Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would be a starter too, if I could get the gig! There are another eight non-executives on an average of $818,000. When we start looking at remuneration packages of $2 million and an average of $818,000, I take real offence at what we pay the office of Prime Minister. Irrespective of whether we believe she is doing a good job, it makes a mockery of that process when we have an organisation running a budget of $10 million as opposed to the economy of the nation.

I draw to the parliament's attention a situation that happened in Queensland, which also troubles me, which we could draw an analogy from to this organisation. About five months before the recent state election the Queensland racing board took it upon themselves to renew their contracts for five years. They wrote into the terms of the contract that in the event that they were disbanded as a board they would be given a golden handshake and the five-year term would be fully remunerated.

I have concerns that when we are going to the market looking for potential directors or people to head up this CEFC, the income coming into that organisation will be over a five-year period with lots of $2 billion per year. So you will get $2 billion in the first year and $2 billion in the second, through to the fifth year—a total of $10 billion. I would be absolutely horrified if we were signing up directors with the intent that they would do the full five years on potential salary packages of $2 million, or at the minimum $818,000 if we use the comparison of the NBN remuneration package.

We are on the public record as a coalition stating that we will rescind the carbon tax . So this organisation will then be disbanded. The revenue streams that will come in in the first year are $2 billion. I would encourage the government, when they are going to the market for these players, not to embarrass themselves and not embarrass the directors by locking them into five-year contracts, because we will shut this show down. And I do not want to be putting my hand into the coffers of hard-taxpaying men and women of Australia to pay out a director's fee of $2 million per year over five years—$10 million—for one year's work.

That is something that may have been overlooked in consideration. How could that have been overlooked? Maybe it was overlooked because we were given 2½ hours consideration at the Economics Committee, when witnesses were called to give evidence. I just make the point that there was not enough time to complete the due diligence that this process deserved.

During the inquiry we were told overwhelmingly that there was extensive consultation. I put it to this House that in the extensive consultation that was supposedly undertaken by expert panels they forgot to ask one group of people whether they wanted the carbon tax. That group was the Australian people. The Australian people were not asked if they wanted to sign up to the carbon tax.

Go back to a couple of days before the last election—it is the Achilles' heel of this government—when the Prime Minister stood in front of the camera, looked down the barrel and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Why was that statement made? We all watched the polls. We all know how the polling was going. The polling was heading on a downward trajectory. It was a very close election. That single comment turned the election phase around. Do you know why? It was because the people of Australia trusted this Prime Minister. History has now shown that you cannot trust this Prime Minister.

So, with reference to the remuneration for directors of the new CEFC, I send a very blunt message to the government and to those people who will be sourcing the directors: do not sign up anyone on five-year contracts, because we have made it perfectly clear that when in government we will be dismantling this. The bill gives the Clean Energy Finance Corporation the power to invest in projects for the development of Australian based renewable energy technologies, low-emissions technologies and energy efficiency projects; the power to enter into investment agreements itself and make investments through subsidiaries; and a duty to ensure that, as of 1 July 2018, half of the funds invested at that time for the purposes of its investment function are invested in renewable energy technologies. On the back of that comment, what this organisation will potentially be funding is sub-economic projects. Those are projects that the commercial market has not found to have a suitable risk rating to invest shareholder, bank or merchant funds in. The risk ratings on these are just too high. I understand that the whole concept of this body of funds is to try to attract those higher-risk organisations—but with that comes a risk factor.

When we had the opportunity to question Treasury and the Climate Change Authority on the risk factor, they were rather oblivious. Whilst they had some provision for risk, I think, coming from a commercial background and having seen the number of businesses that have exited this market since 2007, it is timely that as an opposition we put under the microscope what the return on the investment will be.

The bill also establishes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Special Account and appropriates funds which total $10 billion over five years, with the first instalment of $2 billion due to be paid on 1 July 2013. The account has the purpose of making payments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is intended to be self-sustaining once it matures and therefore any funds returned to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from its investments will be available for reinvestment. If money is being borrowed from the bond market at, say, three to four per cent, and the government then hands that on to the CEFC, who then invest in the projects, I would suggest that R&D will not give an enormous return on investment. Due to the vertical integration and how this is being set up, I do not see a lot of return on investment coming out of that market. I may be proven wrong.

See this speech in context