Senate debates

Thursday, 22 June 2006

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2005-2006; Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-2006

In Committee

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 2006-2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

1:13 am

Photo of Andrew MurrayAndrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | | Hansard source

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Stephens, move amendments (1) and (2) together on sheet 4962:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Clause 11, page 8 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (1) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (5)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (4) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

(2)   Clause 12, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:

        (5)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (2) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (6)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (5) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government the amendment is moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate. Whether all of the purposes of expenditure now covered by this bill are actually ordinary annual services is a matter under examination by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee.

I make the Senate aware that sheet 4965 has the same amendments for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007. My remarks with respect to this bill will apply to the next bill, so I will not repeat what I have said. These two amendments constitute another attempt by the Democrats and Labor jointly to initiate further accountability mechanisms which improve the reporting and transparency of appropriations. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 gives the finance minister the discretion to increase spending on departmental items by up to $20 million and to increase the total amount appropriated by up to $175 million, with the added sting in the tail that the minister’s determinations are not disallowable instruments, although they are legislative instruments. The problem, if we were to initiate a disallowance provision, would be that the minister would make the determinations in a non-sitting period and the money would be committed and/or expended before the Senate had the opportunity to consider a disallowance motion, but without the disallowance provision he would probably have to spend it anyway.

The fact that a number of the provisions in these bills are non-disallowable legislative instruments is a general concern. But the difficulty we have is that the finance minister does genuinely need flexibility, speed and certainty in responding rapidly to some finance needs. Up until 1 January 2005 the department of finance tabled monthly statements of issues from the advances in parliament. The commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 altered this, and the advances are now posted on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. They must be tabled within six days of registration, and they are not disallowable.

As tempting as it is, making the individual determinations disallowable may try to go a bit far. AMFs are signed off by the finance minister’s delegate where they are urgent and either unforeseen or required because of erroneous omission. Often there is extreme time pressure involved in getting the money out—for example, providing immediate relief after Cyclone Larry—so any perceived or actual delay or interruption in the capacity for agencies to contract or commit may cause problems in such time pressured circumstances. The solution is to have improved reporting of the detail of AMFs and for them to be laid before the Senate as well as there being improved descriptions on the current database. The current descriptions are limited. They are also somewhat hidden on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Something which requires better information on the purposes, objects and expected outcomes would be a good start.

I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary and to the advisers present from DOFA that, if this amendment is defeated, there is nothing to stop DOFA introducing this as good practice anyway. I personally have a high respect for that department and its officers. I think this is a good additional accountability mechanism we are offering. If you are going to reject the amendment, we would like you to look at the practice anyway, because we think it would be an improvement.

1:18 am

Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | | Hansard source

The government does not support the request for amendment moved by Senators Murray and Stephens. Determinations created under these provisions are already legislative instruments, as Senator Murray said, and are registered as soon as practicable after creation, together with an explanatory statement, on the Federal Register of Legislative Agreements, as required by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. All legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments are tabled in both houses of parliament within six sitting days after registration. Therefore the proposed amendments are unnecessary and could result in a duplicate tabling of determinations made under these provisions.

Question negatived.

1:19 am

Photo of Andrew MurrayAndrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | | Hansard source

I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and also on behalf of Senator Evans, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, move:

(1)    That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

        Page 10 (after line 8), after clause 14, insert:

14A  Advertising and public information projects

        (1)    No amount appropriated by this Act is to be expended for any advertising or public information project where the cost of the project is estimated to be $100,000 or more, unless:

             (a)    a statement in accordance with subsection (2) has been provided to the Auditor-General; and

             (b)    the Auditor-General has issued a certificate certifying that the project conforms with the Audit and JCPAA guidelines.

        (2)    A statement under subsection (1) must indicate:

             (a)    the purpose and nature of the project;

             (b)    the intended recipients of the information to be communicated by the project;

             (c)    who is to authorise the project;

             (d)    the manner in which the project is to be carried out;

             (e)    who is to carry out the project;

              (f)    whether the project is to be carried out under a contract;

             (g)    whether such contract is to be let by tender;

             (h)    the estimated cost of the project; and

              (i)    the details of the type of media to be used for the project.

        (3)    A statement and certificate under subsection (1) must be:

             (a)    published in the Gazette; and

             (b)    laid before each House of the Parliament within six sitting days of that House after the certificate is issued.

        (4)    In this section, Audit and JCPAA guidelines means the guidelines set out in Report No. 12 of 1998-99 of the Auditor-General, entitled Taxation Reform: community education and information programme, and Report No. 377 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, entitled Guidelines for Government Advertising, respectively.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

This amendment is framed as a request because it is to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government the amendment is moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate. Whether all of the purposes of expenditure now covered by this bill are actually ordinary annual services is a matter under examination by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee.

This continues a campaign that Labor and the Democrats have been on for a very long time now. We think it is to the great shame of the Howard government that they have refused to accede to general public demand as well as a strong parliamentary campaign for greater accountability with respect to government advertising and public information projects. This is not fanciful material from our parties; this is soundly grounded in strong recommendations from the Auditor-General, and these general requirements have been looked at by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

We have moved such amendments before and we will continue to do so as the circumstances arise. If there is one area where this government is tricky and, I think, engages in a corrupt process—and I use those words deliberately—it is in the way in which it decides on the way in which money shall be used for government advertising when it has a blatantly political purpose. Much government advertising and public information is not at all to be condemned and should just be accepted as part of the normal function of government, but a good deal of the advertising expenditure occasions great media and public and political comment. We do not like it. We condemn you for it. We think it reflects badly on you and your standards.

