Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 70th annual report of the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—In accordance with section 16 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the committee’s 70th annual report. This report gives an overview of the work undertaken by the committee during the 2006 calendar year. In addition to its 69th annual report, the committee tabled 19 reports on public works, with a total estimated value exceeding $969 million. Throughout the year, the committee conducted 36 meetings, 17 of which were public hearings.

Issues of note arising from the committee’s deliberations in 2006 included: changes to the Public Works Committee Act, the introduction of a revised Manual of procedures for departments and agencies, the committee’s high workload, the timeliness with which public works are referred to the committee and the quality of evidence supplied by referring departments and agencies.

One of the most significant issues for the committee this year was the changes to the Public Works Committee Act. The committee welcomed an increase to the threshold value for works which must be referred, from $6 million to $15 million. The new threshold is more realistic, reflecting increasing costs associated with major projects that have occurred since the figure of $6 million was determined as the threshold in 1985.

Public-private partnerships remain an area of concern for the committee, with the absence of a legislative framework for the referral and scrutiny of works delivered through the public-private partnership process. The change in the act expanding the definition of a ‘public work’ to include works funded through a PPP or similar arrangement will hopefully go some way to addressing the issue. The committee considered its second PPP work with Project Single Living Environment and Accommodation Precinct—otherwise known as LEAP—phase 1, and can foresee an increase in the referral of PPP projects in the future. Subsequent to the changes to the act, the committee revised its Manual of procedures for departments and agencies.

The year 2006 was another busy year for the committee, which tabled 19 reports, or roughly one report every parliamentary sitting week. The changes to the act occurred late in 2006 and did not have a great effect on the committee’s workload. Whilst the committee welcomes the change to the threshold, it does not anticipate a significant drop in the number of future referrals. For example, of the 19 works considered by the committee in 2006, only three would fall under the $15 million threshold.

At times throughout 2006, the committee was the recipient of criticism, with suggestions that the committee was delaying the consideration of projects. I have to say, in defence of my committee—which I consider to be a very efficient, hardworking committee—that this was not so. Indeed, at times when such criticism was made of the committee, the work had not even been referred to this parliament. And the committee really feels it should remind agencies that section 17 of the act specifically states that:

The Committee shall, as expeditiously as is practicable:

(a)

consider each public work that is referred to it in accordance with this Act; and

(b)

make a report to both Houses of the Parliament ...

The committee cannot commit to a public hearing date until a work has been referred to this parliament. It is, therefore, the responsibility of referring agencies to ensure that they have allowed sufficient time in their project schedules for the full and proper execution of the committee inquiry process.

In last year’s annual report, the committee commented that there was ‘a high degree of variance in the quality of evidence submitted’ to the committee. During 2006, the committee noted some improvement in the overall quality of evidence presented and, on many occasions, congratulated the referring agencies on the high level of evidence provided to the committee. However, in several inquiries the absence of transparency in both oral and written evidence was of concern. The committee again reminds agencies that clear and concise evidence eliminates any unnecessary clarification and questioning subject to the hearings, which then goes on to minimise the time required for the completion of the committee’s report and its presentation to this parliament.

To be able to manage such an intense workload, the committee relies very heavily on the secretariat to the Public Works Committee and I wish to express, on behalf of all members of the committee, our gratitude for their continued hard work and support throughout 2006. I would also like to thank my committee members, who have put in a fantastic effort to be able to manage that workload; the Hansard and Broadcasting staff who assist us in our hearings, often away from this place; and those officers in the Department of Finance and Administration who play an integral role in facilitating references and expediency motions. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who assisted the committee to ensure that the necessary changes to the act did go through, and now helps to more properly facilitate the work of the committee. I commend the report to the House.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to comment upon the 70th annual report of the Public Works Committee. I will start where the member for Pearce ended, by thanking the secretariat, Hansard, and indeed all involved in assisting the committee with its work. As the member for Pearce, the chair of the committee, indicated, the work of the committee is quite fulsome. It is an ongoing committee. It may not have the profile of some other committees in the parliament, but in terms of its workload, in terms of scrutinising significant sums of Commonwealth expenditure, it does a very good job and it works in a very consensual way in order to fulfil the requirements of the act.

I want to touch on some of the comments made by the chair in her speech. I agree with her that there was a need—and I supported the proposed amendment—to lift the threshold from $6 million to $15 million. As the years went by we were, effectively, having problems with the amount of work being referred to the committee. As the real value of works being submitted to us was falling, the number of projects was increasing. As a result, we were spending more time on smaller projects when a great deal more time should have been spent on large expenditure items—large projects with a value in the tens, and in some cases hundreds, of millions of dollars.

As you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, the increase in the threshold was pretty much a reflection of the increase in inflation since the time the $6 million threshold was first introduced. It was not an attempt by the committee to allow the executive government to obviate its responsibilities, nor was it in any way looking to reduce the capacity of the committee to scrutinise. It was an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the committee. I think it is already showing signs of doing that. That is a very good thing in terms of government accountability and the importance of committee scrutiny.

It is important to comment on the committee’s efforts to improve the act so that we can properly scrutinise public-private partnerships. As the chair indicated, it is still an area of concern to the committee that there is an absence of a legislative framework. Whilst there have been some amendments seeking to address the issue, there may be a need to consider the way in which these partnerships operate. They are quite complex. It makes it more difficult for a parliamentary committee to consider the value of work given the construction of the partnerships of these ventures. We may have to review the way in which we proceed in future if it transpires, as I think it might, that more questions are left open as a result of our scrutiny of some of these projects. Given that this is a report on the year’s work, I foreshadow that it may well be something that the committee, and indeed the parliament, will have to address in future.

As the chair said, there have been some significant changes. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they did not deprive the committee of its workload. It is a committee that is still having to put in every week. There is a lot of travel involved, which makes it very difficult for members and senators. Members of the committee have to put in a lot of time, and that will continue to be the case. The amendments that have been made will ensure that there will be greater scrutiny of the larger amounts of money expended by the Commonwealth that are under the purview of this committee.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the Speaker would allow the present occupant of the chair a little indulgence to pass on the thanks of committee members to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, especially for their forbearance of the quirks and whims of certain committee members. To the members of the committee staff who are witnessing these events, we also thank you for your efforts in total.