Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

I am very grateful to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for agreeing to turn up and answer a few questions. I have no doubt that he will be assiduous in giving answers to the very legitimate questions that I would like to put here today. One of the prime responsibilities of a finance minister is to ensure value for money in the spending of taxpayers’ funds and to ensure that there is no waste and no mismanagement. I refer to the minister’s speech to the Press Club on 8 August 2007 where he seemed to confirm this responsibility. He said:

Every tax dollar the government takes from a family’s bank account is a dollar that can’t be spent on clothes, schoolbooks, groceries or holidays. It’s a dollar that won’t be directly creating jobs in the private sector. When the government takes that dollar, it’s got a responsibility to ensure that it provides value for money in return

I have a series of questions that I would like to ask which relate to that statement, one I agree very strongly with.

Minister, it has been reported in a new book by Lenore Taylor and David Uren, which quotes a Labor insider in relation to stimulus spending—the government taking taxpayers’ dollars and spending them:

Tanner argued vigorously against a spending package.

…            …            …

The problem for Tanner was that, while he still needed to be convinced, Rudd and Swan had already decided.

Does the minister still remain opposed to stimulus spending? Is he troubled by the fact that the government is continuing its reckless stimulus spending through until 2011-12 after one quarter of negative growth back in 2008? Furthermore, in overseeing the potential for waste and mismanagement, why is it that under the minister’s watch Labor’s promised program of computers in schools for every student in years 9 to 12 has so far delivered only 220,000 of the one million computers and a blow-out of $1 billion? Why is it that Labor promised to cut spending in consultancies but have instead awarded $1.2 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to office? Why is it that Labor promised broadband for $4.7 billion but broke that promise, replacing it with a plan for $43 billion, in the process wasting $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spending over $25 million on yet another report by consultants, all for a white elephant that will put up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk?

See this speech in context