Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Unaccustomed as I am to speaking on public works legislation, I feel so passionate about this piece of legislation that I need to make a contribution to the debate. The Public Works Committee Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Public Works Committee Act 1969 to increase the threshold from $6 million to $15 million for works that must be referred to the committee. It also seeks to allow the threshold to be changed by regulation and it changes the definition of a public work so that public-private partnerships or similar arrangements and certain leases over the threshold are referred to the committee. This will capture works such as fit-outs funded through lease incentives.

The work of the Public Works Committee and the amendments do not cover large Commonwealth leases, which I think is fairly important, including pre-commitment leases on purpose-built premises. The proposed changes reflect changes in property procurement practices since the act was last amended, in 1989. The threshold was last changed in 1985 and is too low. Six out of 17 projects since September 2005 cost less than $15 million.

The bill is unanimously supported by members of the Public Works Committee—and since there is a unanimous report of the Public Works Committee it is obvious that we, on this side of the parliament, will be supporting the bill. It has been developed after extensive negotiations with DOFA and it is consistent with previous administrative practices. It is also envisaged that the committee will write to departments so that works valued between $6 million and $15 million—that is, works on a medium scale—are notified to the committee.

The bill extends the Public Works Committee’s oversight of public works to include newer forms of public financing such as public-private partnerships and to cover works funded through lease initiatives. It also allows for resources to be better deployed and allows the Public Works Committee to focus on scrutinising larger projects, which is once again quite important.

I take this opportunity to emphasise that there has been an ideologically driven and less than rigorous approach by the Commonwealth in recent times towards disposing of assets. I actually do not believe that has been in the interests of the Australian people. The Auditor-General found that the costly sale and lease-back arrangements of Commonwealth property could—and I say probably would—result in a potential negative return to the Commonwealth in these lease periods. This is something that the government has to look at very seriously.

The Commonwealth sold 59 properties for $983 million in the three years to 2001. What I think is happening is that the government is hell-bent on divesting itself of its properties. It has been driven by the desire to sell all rather than by a rational assessment on a case-by-case basis of whether it is in the interests of the Commonwealth to retain ownership of these assets.

As passionate as I am about public works, I will end my contribution to the debate here. In doing so, I say that I support the amendments in the bill. Given the fact that the Public Works Committee unanimously supported the bill, I certainly agree with it. But I do have some concerns that since the Howard government have been in power they have divested themselves of Commonwealth properties. I question whether that is actually in the interests of the Australian people.

See this speech in context