The Democrats put up this amendment with Labor not as a futile gesture but as a firm statement of the sorts of standards and accountability an honest government would not hesitate to abide by. That this one does not speaks volumes, and it does not reflect well on the good men and women who populate the coalition back benches and parties. This form of abuse of taxpayers’ funds for blatantly political purposes on occasion is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ funds. I cannot put it more strongly than that.

1:22 am

Photo of Chris EvansChris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise briefly to support Senator Murray in this request for amendment. I pay tribute to Senator Murray’s persistence in these matters. It has been a long and so far fruitless campaign, but I am sure, Senator Murray, that you will win in the end. Labor is happy to support the propositions because I think, as Senator Murray rightly said, this is a very important issue of accountability, supports the reports of the Auditor-General and seeks to highlight the misuse of taxpayers’ funds for promotion of the government rather than information of use to the population in accessing government services.

Increasingly, this abuse has become a cause of concern in the community and an issue of public notoriety. When at estimates committees we examine the processes for the approval of these campaigns and the use of advertising, it is absolutely clear that the government advertising projects and approval processes are now an arm of the political party. The committees are staffed by people of my ilk—former party officials. They employ advertising agencies with clear links to the government parties. They employ consultants with clear links to the government parties. The links between the Liberal-National Party campaign and advertising teams and the campaign and advertising teams of the government for these programs is so close as to be almost indistinguishable.

It is a rort. It is an absolute abuse of taxpayers’ funds. People say in response to these critiques, ‘State governments are just as bad.’ If they are, they ought to be criticised and they ought to be held to account as well. This has got well beyond a joke. It is actually used by governments now to protect their position. These campaigns have gone well beyond any sense of providing any information and assistance to taxpayers. We saw another terrible example with the recent industrial relations campaign, where money was thrown at trying to convince the Australian public that something that was clearly bad for them was in fact in their interests. There was of course an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money in that campaign.

I do not want to delay the Senate tonight other than to say that I think this would be a very worthwhile improvement to the accountability of the government. As I say, we have been debating accountability a fair bit in the last 48 hours. This is a really important issue. It will not go away. We have had Senate inquiries, we have had a whole range of activities that have sought to shine light on these issues. Every time a light is shone on them it becomes clearer and clearer that these campaigns are being used as an arm of the political party in power. I think we have to question whether or not this should be tolerated or regarded as legal. It seems to me that this is, as Senator Murray said, corrupt. I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution—knowing again that it will be defeated. But I am sure that, when the next outrage becomes public, there will such a demand for change that change will eventuate.

1:27 am

Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | | Hansard source

The government does not support the request for amendment moved by Senators Murray and Evans. The appropriation acts would not be the correct vehicle for these kinds of restrictions. The appropriation acts properly deal with financial matters rather than compliance with specific policy requirements. Moreover, the proposals essentially involve reporting of particular types of procurement, and the requirements for reporting on procurement matters would typically be covered in a subsidiary law rather than an act of parliament.

I want to quickly go back to the previous amendment, just to make a comment, Senator Murray, in relation to the consideration of adopting that as practice. I am happy to take that back to the minister and we can have a look at the reality of doing that.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 2006-2007

1:28 am

Photo of Andrew MurrayAndrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4965 together:

(1)    Clause 12, page 9 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (1) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (5)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (4) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

(2)    Clause 13, page 10 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

        (5)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (2) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (6)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (5) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

Question negatived.

I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and also on behalf of Senator Evans, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)    Page 12 (after line 5), after clause 15, insert:

15A  Advertising and public information projects

        (1)    No amount appropriated by this Act is to be expended for any advertising or public information project where the cost of the project is estimated to be $100,000 or more, unless:

             (a)    a statement in accordance with subsection (2) has been provided to the Auditor-General; and

             (b)    the Auditor-General has issued a certificate certifying that the project conforms with the Audit and JCPAA guidelines.

        (2)    A statement under subsection (1) must indicate:

             (a)    the purpose and nature of the project;

             (b)    the intended recipients of the information to be communicated by the project;

             (c)    who is to authorise the project;

             (d)    the manner in which the project is to be carried out;

             (e)    who is to carry out the project;

              (f)    whether the project is to be carried out under a contract;

             (g)    whether such contract is to be let by tender;

             (h)    the estimated cost of the project; and

              (i)    the details of the type of media to be used for the project.

        (3)    A statement and certificate under subsection (1) must be:

             (a)    published in the Gazette; and

             (b)    laid before each House of the Parliament within six sitting days of that House after the certificate is issued.

        (4)    In this section, Audit and JCPAA guidelines means the guidelines set out in Report No. 12 of 1998-99 of the Auditor-General, entitled Taxation Reform: community education and information programme, and Report No. 377 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, entitled Guidelines for Government Advertising, respectively.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

This amendment is framed as a request because it is to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government the amendment is moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate. Whether all of the purposes of expenditure now covered by this bill are actually ordinary annual services is a matter under examination by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 reported without requests; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007 reported without amendment; report adopted.