Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why is the Australian National Audit Office having to reduce the number of performance audits down from 42 to 40 in the next financial year and then down to 38 in the 2023-24 financial year?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. I have a suspicion that, without having gone and checked the Hansard, the senator probably explored these questions at some length in Senate estimates recently and that it probably was through that Senate estimates process that the senator secured those figures of the estimated number of audits. I would imagine that the ANAO addressed and answered those questions during estimates. If there is anything that was not addressed during the estimates hearings then I'll bring it back to the chamber.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the budget, the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister requesting an additional $6.3 million in 2020-21, in order to deliver 48 performance audits a year. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that request from the ANAO, and did the Prime Minister formally advise the Auditor-General why his request had been refused?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems my suspicions in the first answer were, indeed, correct—that Senator Gallagher did explore these issues at Senate estimates and that, when asking the Auditor-General whether his funding had been cut, he told Senate estimates, 'There was no change in our budget and forward estimates in the budget process.' Asked again, he said, 'There was no change from what we were expecting in our budget to what—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance. I'm pleased the senator now has his brief, but the question that was asked was about the Prime Minister's response to a letter to the Prime Minister, and the senator is being asked this question as the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You reminded the minister of the question, Senator Wong. I call the minister to continue, noting he has 35 seconds remaining to answer.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not unusual, I have to say, for agencies to ask for extra money during the budget process. I'm sure Senator Wong, during her time as a minister, would have found that agencies frequently ask for additional money during budget processes. It is, of course, then a matter during the budget processes to assess that. The ANAO annual appropriations for its operating and capital costs continue to go up each and every year over the forward estimates.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Minister for Finance, I would imagine you'd have an interest in the effectiveness and quality of government spending. But, with record government spending over the forward estimates, why is the Morrison government refusing to resource the ANAO so that it can do its job properly? Is it because the Morrison government doesn't like ANAO reports?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see in Senator Gallagher's question is that, of course, the Labor Party doesn't seem to learn anything over time. We're accused of starving funding—that refusing to provide funding is a starving of funding—even though funding is going up each and every year into the future in the budget. We have the Labor Party here who comes into this chamber and seems to think that, if an agency just asks for money, they should automatically get the money. It seems to say that it's a starving of funding, even when that funding goes up. The reality is that we have the Labor Party, who hasn't learnt any of the lessons of the past when it comes to how to say no occasionally—to how to manage the budget, in ways. We face the most challenging budget environment in the nation's postwar history. We are providing record levels of temporary and targeted assistance to Australians. That doesn't mean that every agency gets a yes to its additional spending request. (Time expired)