Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 89th annual report and report No. 1 of 2026, Referrals made in September and October 2025.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

I ask leave of the house to make a short statement in connection with the reports.

Leave granted.

Once again, on behalf of the Public Works, I present the committee's first report for 2026 and the third for the 48th parliament. This report considers the following six proposed works: (1) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Black Mountain greenhouse redevelopment project, which has a total estimated cost of $37.9 million; (2) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness stage 1 part-life refit, which has a total estimated cost of $372.216 million; (3) the Australian Tax Office's proposed fit-out of leased premises levels 5 to 10, 152 Wharf Street, Brisbane, Queensland, which has a total estimated cost of $29.17 million; (4) Services Australia's proposed fit-out of leased premises at 90 Crown Street, Wollongong, New South Wales, which has a total estimated cost of $22.34 million; (5) the Attorney-General's Department's proposed fit out of existing leased premises at 3-5 National Circuit Barton, Australian Capital Territory, which has a total estimated cost of $39.93 million; and (6) the Department of Home Affairs's Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hawk Compound redevelopment project, which has a total estimated cost of $34.94 million.

In considering these proposed works, the committee received submissions and held private briefings, public hearings and in camera hearings with the relevant agencies as well as conducting formal and informal site inspections at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong, the Black Mountain greenhouse site in Canberra and the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre near Perth. After giving due consideration to the evidence that the committee received, the committee is recommending that it is expedient for all of the proposed works to progress.

In addition to these recommendations, the committee recommends to the Australian Taxation Office that it continues to enhance and refine its change management processes, ensuring that it incorporates robust consultation procedures for the design and delivery stages of proposed works to effectively capture all affected staff. Similarly, the committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs ensures that current staff at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre are given an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed redevelopment design and that the committee be updated on such consultation efforts. With respect to the Yongah Hill Detention Centre, I also draw attention to paragraph 7.32 on page 42 of the committee's report No. 1 of 2026 relating to that redevelopment. In relation to the Attorney-General's Department's proposed fit-out of its current lease at 3-5 National Circuit, the committee recommends that the department exercise its two lease renewal options at the conclusion of the current lease in ten years time in order to maximise the value to the Commonwealth of the proposed fit-out. This would extend the use of the fitted out accommodation to 20 years.

Finally, I take this opportunity to make some remarks on the cost of contract services in relation to the CSIRO's proposed refit of the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. While the committee acknowledges the vital work done by the centre and recognises the need for and value in the proposed refit, the committee heard disconcerting evidence on the proportion of project costs to be expended on contractor services for the project—double what the committee has seen for other projects of similar scales. Yes, this is a complicated refit that requires specialised skills and knowledge to design and construct. This the committee does not question. However, when asked to justify the proportion of project costs that go to contractors, the committee did not receive convincing answers from the CSIRO or from witnesses from the contractors themselves. Given the magnitude of the quantum of money going to contractors for this project, this type of response is not good enough, and the committee expects more thorough and reasoned justifications for expenditure on contractors in the future. While I make this comment specifically in relation to the proposed works at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, this is a statement that could be applied to public work referrals more generally.

I commend that report to the House, and I'll now make some comments with respect to the public works committee's 89th annual report. On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present that 89th annual report, which is one of the roles of this committee. The Committee is required by legislation to make a report every year on its work within 15 sitting days of the conclusion of the previous calendar year. As an election year, 2025 saw the end of the service of the committee of the 47th Parliament and the establishment of the committee of the 48th Parliament. This report covers the work of both committees over this period, as is required by the legislation. Chapter 1 of the 89th annual report outlines the committee's proceedings in 2025. In 2025, the committee reported on 10 major works with a combined cost of over $1.344 billion. The committee also scrutinised 75 medium works with a combined value of over $825.38 million. The committee also received 30 notifications for changes to already approved medium works.

Chapter 1 also reemphasises the recommendation from the committee's 87th annual report for consultative review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969. The nature and volume of public works have evolved significantly since the committee was established over 100 years ago, and the act is in urgent need of reform to ensure it is fit for purpose in the current economic circumstances within which public works occur. The committee acknowledges the government's in-principle agreement with the recommendation and is eager to see the review progress so that the act can provide a more robust and modern framework for the work of the committee.

Accordingly, the second chapter of this report provides an overview of the continuing need for reform to the Public Works Committee Act. The committee commends the efforts of those agencies who continue to engage in good faith with the public works scrutiny process. At the same time, the committee takes this opportunity to remind agencies that this parliamentary scrutiny function serves the critical purpose of ensuring that best value for money is achieved for the taxpayer dollar.

While the committee for this parliament has only been established for seven months now, we have observed several concerning trends during our scrutiny of proposed works both for major referrals and for medium works. For the committee to confirm the best value for money has been achieved, agencies are expected to be frank and open regarding their sponsored works. Evasive, unclear and obstructive engagement—or, in the worst cases, complete lack of engagement with the committee—undermines the process and calls into question whether agencies have discharged their obligations to pursue best value for money. Agencies are reminded that this legislative obligation serves to prevent inappropriate expenditure of public money.

The committee's scrutiny also requires agencies to confirm that all affected and interested stakeholders are appropriately consulted, including those opposed to a proposed public work. Consultation should not be a perfunctory exercise, nor should it be used to quickly identify and dismiss genuine concerns or opposition. Agencies must demonstrate the government has considered and continues to carefully consider how their proposals will affect employees of the agency and other stakeholders, the local community and the Australian public at large.

Perhaps most concerning, though, is the general position agencies seem to have adopted concerning the use of consultant services in public works projects, which assumes that consultants guarantee best value for money. Too often the committee is seeing agencies readily shell out eye-watering amounts of taxpayer dollars on what appear to be excessive consultant fees, without any ability to explain what this money is achieving for the effective and measured fiscal delivery of projects. The committee will continue to scrutinise this agency expenditure on consultants to ensure that taxpayer money is serving the interests of the Australian public first, not the multibillion-dollar consultancy industry.

I also have concerns with the longstanding practice that only entities that are on a government registered panel can tender for government work. At the very least, these panels should be more frequently reviewed and opened up to new entities.

As a final reflection, 2025 was another significant year for the Public Works Committee, which continued to pursue the best value for Australian taxpayers as the government progresses its infrastructure priorities. I thank the committee of the 47th Parliament for their tremendous dedication during their service. I specifically thank the last committee chair, Mr Graham Perrett, the former member for Moreton; the Hon. Keith Pitt, former member for Hinkler; and Mr Andrew Willcox, the member for Dawson, who is still with us. They both served as deputy chairs. I thank them for their careful stewardship of the Public Works Committee through the 47th Parliament. I also express my thanks to the former committee secretariat staff for their support and guidance of the committee throughout the parliament.

Lastly, I acknowledge my committee colleagues, particularly the returning deputy chair, Mr Andrew Willcox, and the current committee secretariat. I thank them all for their collaboration and proactiveness from the committee's establishment in this parliament. I commend the reports to the House.

See this speech in context