Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to respond to some of the statements that have been made around the chamber. I will indicate that I'm very disappointed that Labor is not going to support this amendment. I want to read from the second reading of Mr Julian Hill in the other place. He's a man who I have a lot of respect for, not just as a person but also as the deputy chair of the JCPAA. He's fully informed as to the funding requests of the Auditor-General because they are tendered to the JCPAA at the same time as going to the Prime Minister, as that is a legislative requirement. He says—talking about the government:

They've used COVID-19 and this budget to cut the Auditor-General's budget, to silence the independent watchdog. Make no mistake: this is revenge for sports rorts. It's revenge for exposing the corruption, as it now looks, in paying $30 million to a Liberal Party donor for land worth $3 million. The Defence contracting blowouts, the casualisation of the public service—what's the government's response to this? Cut the budget of the independent watchdog that is exposing their rorts, waste and corruption. Who knows what else they're hiding? It's vengeful and it's pathetic.

The Auditor-General has been in structural deficit for the last few years because of the accumulation of cuts. They call them efficiency dividends. Let's be clear: for a small agency, that is a cut. The efficiency dividend piles up, year after year, and it's cut after cut after cut. Last year he lost $3.3 million and the year before $4.4 million. We're at the point now where the Auditor-General said to the Prime Minister, who's supposed to look after him—he's an independent officer of the parliament, and the Prime Minister is supposed to look after him—'I can't do it anymore. I can't meet KPIs of 48 performance audits a year without fear or favour.'

That's what Mr Julian Hill said in the other place—fully informed as the deputy chair of the JCPAA. He had it absolutely right. I sit here absolutely astounded—

Senator Gallagher interjecting—

You're probably right. I take that interjection, Senator Gallagher; I'm not astounded, because you do it all the time. You sit in the seats of the opposition party but you don't actually oppose; you just wave things through. Senator Wong stood up and talked about longstanding conventions. I understand about longstanding conventions, I understand about blocking supply, but there's nothing wrong with saying to the government: 'We're going to support Senator Patrick's request. We believe he's right. You know what, you can take it back to the other place and we can get the Prime Minister again to reconsider.' That's not blocking supply, it's just asserting what is right.

Senator Gallagher interjecting—

No, it is not blocking supply.

Senator Gallagher interjecting—

I did. I suggested privately that you could simply assert and support me. The government didn't need to know. You could have sent it back to the other place and actually had a bit of a fight. But I know that's a tough ask for you! I am disappointed. I want a strong opposition. I don't want to see a situation where, after the next election, we have even more of the Liberal Party on the other side. I'm actually trying to work with you, but you've got to be a strong opposition before you have any chance of being in government.

Senator Gallagher interjecting—

We will move to the cashless debit card if you like. There were accusations. I acknowledge what Senator Wong said—that it is often the crossbench that hold everyone to account and it is often the crossbench that use their leverage to get much better things for the public. It would be good if the opposition were able to do that, but it can't. You seem unable to do that. When it comes to the cashless debit card, I haven't given a position on that; I'm simply considering where I'm going to land. You might be very surprised at where I sit in the chamber next week. I haven't made up my mind—and to suggest that I have is simply ill-informed.

I urge the Labor Party to be a strong opposition. Australia deserves a strong opposition. Stand with me and stand with the Greens as we stand up for the Auditor-General—one of the few people left who is able to exercise power. Go and have a look at section 32 of the Auditor-General Act. He has extraordinary powers that allow him to gather the sort of information you've been refused at the COVID committee—which, in my view, you have been refused inappropriately. Nonetheless, the Auditor-General has extensive powers. You can't even deny cabinet documents to him. So let's fund him properly. Let's stand up for him. It's one of the few government agencies that seems to be able to actually get to the bottom of things. I'm not asking you to block supply; I'm asking you to send this bill back to the other place and let them reconsider. Maybe Mr Albanese will stand up and mount a convincing argument that will cause the Prime Minister to change his view. You won't know unless you give it a shot.

Moving to what the minister said, he talked about the need for a review. Waiting for the review is just a huge furphy. We know what the effect of this budget cut will be. It will be less oversight. That may well suit you, Senator Birmingham, but we do not have to wait for the review to find that out. You could have essentially given the Auditor-General what he wanted and the review could have continued, but instead we will get less oversight. I accept that the budget remains the same, that there wasn't a cut, but I say to you, as the finance minister: don't be spending focused, be outcome focused. The Auditor-General explains that the standard audits he does—the financial audits of the sort that revealed anomalies in respect of the chairman of ASIC's payments—are taking up more time and costing more money, which means the Auditor-General simply can't do as many performance audits. You ought to be outcome focused, Minister. With that, I will now ask the question: what's the basis for the decision of government to only fund the Auditor-General this year for 42 performance audits, instead of the normal 48? What's the reasoning behind that?