Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Brandis today, relating to the appointment of the Hon. John Fahey.

Labor’s appointment of John Fahey to oversee its $5.6 billion rebuilding fund is the biggest vote of no confidence by a government in itself and its finance minister. Senator Conroy said in his answer that Mr Fahey was appointed to ‘get it right’. If it needs one former Liberal finance minister to administer $5.6 billion, I wonder how many it might take to administer Senator Conroy’s $43 billion NBN program? Why don’t we have a swathe of former Liberal ministers to help administer that fund? I had the great privilege of serving under Minister Fahey when he was finance minister while I was Special Minister of State. I congratulate the government on his appointment, because it has appointed a good person. But the reason that it needed to appoint a good person is that the government recognises that in its own ranks it does not have a person of the stature and capacity of Mr Fahey. That is what the government has said.

What else does the Minister for Finance and Deregulation get her ministerial loading on her salary, the big white car and all the staff for? She gets all those spoils of office because there are responsibilities that go with the office. But what she has done is said: ‘I’ll keep all the spoils of office but I’ll outsource the responsibility to former Liberal minister Fahey.’ That is a dereliction of duty that the Australian taxpayer should not have to fund. It is a dereliction of duty that the taxpayers of Australia should not have to put up with.

But then one reflects: this comes after the debacle of the border protection policy, which has blown Labor’s budget by $1.1 billion—an extra burden on the Australian taxpayer because of that bungle. Just as an aside, I wonder why we did not get a border protection levy to pay for that $1.1 billion bungle by Labor. Because it was too politically sensitive, no doubt.

Then we have the GP superclinics. Foolish me, I thought GP stood for ‘general practitioner’. We now know it stands for ‘grand pork-barelling’ superclinics. Those superclinics were designated, not courtesy of the health department, not by a health imperative, but by a political imperative. The decision was not made by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing but by the federal secretary of the Labor Party, concerned about their marginal seats campaign.

We then have the cash for clunkers debacle, the green loans scandal—and so the list goes on. It is no wonder that the government has lost confidence in itself to administer anything, and that is why it has had to revert to Mr Fahey. Mr Fahey knows how to clean up a mess. He was the minister for finance who came to office after Labor had promised that the budget was in balance, if not in surplus, and of course there was a huge hole in it—billions of dollars missing. And there was debt of $93 billion owing. Mr Fahey started the task of cleaning up that mess. I have no criticism of Mr Fahey but an absolute criticism of this government’s inability to find, amongst all the men and women on its front bench—indeed, even on its back bench—somebody with the capacity to administer a $5.6 billion fund, a fund that we support, a fund that we believe is necessary, a fund that we want to have administered in a good and proper manner to ensure that the rebuilding of Queensland and other areas around Australia after the devastating floods, cyclone and bushfires can take place. But why can’t a minister, who takes the oath of office to administer these funds, actually undertake the task which she is sworn to undertake? What is so obvious here is that the minister for finance herself is not in the chamber to defend the decision. Methinks she was not even consulted.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today in this place there were a range of questions, including the two that mentioned the appointment of Mr Fahey. We have seen the debate that has been carried out in the media for the last week or so continuing now in the chamber, leading up to the debate on what is going to happen around the legislation looking at the government’s response to the disasters in Queensland.

Although it is very difficult to be surprised here very often, I am surprised that there would be any consideration of a process that is being put in place to engage the whole community in response to the unprecedented—and I use that word absolutely accurately—horror in Queensland from the flood destruction. One of the processes that the government has put forward is to have a special group looking at how the disaster response will be handled. That group will engage with people in Queensland at all levels—with industry, with the kinds of groups that have been set up already—to ensure that this response is the best it can possibly be. That is the role of government: to ensure that any response, to any action, is well thought out, well structured and, most importantly, responsive to the needs of those who are, in this case, severely disadvantaged.

One aspect of that has been to appoint a former finance minister, a man who is acknowledged as having great expertise—not just in government, because this decision looked at the kind of work Mr Fahey has done outside government, in particular the liaison he has done internationally in areas of sport and the work he has done in working with community organisations in other activities that he has succeeded most publicly in doing. I know that the opposition is very strong in saying this is by no means an attack on Mr Fahey. I accept that. However, attacking the process, attacking the decision to use this expertise, is actually saying that the government has no right to look at strategies that can be developed effectively and cooperatively and, most importantly, ensure that people see the importance of this particular process.

I know that members of the opposition have talked about other things that have cost more money—and that is true. But this particular process, the process that the government is bringing before the parliament, the $5.6 billion process, is responding to the awful circumstances that we all agree have impacted on the community in such an amazing way. Yesterday in this place we heard so many senators from across the country talking about the way what had happened in Queensland had impacted on them, the way the community had responded spontaneously to give in any way they could to be part of the solution. One of the elements of that solution will be the recovery process that has been developed by the government, while ensuring that there is the kind of openness and transparency we have just heard being put forward for an extended period of time as the way these things should occur. One of the strategies that the government is wanting to work on with all levels of government, industry and community is to engage a new group that is headed by Mr Fahey.

