Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Not opposing the bill. It is a bit like the government on the palm oil bill. We can obviously explore the amendments from Senator Ryan, and I would be grateful if I could have an opportunity to speak to Senator Ryan before this bill progresses further. I imagine we will not be going too far in the committee stage.

I support the second reading of this bill, which is based on the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and which will improve the scope of the Auditor-General. As a member of the South Australian parliament on the Legislative Council I thought it was important to improve the scope of the role of the state Auditor-General to look at issues of efficacy and the effectiveness of government programs to ensure not just that money was spent as it was meant to be spent but that the money spent delivered good outcomes. A classic example of that were drug rehabilitation programs. These are issues that I previously raised in my time as a member of the South Australian state parliament.

I think that, ultimately, where taxpayer dollars are being spent, it is vital that the money can be tracked. I believe it is crucial that there is appropriate scrutiny of Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth authorities and government business enterprises. I believe it is fundamental that these bodies are held accountable for their operations and that the Auditor-General has the power to conduct assurance reviews as needed to ensure they are complying with standards.

For instance, the government's National Broadband Network is being rolled out to the tune of some $40-plus billion dollars. I am on the committee looking into that as a participating member. Having come back from a meeting this morning, I believe that this bill would enhance the powers of the Auditor-General to add an extra layer of scrutiny to that project. This bill will enable the Auditor-General to audit NBN Co., a government business enterprise, in all aspects of the rollout and the operations of the company. I think that is a good thing.

Furthermore, we see regular examples of inefficient Defence procurement spending and problems with Defence contracting. I recently participated in a Senate inquiry into that where we heard evidence from the Defence Materiel Organisation. I think that if this would enhance the powers of the Auditor-General to sort out the billions of dollars being spent there and whether it is being spent effectively in the defence of our nation that would be a good thing. This bill will enable the Auditor-General to explore all aspects of contracting in this agency, which will ultimately lead to better value for money and therefore better use of taxpayer dollars.

I acknowledge the opposition's concerns with this bill. They obviously can be explored in the committee stage. I look forward to having a discussion with Senator Ryan in relation to that. Whilst we may agree to disagree on a number of issues, I do respect the intellectual rigour which he brings to issues. I think that is very important in a debate in this place.

I also think that if money is being spent, whether internally or by way of a contractor, it needs to be monitored and the agency needs to be held accountable. An example of where things have gone wrong is the Home Insulation Program, which the opposition criticised with, I think, some real justification. I believe this bill will enable the Auditor-General in such circumstances to follow the money trail and to follow a whole range of issues which the Auditor-General does not have the power to do at present. I would have thought, for that reason alone, we would have learned from the lessons of the past that it is important to give the Auditor-General additional powers. I note the opposition's argument that this will place a burden on contractors, but I do not believe there is a reason for them not to be scrutinised when taxpayer dollars are being spent. There might be peripheral issues in relation to the processes involved and unnecessary red tape, but I think the principle that contractors be accountable is a good one, particularly given the role of governments in terms of outsourcing. It is something that the coalition government did. I think there ought to be that level of scrutiny.

I support the second reading of this bill. I look forward to further debate in relation to it. I think that this is a bill that will advance the interests of taxpayers by having greater levels of scrutiny and I commend the member for Lyne for introducing in the other place these much needed reforms. I genuinely look forward to the committee stage of this bill and to discussing this matter further with Senator Ryan.