Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery (Senator Arbib) and Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice today.

Senator Conroy might well believe that he is completely on message, but people listening today would be entitled to ask just who in the government has responsibility for spending. The stark reality, from answers given today, is that the Rudd Labor government has simply let spending get out of control. No-one, it seems, not the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the finance minister nor, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister is capable of prudently managing the nation’s finances.

Mr Tanner is very fond of lecturing the coalition. He gets himself asked a dorothy dixer in the House of Representatives and then, as he did yesterday, wants to see what the coalition is doing about savings. I can only assume that these homilies to the House are an attempt to cover his own, no doubt acute, embarrassment as the finance minister on the beat who has presided over reckless spending. There has been $124 billion in new spending racked up just since Labor took office. That is the largest debt and deficit in modern Australian history.

There is a growing concern in the community that Labor has lost control of the nation’s finances with runaway spending, debt and deficit. If any clearer evidence were needed of Labor’s inability to manage money, it is now revealed that the $14.7 billion of borrowed taxpayers’ money for the Building the Education Revolution program is replete with examples of waste, inefficiencies, duplication and bungled administration of public finances that have been asked about in the House and the Senate with completely unsatisfactory answers. The public is entitled to an explanation.

The Deputy Prime Minister, of course, has got form when it is comes to bungled policy. The Computers in Schools program comes to mind; her costings blew out from $800 million to $2.2 billion. She is now delivering half of what was promised and costing more than twice, which is hardly value for money. This would hardly instil confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister’s managerial skills but now, of course, she has been allowed to administer the $14.7 billion stimulus for schools. Should we be surprised at the unfolding debacle?

This is a government addicted to spending and the finance minister has failed to keep it in check. After frittering away $20 billion in cash handouts, ministers are now running around in hard hats trying to convince the Australian public that the money they are splashing around now is being better spent. The truth is that this rushed $14.7 billion tsunami of spending on Australian schools is being poorly implemented; it is undeniable. There are no checks in place on the value for money for individual projects. Ms Gillard and Mr Tanner are content to play the global financial crisis defence every time their accountability on spending is called into question. Yes, we are all concerned about Australian jobs but this is simply a cloak that Labor is hiding behind.

It is not too much to ask the government of the day to show Australians how they are achieving value for money with this $14.7 billion stimulus, how they are meeting probity guidelines or if they are properly accounting for hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars. Senator Conroy’s reaction today in question time was simply extraordinary. Why is the government so sensitive if, indeed, they have nothing to hide and if, indeed, everything they have spent in this $14.7 billion stimulus stacks up? Why are they so worried about showing the Auditor-General?

When poor examples continue to surface in regard to large amounts of mismanaged public funds, Australians deserve answers. A perfect example of poor decision making was highlighted in the Australian only yesterday. A school in Senator Conroy’s own state of Victoria, a Montessori School, was found to have been given some money but that they no longer comply with the prescribed minimum standards for registration as a school. What is going on with this debacle of a program? If the government is confident that they are beyond reproach, they should not hide from scrutiny from the Auditor-General on the apparent waste and mismanagement. Australian taxpayers’ expect and deserve accountability. Instead of worrying about the coalition, Mr Tanner needs to clean up the Labor government’s waste, inefficiency and mismanagement in his own backyard.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again in question time today we saw the coalition taking the political low road. It is not surprising, because they are a coalition of no policies. They have got no idea what to do. All they want to do is beat things up—get baseless allegations and repeat them here as if that gives them some evidentiary base. It is simply not true. Let us talk about the new Job Services Australia tendering process, which Senator Fifield asked Minister Arbib about today—in another example of taking the low road. Senator Fifield well knows about this, because the Senate is actually doing an inquiry into the process right now, and only last week Senator Fifield and I and other senators held hearings with the stakeholders, some of the successful applicants to the tendering process and some of the unsuccessful applicants. He already has answers to all those questions he asked. Strangely enough, during the Senate inquiry process he asked them in a measured, sensible way. But what do we find here, when we get on the broadcast, when we may be on TV or radio? We get this feigned indignation, this absolute beat-up, about some of these issues.

That is really taking the low road. You are trying to put uncertainty and doubt in the minds of unemployed people about the safety and security of the new system that we are putting in place. I think that is a cruel thing to do to some of our most vulnerable people, when you know it is not true because you questioned the department, you questioned the witnesses before us and you know that there is a structured, measured, properly accountable system being introduced by this government and by the department. You know it is true, Senator Fifield. To take the political low road and to put uncertainty and doubt into the minds of unemployed people that the system will not be up and running is a cruel thing for you to do. It is taking the political low road and it is a cruel thing to do.

We are going through major reform in this new system that we are setting up, Job Services Australia. It rolls seven existing programs into one program, one that offers pathways and gets rid of all the red tape. It actually takes unemployed people and puts them into the right pathway rather than putting them on the conveyor belt which Minister Arbib talked about before and just hoping that they get off in the right area. This is the right program for the times and we are effectively putting it in place.