As to the personal attack on our minister: I know it is part of the political debate, I know that is the kind of thing that goes on in this place, but I object to it. There is no way that the personal attack on the expertise, the professionalism of our minister is part of a process that is trying to respond to a need. Everybody will have a role to play. No-one will be exempt from having some part to play in this response. Coincidentally, it is important to point out that Mr Fahey’s position is not actually working with the finance minister; it is actually working with Minister McClelland and Minister Ludwig, who has special responsibility in this area. So the way the opposition have framed their questions today—and I know we will hear more of this in days to come—actually misses the point, misses the key aspect of the strategy and in fact is an inappropriate political attack in an area where what we are trying to do as a government, hopefully with the agreement and cooperation of everybody in the parliament, is look at a special need, an horrific need. In fact, as you know, Mr Deputy President, the full cost of what is happening in Queensland has yet to be finalised. Every day more work is being done to look at the destruction and to look at the cost of rebuilding Queensland. We need to have a cooperative result.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Senator Conroy to Senator Brandis. This is all about Labor being not able to control its waste. It has taken the appointment of a Liberal to address Labor’s waste and mismanagement of precious taxpayers’ dollars. If it has to do that for the disaster recovery process, why not keep going? Why not appoint Liberals to control waste in other portfolios? By putting in place this body to oversee flood and storm spending, Labor has accepted that the public does not believe that they can be trusted with money. You do not need a second bureaucracy to ensure the first bureaucracy spends money wisely. The fact that the government has resorted to going down this path shows that it cannot be trusted.

Senator Abetz referred to some of the debacles in government. You only have to look at the debacle with Fuelwatch, the debacle with childcare centres, the great big mining tax and the GP superclinics. In estimates, the officials told us that there was no criteria. When we pressed them and asked what criteria they used to determine where they would put the GP superclinics—blank, no answer. What the government did was pretty obvious. Now it has come out that the political process was to put the superclinics in its marginal seats. Of course, we knew that at the time but finally it has come out. It is little wonder that it has gone down that process.

Following on from Senator Abetz’s comments, the appointment of John Fahey is a good one. I had the privilege to work for John, when he was Premier, as his senior private secretary from 1993 to 1994 at a time when it was very difficult in minority government in New South Wales. They were difficult times and Mr Fahey certainly had to deal with a lot of problems on a daily basis. I know that he brings good experience and will be well placed, no doubt, to attack the many problems and the many issues that he is going to uncover about Labor’s messes.

But let us look at potential alternatives to Mr Fahey. I went back and looked at the former Labor finance ministers—I notice that we went to a Liberal finance minister as opposed to the Labor ranks. We had Mr John Dawkins, who was Treasurer in the Keating Labor government for a couple of years; we had Ralph Willis, a former finance minister; we had Lindsay Tanner, but I think the wounds are still too raw for Mr Tanner to have been considered. Of course there was Peter Walsh. I went back and got a copy of Peter Walsh’s book Confessions of a Failed Finance Ministerobviously that is a difficulty that finance ministers have. I found this very interesting quote, which probably explains why the government did not appoint one of its own. He talks about his endorsement for the Senate and he states:

The simple country boy I then was believed that ministers in the Labor government must be more competent and astute than I could ever hope to be. Eventually that belief changed.

Some of the reasons can be found in the following chapters. His book makes very interesting reading.

When you look at Minister Wong—and Senator Moore takes exception because we are attacking the minister—the last time I looked at her responsibilities they included government financial accountability, governance and financial management frameworks, including procurement policy and services. That is interesting because when you look at the role that Mr Fahey now has to exercise, it is funny that he seems to have had subcontracted to him the very work that Minister Wong herself should be doing. That is what this is really all about—the incompetence of this minister. The government is so incompetent that it cannot do it in-house. It has to subcontract it out. We have Minister Conroy lauding that there are going to be other people who will be involved in this process. He had the audacity to refer to Mr Orgill. How much did he learn after he told us that we got value for money in the BER wasteful and disgraceful program?

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

At the outset I must say that this is one of the most remarkably illogical debates that I have ever had the duty to participate in. Somehow or other, because the government chooses to appoint a particular person who was in their former life a minister for finance and a former Premier and who has had a very senior involvement in both the community sector and the private sector since his life in parliament, the government is at fault and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the government, who does not have portfolio responsibility or any involvement in the administration of the reconstruction efforts in Queensland and other places because they are administered by Senator Ludwig—the special minister for the purpose—and Minister McClelland in the other place, is somehow or other to be treated with disrespect and the government is said to have no confidence in her and that she has no role apart from that of finance minister.

In fact, this is not a vote of no confidence in the government; it is not a vote of no confidence in Minister Wong. The appointment of Mr Fahey and several other very senior men and women from across the board to the committee overseeing reconstruction spending and reporting to Minister Ludwig and Mr McClelland, who then report to cabinet and the Prime Minister, demonstrates the government’s desire to have full and proper scrutiny, serious levels of accountability and serious levels of responsibility in the disbursement of public funds and its determination to see that that scrutiny, accountability and responsibility in respect of public spending is carried out properly, with full and open transparency in the administration of those funds.

