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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Barnett and Carol Brown today relating to consultancy contracts and to income support for students.

Labor’s wasteful and reckless spending is now systemic right across the government. I say that because today I can announce that $952 million worth of consultancy contracts have been awarded by this government since it was elected two years ago. That is approaching $1 billion in consultancy contracts as of today.

That is a disgrace because it is on the back of a hollow promise from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, prior to the election that he would cut consultancy spending by $395 million over a four-year period. That is a huge amount of money and he said he would be cutting it. What has happened? Spending on consultancies has gone up and now this government is the highest-spending government in Australia political and parliamentary history. It is approaching $1 billion. As of today, the official figure on the AusTender website—it is available for members of the public to see—is $952 million. It is a disgrace.

They have promised one thing and they have delivered the exact opposite. Waste and mismanagement is now systemic across the government. The question with respect to this government is, it would appear, Kevin Rudd’s complete disregard for obtaining value for money for taxpayers. In less than two years they have wasted billions of taxpayers’ dollars, despite their hollow promises to cut waste. I can refer to a Courier-Mail article of 12 November headed ‘Budget blow-out hits Kevin Rudd’s war on waste’:

THE Rudd Government has blown $2.85 billion—or $130 for every Australian—on financial waste and mismanagement since being elected to office.

It is a disgraceful record and they should hang their heads in shame. Yet Senator Conroy came into the Senate today and, in answer to my question, pooh-poohed the question. The article goes on:

A string of spending blowouts and broken election promises has undermined Labor’s commitment to crack down on wasteful budget expenditure during the global recession.

It is wasteful, it is reckless and it is systemic. It is in complete disregard to the interests of taxpayers.

Only last week it was confirmed that the government wasted $7.7 million, with another $700,000 in contingency costs, on the GROCERYchoice website, which the government was willing to spend over $13 million on. That is over $8 million wasted on a website because of that hollow promise made prior to the last election that they wanted to bring down grocery prices. We all knew that they could not be believed, but they tried to foist this idea on the Australian public. The Senate report canned the GROCERYchoice website big-time. The Senate report said:

… GROCERYchoice was a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money, clearly demonstrating the Government’s apparent disregard for obtaining value for money.

It identifies the total cost. Recommendation 8, the last recommendation, states:

The committee recommends that the Government learn from this episode of waste and mismanagement and ensure that such inappropriate and careless spending does not occur again in the future, noting that now, more than ever, value for money for the taxpayer should be a top priority.

That is exactly right, and let us hope that this government does learn its lesson. They have put forward these hollow promises and they have not delivered. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. That wasteful spending is just another broken election promise for Labor.

We have a top 10 list in the Labor Waste annual report, which is on the laborwaste.com website, and I encourage members of the public to send in information and concerns about the waste that this government is putting the Australian people through. You have the GROCERYchoice website, the school stimulus debacle, the highest consultancies cost in history for any Australian government, laptops in schools, the Northern Territory housing program of $45 million and not one house, the tax bonus waste, stimulus advertising, the broadband tender—$20 million wasted right there and then—climate change advertising and of course the 2020 Summit, where $2 million was wasted. It is a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money and they should be ashamed. (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is quite interesting that those sitting on that side would want to talk about waste and government expenditure, given what we had to live through for the 11½ years of the former government. Has Senator Barnett forgotten the repetitious advertising that we had to endure? Australians were just so sick of ‘Unchain my heart’ advertisements when we had the GST, and who can forget those appalling advertisements? They were so repetitious. The former Howard government were spending more money than Coca-Cola on TV advertising towards the end, with those appalling Work Choices ads. But I have to say, from this side of the chamber, I thanked the former government for that investment because I am sure that the frequency, the repetition and the hollowness of those advertisements promoting their Work Choices policy in fact worked in our favour rather than in theirs. So it is rather extraordinary that you would have, on a day like today, a discussion about government waste.

I want to go to other questions around the former government’s waste and mismanagement, and I go to two of my favourites: Sustainable Regions and Regional Partnerships. We had a beautiful example of the almost total waste of $17 million on the Atherton Tablelands, west of my town of Cairns. We had examples where the previous government—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not here, Senator, at the time. This is a good one. You should actually listen to this one. Five million dollars was given to a zoo near Kuranda. Less than a month later it went into receivership. We have people on that side talking about looking after government money, looking after taxpayers’ money, but $5 million was given to a zoo, which is against the regional tourism plan anyway, and within a month it was in receivership. What sort of due diligence gives you that sort of outcome? What sort of due diligence was applied to giving a large sum of money—I cannot recall the actual figure at the moment—to a hotel in the town of Atherton for a so-called convention centre, and this is the hotel that has topless barmaids on Friday afternoons, for example? What sort of sense is there in spending that sort of money on a pub on the main street of Atherton for a so-called convention centre? It was totally built out. It was not possible for it to be built. This is the sort of waste that we had to deal with time after time from those on the other side.

