Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

Finally, among these examples is the increase in the pension age to 67.

I want to mention a number of other, more specific matters. I have given you the big picture of government efforts to initiate savings and to strengthen the budget and to get it back into surplus off the back of the huge hit to the budget that has occurred from the global financial crisis. First, we initiated a one-off two per cent efficiency dividend across virtually all departments and agencies, reducing administrative costs. Second, we reformed many grants programs—in particular, the climate change related grants programs. When we took office, there were around 65 different government grant programs purportedly dealing with climate change, some of them rather peculiar to say the least.

We have set in place a new structure with respect to rules governing discretionary grants made by ministers. There is much greater disclosure, with the requirement that any grant has to be made public on the relevant website within seven days of that decision being made. Where a decision has been made contrary to Public Service advice, it has to be fully documented. And a report has to be provided to me when a minister makes a grant in his or her own electorate. All of these changes indicate some of the dodgy things that occurred under the previous government.

We have increased funding for the Auditor-General. We have initiated massive reforms to government procurement to gradually eliminate the huge waste and inefficiency which occurred from the totally decentralised model of procurement under the previous government. We had an inquiry by an international expert, Sir Peter Gershon, into IT procurement which made a number of recommendations and which is putting in place processes that will save hundreds of millions of dollars in the short term, and billions in the long term, for the government. That process is now well underway, with the implementation process occurring.

We are following through in a similar vein in areas like travel procurement. Members may be aware that an announcement was made only a couple of days ago with respect to procurement of travel services. That will significantly improve what the government does with respect to its own services and activities. We have made similar changes with regard to communications procurement and we are working on the process of procurement of property and rental property and things of that kind.

Again, all we need to do is look back into the relatively recent past to find some examples of how this was done by our opponents when they were in office. A couple of examples of IT procurement come to mind. In the families and community services department there was one case—and in the defence department there was another—where an IT project of over $50 million was abandoned because it turned into such a disaster. More than $50 million in both cases simply went out the window.

To continue the list of initiatives: we have cut ministerial staff and we have substantially cut government advertising. Campaign advertising expenditure in the calendar year 2007 was approximately $254 million. In calendar year 2008 it was around $85 million. And of course we now have a structure where the Auditor-General scrutinises any proposed advertising campaign on the part of the Commonwealth that is going to cost more than $250,000 in order to determine that it is not political advertising but genuine advertising.

There are a couple of important things to mention in this context. First is the Operation Sunlight set of transparency reforms, which means that it is much easier for government decisions and financial arrangements to be scrutinised by outside parties and by the parliament. There is serious program information in the budget for the first time in many years, after it was taken out by the previous government. And of course there is the fact that on processes of government—on the administration of government alone, leaving aside cuts in entitlements or programs—we are saving around $5 million over five years.

I will conclude by suggesting to the opposition that they perhaps should try a somewhat different tack, that they need to think again about their line of approach. It is about time they stopped acting like a minor party in the Senate and started acting like an alternative government. I have a lot of experience of being in opposition, sadly, and one thing I know is that giving in to the temptation of behaving like a minor party in the Senate—going for the cheap point, contradicting yourself, trying to get yourself in the media at all costs no matter how silly what you are saying is—does not take you anywhere in the long term. They have got a giant shock waiting for them when they get to the election campaign. (Time expired)

See this speech in context