Prime Minister's involvement in the sports rorts scandal. That's the first point. And it's also why we moved a second reading amendment which called for this.

The second point I would make—and Senator Patrick knows this—is that the Labor Party has a very clear, consistent and principled position that we allow the government of the day to pass its appropriation bills. Senator Patrick comes in here and says, 'We must save the Auditor-General!' I have a suggestion for Senator Patrick. He's already flagged with us that he's going to have a go at Labor for not supporting his request. Well, we've had this position for many decades: the government passes its appropriation bills and we expect the same. But I say to him: I'll tell you what, if you want to come in here and beat your chest about saving the Auditor-General here's an idea for you. You're going to trade your vote away, if you haven't already, on a range of bills this fortnight. Why don't you make this one of your demands? Instead of grandstanding, why don't you actually say, 'If you want my vote on the cashless debit card,' which I understand you might support anyway, 'and you want my vote on all these issues, why don't you actually deliver some funding?' in the way that you kind of dealt with Senator Cormann for votes? Why don't you do that? That will actually deliver funding, much more than a request that you know we will not support.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

We will not support it for the principled reasons that we have had for decades, and you know about the political and constitutional background to that. You know that—