My good friend Senator Sterle suggested that I mention the only piece of major infrastructure that the previous government could look to. That is the building of a railway that does not make any money: the extension of the Adelaide-Darwin railway. So if those on that side want to talk about waste and mismanagement I think they need to look back over their own history before accusing this government, which has brought in a number of significant measures to increase transparency and to provide information to the community about expenditure, particularly on consultancies.

I note that from 1 July 2008 agencies have been required to report all consultancy contracts via AusTender and the website to which Senator Barnett referred. I commend the minister for this step. This will increase transparency. It will ensure that departments and government agencies will be much more thoughtful about the sorts of consultancies and contracts that they want to let, because they will know that there will be parliamentary and public scrutiny of those contracts that are let. So I certainly commend the minister for introducing that level of transparency, scrutiny and accountability, which will improve their performance on procurement reporting. (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to the very good question that was asked by my colleague Senator Barnett. It was a particularly relevant question today, given that yesterday was the second anniversary of the election of the Rudd Labor government. It is timely to reflect on the economic mismanagement of that government and the waste that we have observed over that period of time.

Contrary to the comments made by Senator McLucas, it was under a fiscally responsible Howard-Costello government that the hard work of Australians, with the strong measures taken by that government, ensured that Australia was in the best possible position to weather the global financial crisis. So how is it that in the space of just two years Labor’s reckless spending decisions have left Australians with a record $153 billion debt with monthly interest repayments of $680 million? Senator Conroy himself raised the issue of the Julia Gillard memorial halls—halls which I have to say have already seen a huge blow-out of some $1.7 billion, so we are now looking at a project that will have a total cost of up to $17 billion. These are halls, I remind this chamber, where the principals and the parents have no say in the way in which the money could be best targeted and directed to improve the education of their families and of the students of those schools. We have seen a massive blow-out and a poorly targeted spend with a not-very-good outcome.

As my colleague Senator Barnett asked, where is the value for money? You look at the Julia Gillard memorial hall projects and see that that is not value for money. I am reminded of a couple of examples. We had one school in Longreach in outback Queensland that was granted $250,000 to build a library for one student. They had one student. Is that value for money? Of course it is not. It is absolutely appalling. It is a disgrace, and this government should be held to account for it. We have so many examples of this. Senator Barnett raised the issue of the absolutely disgraceful expense on consultants in Sydney for the Abbotsford Public School. They spent $85,000 on consultants and plans as part of a $2½ million plan to knock down four existing classrooms which are perfectly good and in great shape so that they can build a Julia Gillard memorial hall. These are all examples of disgraceful expense, which we know is very much a tradition of Labor governments.

I am also reminded of the laptops in schools program, which is part of the Building the Education Revolution Program. Anyone who runs a household budget would be absolutely appalled at the way in which these guys are managing the dollars. This has already blown out by 66 per cent to a staggering $800 million—yet again not value for money. There are many such examples, and we have only to be reminded of what happened at this time last year, when the Rudd Labor government gave everybody a Christmas gift of $900. What did we get from that? Where did that go? Certainly those who went off overseas to spend it on their Christmas holidays did not inject it back into the economy here. The programs are all poorly conceived and are not clearly and properly targeted. You can see why we have a serious blow-out in our budget bottom line. (Time expired)

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

I want to address both of the issues raised by Senator Barnett in his introduction to the motion to take note of answers. First is the reference to the youth allowance bill not passed yesterday and second is the issue relating to consultancies and allegations of waste, mismanagement and ineffective use of public moneys.

Yesterday was almost like being in Alice in Wonderland. We had a most remarkable outcome for a government bill, whereby the opposition moved to block passage of the youth allowance bill by refusing to adopt the report of the committee once the matter had come out of committee. As I am advised, that is the first time that has occurred since Federation—so was a remarkable process in itself. But the effect of that process is even more remarkable when one considers that the effect of that decision was, and is, to deny families in this country with ordinary incomes—incomes of $44,000 a year—a benefit in terms of direct payments to their children to advance their aspirations via education, whilst at the same time allowing families with children and incomes in excess of $150,000 a year to continue to access a benefit that the government seeks to regularise, make more efficient and more distributist in practice.

That is a remarkable outcome: to take from those at the bottom end of the chain, on an income of $44,000, and maintain the same payment to those on an income of $150,000. It was supported by the opposition, both the Liberal Party and the National Party, and one wonders why representatives of the National Party would seek to achieve such an outcome when they hold a number of seats in northern and central New South Wales and the lower parts of Queensland which, on any objective determination, are the lowest income seats in Australia—not traditional Labor Party seats in the inner cities: the lowest income seats are in northern New South Wales and the Central Coast area. Not only are they low-income seats but representatives of the National Party in this chamber sought to make things worse by denying a benefit to those people, whose average income is something in the order of $40,000 a year, whilst maintaining payment of the same benefit to families with an income of $150,000. It is just an absolutely outrageous stunt that occurred, with no benefit at all to the people that the coalition seeks to advance.

