Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I note that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture is not here closing debate on this bill, as one would expect. The opposition makes no complaint about that, because it's consistent with the demands we made on him earlier in the week about removing himself from participation in this House while this dark cloud hangs over the validity of his place here. The opposition will not be opposing these amendments. We still believe this to be very bad policy, designed only to curry favour on a pork-barrelling basis. We see no policy merit in this corporation whatsoever. It's shifting the administration of existing loans—there is no new funding—to a new body, which is going to be created at great expense to the Australian taxpayer. Existing loans will continue to be administered by the states. There is no policy merit in this proposal. The same can be said for the water infrastructure loans, a scheme which I believe is designed to fail. This reflects other schemes like the NAIF, which have 'money on the table', as the Deputy Prime Minister likes to say, but are designed to fail. I don't expect too much of that money to be expended. I'm sure the Treasurer and the finance minister will be more than pleased about that.

The amendments being proposed by those opposite are to expand the board. As the assistant minister points out, this is something the NFF picked up in their consideration of the bill. It's certainly something that was also picked up by other submitters to the Senate inquiry into this bill. It's certainly something that was picked up by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The problem, of course, is that this is just one of many flaws in this bill which were picked up by other contributors, including the NFF. I think the NFF raised at least three issues in the Senate inquiry, and the assistant minister went to great lengths to make the point that the NFF had raised this, giving it weight. Well, if he's giving weight to the NFF's concerns on this particular issue—that is, the constitutional size of the board—he should give equal weight to the NFF's concerns about other flaws in this hopeless bill.

The flaws in the bill are wide-ranging, but, to keep my contribution as short as I can, they certainly go to the extent to which the minister has designed this bill to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and veto. We have seen this before with respect to the relocation of the APVMA, where he went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that the process for putting that forced relocation in place avoided the scrutiny of this parliament and, therefore, the veto opportunities of this party. That is what's happening with this bill as well. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee went to great lengths to express concern about the extent to which delegation powers were going to be exercised under the policy proposal in this bill. The assistant minister chooses to express no concern and not to address any of these concerns. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee even went on to talk about the constitutionality of this bill and the extent to which the government has gone to validate the constitutionality of this bill, even going to the external affairs power. Think about that. We are going to get a different organisation, at great taxpayers' expense, to administer these loans, and it's so important we've had to invoke the external affairs power to do so, such is the weight of this issue.

So, if the assistant minister is going to rely on the NFF's submission and the expression of concerns over the constitution of the board, he should give equal weight to the other concerns raised by the NFF and he should certainly give weight to the concerns of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I have been around this place for a long time, and I have not seen a Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee report that has been so critical of a bill before this parliament. It is very extensive.

This is a flawed bill. While we don't oppose the amendments that have been put forward, because they do no harm and they are a minor improvement, the assistant minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have failed to address the very serious flaws in this bill, let alone the fact it is a very bad policy proposal.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context