Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, frankly you did. Frankly, the minister’s contribution left us with no concrete understanding as to the reason why, in an area where there is much established legislative precedent, much established precedent on the form of statutory funding agreements and much established precedent on the structure of the corporations necessary to be established—and indeed, at the committee inquiry into this bill, the department admitted that they had formulated the structure of the statutory funding agreement, and of course the company had formulated its arrangements, on the basis of the precedents established in previous legislation—it took five years to get to this point. No satisfactory explanation of that has been presented. We have had some glib presentations, a bit of an attempt to score a few political points, but no satisfactory explanation as to why it has taken five years to get to this point.

In relation to the question of whether the discussions that have taken place between the industry and the minister should satisfy the parliament as to how accountability should be dealt with, I would simply say that it is the opposition’s view that, where there are arrangements such as this that involve taxpayer moneys, and where there are arrangements such as this that, through this parliament, equip a private company with effectively a taxation power to apply to its own industry, there should be full and proper accountability to the parliament. That is not accountability to the executive—which is, as I understand it, what the government proposes to be the acceptable option—but full and proper accountability to the parliament. That means the regime which we propose to amend this legislation to achieve. It is a regime which we proposed in relation to the dairy industries model, a regime which a more reasonable minister has accepted.

The public will make their judgements on the outcome of this legislation ultimately over time. Some industries have had serious problems in relation to the operation of private organisations equipped with funds delivered by the taxpayer and by their industry under the force of the legislation of this parliament. It is the opposition’s view that those legislative arrangements ought to impose obligations upon any relevant minister—and we accept that, in the event that we were to win the next election, they are obligations that we would impose on a minister of ours. We accept that responsibility. Those obligations would require the minister to be accountable to parliament and to show the parliament that the operation of the agreements entered into between the minister and the corporation was being observed, that the arrangements were fit and proper in relation to that statutory funding agreement and the legislation and that, if there were any matters that the minister was not satisfied about, the minister would draw those matters to the attention of the parliament.

That is all we are asking for: that the minister and the body which is being equipped with taxpayer funds, and with funds levied from the industry under the authority and the force of this parliament, be accountable to the parliament. It does not sound like a very onerous responsibility, does it? So it would be surprising if this government took the view that it is not appropriate for taxpayer funds and parliament-authorised industry funds to be dealt with in the most accountable way to the parliament that authorised it. I wait to hear some responses to that. I move opposition amendment (1):

(1)    Page 15 (after line 12), at the end of Part 4, add:

17  Tabling of financial reports

        (1)    The industry services body must, within 14 days of lodging a financial report (the annual report) mentioned in section 292 of the Corporations Act 2001, give the Minister a copy of the report.

        (2)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 14 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.

        (3)    In addition to the matters mentioned in section 295 of the Corporations Act 2001, the annual report must include the following details in relation to the financial year to which the report relates:

             (a)    the amount of forestry service payments and matching payments made to the industry services body;

             (b)    the amount of those payments that was expended;

             (c)    outcomes as measured against objectives that apply in relation to the industry services body.

18  Other reports

        (1)    The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the holding of each annual general meeting of the industry services body, cause to be prepared and tabled in each House of the Parliament a report in relation to the year ending on 30 June before the holding of that meeting.

        (2)    The report must include the following in relation to that year:

             (a)    a statement as to the amounts of charge imposed under clause 2 of Schedule 7, or clause 2 of Schedule 8, to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 and received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (b)    a statement as to the amounts of levy imposed under clause 2 of Schedule 10 to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (c)    a statement as to the amounts of levy:

                   (i)    imposed under regulations made for the purposes of Schedule 27 to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999; and

                  (ii)    identified by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; and

                 (iii)    received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (d)    a statement as to whether the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by the industry services body, that its expenditure of forestry service payments and matching payments complies with the funding contract; and

             (e)    if the Minister is not so satisfied—details of why the Minister is not satisfied that the spending does comply with the funding contract.