The other issue that Senator Barnett raised was one of allegations of waste, mismanagement and disregard of inefficiency in the payment of public moneys. Senator Barnett opened with a flourish by advising that he was going to announce that huge amounts had been paid out in wasteful consultancies. It is always useful when you do that to make reference to what the facts are. The facts are these: the actual expenditure on consultancies for the top 40 consultants reported by agencies in annual reports under the FMA Act was $463 million in the financial year past, not the $750-odd million referred to by Senator Barnett. That figure of $463 million was over $50 million less than for the same comparable period for when the full figures are available in the financial year 2006-07.

In that context, not only are the figures alleged to be incorrect but the actual outlays are considerably less, and considerably less in the current financial year than they were in the financial year 2006-07. Indeed it is fair to say, as was said at estimates by officials, that government expenditure in 2007-08 and 2008-09 on consultants has reduced by over $130 million compared to the peak year—the last year of the Howard government—in 2006-07. Why has that occurred? It is because the Rudd Labor government has imposed stringency and requirements on government agencies to the effect that value for money remains the core principle of the Australian government procurement and supply, also to— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Carr about youth allowance, following on from my colleague across the chamber. I can only assume that I must excuse him for a lack of knowledge about this. Quite frankly, the arrogance that is coming from the other side of the chamber on this youth allowance issue is nothing short of extraordinary. The coalition made the decision on this side of the chamber yesterday to stop that bill for very good reasons.

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

What are those good reasons?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know exactly what they are. One is that the current gap year students, who entered into this year in good faith on advice from Centrelink and school counsellors as the appropriate pathway forward for them to gain access to independent youth allowance, had the rug ripped out from underneath the whole lot of them halfway through the year by your minister, Julia Gillard, who did not have a clue about the effect that was going to have.

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

You have been running that argument for 18 months!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only reason, Senator Bishop, that she did a backflip on some of them was because of the overwhelming deluge that came from the community to your minister, saying, ‘This is not fair. It’s not on.’ And she realised—she did a backflip for 5,000 which, of course, should never have been there in the first place. But there are 25,000 other students who embarked on that year in good faith and on good advice to be told that they simply were not going to be able to qualify under these criteria any more. By any stretch of the imagination, what we put forward was to say that all of those gap year students should not be affected by a retrospective change by the government. That is absolutely fair and appropriate, and that is why we stuck by it.

The other change that we put forward for the amendment was to retain the criteria (c) for the independent youth allowance. People would most commonly know that as the gap year, whereby a student can earn a certain amount over 12 months in an 18-month period. The government simply ripped that away. The reason why this is so important is because of the inequity that exists between regional students and metropolitan students when it comes to accessing tertiary education. There is a $15,000 to $20,000 cost for regional families in having to relocate their student to go off to tertiary education. There is no other avenue in this bill for that inequity to be addressed, which is why we have been so firm. I see you have lost interest, Senator Bishop. Have you run out of ideas? Or perhaps you just know that I am right?

There is absolutely no other avenue to address that inequity, so the coalition has said through the amendment that in the absence of anything else existing to assist those regional students that particular criteria for the independent youth allowance should stay. It is simply not fair for those regional students to have their pathway taken away completely.

The arrogance from the other side that we are seeing on this is nothing short of breathtaking because, guess what? Today the minister could split the bill. She could bring the bill back into this chamber and we would support those parts of the bill that are beneficial. We have said that. The minister has had the offer. The scholarships and anything else she has been talking about in this bill that does not go forward next year is on the head of the minister. She has said, ‘It’s so terrible that the coalition has stopped this.’ It is her decision not to split the bill and not bring those forward to this chamber so we can pass them, so any commentary from the other side, any commentary from this Labor government saying, ‘It’s all the fault of the coalition’ is absolute rubbish.

We have put forward very, very fair amendments and there is absolutely no reason that the government should not accept those. What is really interesting is that the government has taken away two of the independent criteria to pay for the whole lot, so with all these billions of dollars we have seen go to the school halls that are being talked about and all the other projects why is it that our students’ education has to be the thing that is budget neutral? Why is it that our students’ education has to be the savings measure for this government? It is simply not fair. That is the area that we should put funding into, not taking away from it. I simply challenge the minister to stop harping on about what happened in the chamber and the fact that the bill has been blocked, bring those parts back to the chamber that we have said we will support and do the right thing by the people of Australia and the students who need this side of the chamber to actually make some commonsense decisions for them. The minister knows she can do that. She should bring it back not only for regional students, who are so important and need to be able to have access to assistance, but also for students right across the country.

Question agreed to.