With regard to the competitive tendering process, I want to remind the Senate and remind Senator Fifield, even though I do not think he needs reminding, that it was the Liberals who actually introduced competitive tendering into this service area. Whenever we have competitive tendering, there will be losers and there will be winners. Strangely enough, when the winners came before the committee they were very satisfied with the tendering process; when the losers came before the committee they were unhappy. But the evidence put clearly before the committee was that the tendering process was a clear and straightforward process. There were no tricks involved and it relied on an independent assessment through the department. The probity commissioner monitored that tendering process. People were selected on the merit and the strength of their tender. That is what a tendering process is.

I have got a lot of sympathy for some of the organisations that have been working in this area for some time and missed out. Of course they do not believe they missed out because they did anything wrong or they were not providing the best service they could provide at the time. I do sympathise with them. I feel sorry for them because, in this industry, people are very dedicated, but the reality is, when you go into a tendering process and compare one tender to another, there are going to be some winners and some losers. Of course some of the losers are looking for someone else to blame, because it would be hard to admit—especially if they were already existing in the service area—that they did not stack up well enough against people who maybe were not existing in the area but who obviously put in a better tender. Of course they will be looking for others to blame. But that is the nature of the tendering process and it is no different to the tendering process that was put in place by the previous government and exercised by the previous government.

This government has done more to enable those people who have missed out on tenders to move on. We have put in place an adjustment fund which will deliver approximately $100,000 to a lot of these organisations that missed out. Under the previous Liberal government, if you missed out, you got nothing. (Time expired)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Coonan was of course right. With this government there is a history of government waste and a cavalier attitude towards taxpayers’ money. From the beginning, the education revolution has been a shambles, and it has been debated many times in the Senate. The computers in schools fiasco was just that, a fiasco. Eighteen months down the track less than eight per cent of the computers have hit the desk. More importantly, the program is way, way over budget. It is a billion dollars over budget already.

As Senator Coonan has already indicated, Building the Education Revolution is even more of a fiasco. This is the problem: schools are not getting what they need, what they want; they are getting what the state bureaucrats believe they need. There is a diktat from the state governments about what they need. There are templates—template A, template B, template C; take your pick. ‘You’ve got a library? Do you want another one?’ That is what is happening. It is a totally inefficient, centrally planned approach, as always. On the government’s own words, there were two aims involved in Building the Education Revolution. One was to provide jobs. The other was to enhance educational outcomes. Neither of those has been achieved. There is little flexibility in what schools can receive. There is this whiff of central planning.

And what about overcharging? Already this week in the Senate in question time the ministers on the other side have been very reluctant to talk about the tendering process. Yet the evidence is coming in that schools themselves have wanted cheaper projects but they have been denied them by state governments, who have forced more expensive projects on them or projects they do not even want. They are projects that the schools do not want and they are more expensive. This is a centrally planned shambles, with a whiff of Leonid Brezhnev in it. It is thus far a total fiasco.

I mentioned today Mulgildie State School, west of Bundaberg. I will be interested to find out what Senator Arbib finds out on notice about that school. I think he will find that the government is spending money it does not need to and, worse, the school is not getting what it wants. That really is the point about this. That is where government waste is. Schools are not getting what they want and what they need. They are being told by state governments what they should get. Ultimately that is the theme of the entire Building the Education Revolution. It is all about spend, spend, spend, but it is not a good spend.

What did we discover from estimates? We discovered that the primary aim of Building the Education Revolution was to create jobs. That was the primary aim. Yet in the first round $2.6 billion was given out, and did the Commonwealth government or the state government ask any successful tenderers how many jobs would be created on each individual project? Did they? No, they did not. The government, Commonwealth or state, never asked how many jobs would be created on each individual project. Job creation was not the key here; rather, it was for the Prime Minister and Ms Gillard to be seen in a high-visibility vest, a hard hat and a bulldozer. It was all about PR and spin. That is what this is about, and that is why it is such a damn shame—$12.7 billion, and it could have done so much. But it is not about education outcomes. We know that because the schools are telling us that. And it is not about creating jobs, because the government did not even ask how many jobs would be created. So on both counts, both primary aims of Building the Education Revolution, the government failed. This is not even a facet of best spend or indeed even a good spend; this is just a spend. This is about spend and spin, not value for money. And $12.7 billion will be sacrificed for photo opportunities for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and it will not maximise job creation or maximise educational outcomes.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise today to talk about new employment services, which is the subject of this debate. We went to the election in 2007 on a platform of reforming the antiquated process of Job Network. We were left by the previous government with a network that was out of date, based on one size fits all, bogged down in red tape and incapable of dealing with Australia’s chronic skills shortage. Previously, before my involvement in this chamber, I can recall speaking to copious numbers of employers about their concerns about getting skilled employees, getting people available to fill trade jobs or manual handling jobs. They had genuine concerns about getting people skilled for those positions. And here we are today hearing complaints from the opposition about a job network that is going to be able to fix those skill shortages.