In that context, what are we discussing? We are discussing, as was suggested several times during question time, the most serious national disaster at least for 30 years and arguably longer. The government, in administering its part of the recovery, is properly focused on its two most important roles. Firstly, in an overall sense it has to maintain sound administration of public finance in this country by insisting upon a return to budget surplus, not dropping the ball at the first opportunity when difficult issues arise or difficult questions have to be answered but sticking to its economic plan of returning to budget surplus so that we will have sound fiscal and financial administration in this country. Secondly, the government is making some small contribution to the reconstruction in Queensland, particularly Brisbane and Far North Queensland and other areas we have all seen on TV in recent days. They have been subject to varying degrees of ongoing natural disaster. So, we have to focus on a budget surplus and on reconstruction.

Senator Abetz in his opening remarks made much of Minister Wong’s alleged abdication and dereliction of her responsibility. Mr Fahey, as previous speakers on this side have said, is most experienced. But there is not just him; it is a group of five very senior people from the private sector, from large corporations and companies involved in logistics and in the movement of people and goods. They have been asked to volunteer their time, to give of their skills, to assist those who are in need through no fault of their own. Mr Fahey, acknowledged as a former senior member of previous governments, has a role in that. The government would be silly and also churlish if it did not respect the fact that in a whole range of areas, whether they be flood mitigation or reconstruction efforts, there are people who, irrespective of their politics or their background, have particular skills and capabilities and they can assist the government to help the people of Queensland get on with their lives.

In some respects this is no different to a range of committees being established. Today we have had briefings from five or six senior people who are part of a government inquiry— (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is one issue upon which the opposition and the government senators are in heated agreement and that is the eminent qualifications of John Fahey for the role to which he has been appointed. That is not currently in dispute. I feel like I am living in a parallel universe, listening to some of the things that have come from members of the government in this discussion, and our incredulity comes from the fact that we are apparently governed—and I use the word loosely—by a federal government that feels the need to appoint what is charmingly titled an Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate. I challenge anyone to find something that edifying in the pages of George Orwell, quite frankly.

The role of the Reconstruction Inspectorate is, to quote from the Prime Minister’s statement of Monday of this week, to increase the scrutiny and accountability of rebuilding projects. The tasks that the inspectorate will undertake include scrutinising rebuilding contracts; directly inspecting projects to ensure they are meeting progress milestones—I do have a mental picture of Mr Fahey and Mr Orgill and Ms Beauchamp and Mr Albrecht and Mr Sheerin in gumboots, or whatever required footwear is available, physically inspecting reconstruction projects; investigating complaints or issues raised by the public; working directly with state reconstruction agencies to develop contractual frameworks, tendering processes and project management systems; scrutinising requests for reimbursement by local government for projects completed for the purposes of reconstruction; and examining high-value or complex projects prior to execution.

They are the tasks of this so-called inspectorate. Quite frankly, this begs the question: what is the government itself doing? What is the role of the Commonwealth bureaucracy in this nation in 2011? We saw what its role was in 2010—we have lived through pink batts and we have lived through the fires in roofs, and we have lived through the BER; we have seen all of that. Is there nothing to be learned from those processes within the Commonwealth bureaucracy? Senator Bishop tells us that we have in fact been speaking about the wrong minister here today—he says it is not a reflection on the finance minister; apparently it is a reflection on Senator Ludwig and Mr McClelland because they are the responsible ministers and their departments are the responsible departments. Two of them. It is absolutely mind blowing that we need a Reconstruction Inspectorate to do the job of scrutiny that the Commonwealth is charged with itself.

Senator Bishop said this afternoon that this is about full and proper scrutiny. I believe he also used the word ‘transparency’. He said it is about serious levels of accountability and about serious levels of responsibility in the disbursement of government funds. Well what does a government do if it cannot do that job? I think the answer is in the silence. The answer is that if the government is not competent to do that, it is not competent to govern. The appointment of this committee is an important decision by government. It is an interesting admission that the government cannot manage its own business. Is the issue that with Ken Henry leaving everyone with an audit capacity is going too? What is actually going on within the structure of the system that means we need this sort of operation? I would have thought that the Australian people would have a reasonable expectation that their government is capable of managing this process.

I, along with every other speaker—in my case, a particular long-term awareness of and great admiration for the capacity of former Premier of New South Wales and former federal finance minister John Fahey—would commend the appointment of John Fahey. There is no question about that, or the appointment to any role to which he wished to turn his hand. But the admission by government that it is not capable of doing this job itself is breathtaking. It is the sort of admission that should stop the presses. It is the sort of admission that should make the Australian people stand still and say, ‘What is going on? What do we expect from the Commonwealth government, the Commonwealth bureaucracy, if they are not capable of dealing with this very, very important initiative themselves?’ The answer is: they got the wrong government.

Question agreed to.