Senator MURPHY (5:18 PM) —On this matter of public importance on outsourcing, I just want to say that the part of the motion which says:

. . . the failure of the government . . . to ensure that the contracting out of taxpayer funded services does not result in a diminution of the level of government accountability . . .

probably would have been more appropriately worded as `that has resulted in the loss of government accountability'—because that is exactly what has happened. As the chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee which has been conducting an inquiry into some aspects of outsourcing, I have found it very interesting to note some of the evidence that has been submitted. But what is more interesting is the approach that the government has taken—and that is the `honest John Howard Prime Minister government'. He said that he was going to bring to the parliament a new sense of integrity, a new sense of honesty, and a new sense of everything else. It obviously was not a core commitment, because he has brought to the parliament none of those things.

What we have seen though, with regard to the outsourcing of government taxpayer funded services, is a number of documents that have been developed over time to provide advice to public servants about what they should do. I think I started to lose count of how many documents there were. But one of particular note is this agreement, which I have read from before: the Commonwealth procurement guidelines. Of course, there is a glowing letter in here about the guidelines. In terms of the processes that we are supposed to go through, firstly, I suppose, the most important part is open and effective competition—something on which this government prided itself that it would deliver; it would deliver open and effective competition.

Has it? Certainly not with regard to all of the IT outsourcing—not one little bit. Millions of dollars worth of contracts have been let—and not one has been advertised. But what does it say about open and effective competition? It says `open and effective competition is the central operating principle for all Commonwealth procurement'. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) could not have read it.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) could not have read it. He obviously did not read it because, when he piggybacked the Department of Finance outsourcing onto the Department of Veterans' Affairs, was there an advertisement, was there a public notice? No. Was there any competition? No.

Of course, it goes on and makes a few other points. But I suppose another important part is ethics—ethics and fair dealing. What does it say in these Commonwealth procurement guidelines? It says:

In procurement, as in all aspects of business and public administration, if all parties involved adhere to ethical standards they can:

. deal with each other on a basis of mutual trust and respect . . .

You have really won the mutual trust and respect of the Australian IT industry, haven't you? You have done real well. How much business have they secured as a result of this stupid, unfair and unethical process that you as a government have been going through? Talk about jobs for the boys and mates rates. It all applies here. The book should have been renamed `Jobs for the Boys' and `Mates Rates: how to go about it'. It says further:

Commonwealth staff associated with procurement, particularly those dealing directly with suppliers, should ensure that they:

. recognise and deal with conflicts of interest . . .

That is interesting. I notice that it says `staff'; it does not say `members of parliament'. It also says `deal with suppliers even-handedly'. That is an interesting little statement. What have you done with regard to advertising? You cannot have competitive and effective competition unless you place adverts and call for tenders. That is the process that ought to have been in place.

I go to accountability and reporting, which the government made much ado about. In fact, only when it was in opposition did it talk about accountability. Now you do not want to talk about it. You do not want to do it, but you provide a document to public servants which says:

Accountability involves making individuals and organisations answerable for their plans and actions and for the outcomes of these.

Why is it that when we questioned in the estimates process about the names of those people who tendered for the EPI and PEPIs—just the names of them; we did not seek any significant information—they could not be provided? Why not? It was because of commercial in confidence. What a ridiculous statement. It really demonstrates how far this government has gone backwards from its position in opposition.

I can remember government senators when they were in opposition talking on many committees about accountability and so on. But where are they now? It will be interesting to see what Senator Chapman has to say about that, as he was one of those who used to pursue it with some vigour when in opposition.

That is not the only matter on which this government has done a major backflip from when it was in opposition. The other issue is privacy. What have you done about privacy, about protecting people's private and personal information? You have done not one thing. I think it was the minister who said recently that there are contracts that say that it would be illegal—I do not know how you can actually bring about some judgment on that—to process personal information offshore. But you have not enacted any legislation to stop that. You never will because you do not care. (Time expired)