There was a political decision to roll over 95 per cent of business in the last tender of the Job Network in 2006, initiating no improvements. Through 2008 we consulted with employment service providers, employers, job seekers and community groups to hear their views on how we should improve them, and I think we have fulfilled that promise by announcing Job Services Australia, which will tailor service to each job seeker, scrap waiting periods for services for more jobseekers and promote the value of real training that leads to job opportunities. The government have invested $2 billion in this productivity based program which will provide 319,000 training places for jobseekers. I do not understand how any party can oppose or have an issue with those aids to employment growth at a time when employment is critical to ensure we stimulate the economy. It is beyond me. It will cut red tape for providers, freeing them up to help job seekers. It will retain and expand access to specialist services for highly disadvantaged jobseekers. It will be uncapped and demand driven, unlike the previous position, where we had a waiting list of over 20,000 for personal support programs.

Naturally, as we go through a tendering process there are always issues we need to deal with. This process is all about ensuring that we have a more responsible set of employment services for job seekers. They deserve and need the best possible service in these difficult economic times. Fundamentally the reform is not easy. Due to the previous government’s laziness, we had no choice but to undertake a full tender, which has made some changes for providers. However, it is important to reflect and note that there is increased demand for workers with skills and experience in employment services, and the government do not want to see people with those skills lost from the new services. We do not want to see them on the scrapheap; we want to make sure that they are protected and that they are allocated appropriate employment. This is why we are providing resources to the peak provider association, NESA, to establish a website to help new providers seeking skilled staff and help staff affected by the tender allocation during the transition to Job Services Australia, which will begin on 1 July.

The government’s new business adjustment fund will offer a range of assistance to community based organisations that have not gained work under the new tender. The fund will provide grants to help organisations continue to operate while they develop new business plans, including identifying and developing new opportunities, with access to a panel of business advisers to help with restructuring business strategies and identifying new opportunities. No doubt there will be some impact on job seekers. The tender process was designed to throw it out there and see who is in the mix to be able to tender for the positions. The tender process was designed to ensure that job seekers have access to the best reforming employment service providers to give them greater opportunities to find work.

We heard from the previous speaker, Senator Mason, that job creation is not the key here. I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that it is the key here. In tough economic times we need to ensure that people are employed in appropriate areas for their skill base and to make sure they are allocated jobs that assist and grow the economy. You have only got to look at some of the positioning at the openings where opposition members line up for photo opportunities. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the motion to take note of the answers of Senator Conroy and Senator Arbib, I want to highlight the fact that in terms of managing this economy they are demonstrating indiscriminate and reckless behaviour, particularly with respect to education but not just with respect to education. They have no interest in ensuring that value for money is being received by the taxpayers. In terms of outcomes, what is the story? They do not know. They have no idea how jobs have been created by the government’s spending. In terms of educational outcomes, they have no idea. We had the farcical arrangements with the laptops in schools where the original budget was $1.2 billion, and that blew out to $2 billion. That is a 66 per cent increase in expenditure. It is a problem with the government’s mismanagement and maladministration, not just of government services but of our economy. They failed to take into account the operational costs of the laptops—such a basic, fundamental management procedure but they did not take those costs into account. We saw a 66 per cent increase for the taxpayer.

As Senator Mason indicated earlier, this is a government of PR and spin. That is what they are interested in. I call the Prime Minister the grand spinmeister. He is the grand spinmeister, and his troops and his ministers are doing his bidding. But it is not just education. I want to list some of the other areas of waste, mismanagement and maladministration by this government. We have had the tax bonus waste, where we have seen millions of dollars going out to dead people, to deceased estates. There have been 15,934 of those, to a few weeks ago, and over 27,000 Australians living overseas have received the tax bonus, when the key objective was to strengthen and grow the Australian economy. We had the $14 million splashed on wasted policy reviews. They have spent $14 million on 140 policy reviews but they have only acted on a handful of those findings. We had taxpayers’ funds wasted on the Prime Minister’s bid for a UN Security Council seat, and you would know, Mr Deputy President, being on the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, that the budget reports a direct cost for this bid of $11.2 million, over a two-year period, but there are potentially tens of millions of extra dollars to be used from other parts of the budget, including the foreign aid budget. We have seen this $164,000 splurge on a blatantly political website—yes, a $164,000 bill for a blatantly political website promoting the Rudd government’s budget. Senator Michael Ronaldson, our shadow Special Minister of State, highlighted these concerns just some weeks ago. We had some issues with the 2020 Summit. The government expended $2 million of taxpayers’ funds on that talkfest. And what have they done? The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has agreed to fund only nine of the 962 recommendations. As the Australian editorial said at the time, it is big hype, small ideas, none of the ideas proved visionary and most are recycled.

Then we had the issue of government legal costs exceeding $500 million. Remember that the Labor Party in opposition attacked the Howard government’s spending on lawyers, and Attorney-General Robert McClelland has been forced to defend the Rudd government’s 2007-08 legal bill of $510 million—up from $408 million under the Howard government. So it was a $100 million increase in costs for lawyers under this government. The government also now has the reputation of having the highest consultancy costs in the history of the Australian government. They spend more on consultants than any government in Australian history. As of just a month or so ago, consultancy costs have totalled more than $500 million since the government has come to office. Of course the shadow minister before the election, Lindsay Tanner, promised to cut consultancy costs back by $395 million. So their waste, inefficiency and mismanagement knows no bounds.

Question agreed to.