Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Conroy, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the government agree with the principle that cutting funding to the offices of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Auditor-General undermines government accountability?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. The budget was framed in difficult economic circumstances—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by a government that was dealing with global uncertainty.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ‘magic pudding’ argument being advanced by the economic illiterates on the other side—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat, Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy has the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The argument being put by those opposite is: ‘It just doesn’t matter; chop the budget surplus by $1 billion, $6 billion—it doesn’t matter.’ Is that the sort of economic responsibility that this country needs and the Australian public is calling for? As I said earlier in question time, we have substantial global uncertainty, we have rising oil prices, so the budget was framed in that context. A number of hard decisions have had to be made, and they have been shared across many areas of the public sector. My own department has had to make savings. Treasury, Finance and all of the ancillary organisations have had to accept the efficiency dividend. So the budget was framed in a way that would deliver downward pressure on interest rates—and I am sure Senator Xenophon, and occasionally those opposite, would agree that the challenge in the economy at the moment is to reduce pressure on interest rates. That means reducing pressure on inflation so that we are able to assist in that fight—not like those opposite, whose main interest is cheap political points.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you get on to the Ombudsman now?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ombudsman, like all those other agencies I have already mentioned, has had to take the dividend cut. So let us be clear about this: the budget was framed in tough economic circumstances and we have had to apply cuts right across the board, including to the Ombudsman. So those opposite, who continually interject, try and pretend that there is a magic pudding—that is the level that those opposite have sunk to: continual interjections—because they do not think that $6 billion has any impact. This comes from those opposite, who are going to seek to block measures in this country which will reduce the chances for the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To those opposite who continue to make that case, good luck to you, because the Australian public are awake to those who seek to play short-term political games at the expense of taking the fight up to inflation and reducing interest rates. All of those agencies, including the Ombudsman, have had to accept these cuts.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How does the minister explain the comments by the Auditor-General to a parliamentary inquiry last week, when he said the government’s so-called efficiency dividends had gone beyond efficiencies and started cutting programs, forcing a reduction by five performance audits this year? Isn’t that a false economy?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The JCPAA has held two public hearings in support of an inquiry, and they were on the 20th and 21st. The government are aware that a number of smaller agencies have made submissions to the JCPAA inquiry, including agencies like the APSC, the ANAO and the Ombudsman. So the government will review the report of the JCPAA carefully and consider any recommendations that it may make. However, the government are also confident that all of our agencies will be able to deliver the outcomes we require within whatever financial constraints the government believe are necessary and appropriate.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.