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

It is a different minister, yes, and the interjection from behind is that she is much more sensible. I will not disagree with that but, frankly, I suspect that Senator Troeth was carrying out the instructions of the minister responsible, Minister Truss, and Minister Truss agreed with the opposition proposition, which was, purely and simply, that there be provisions in relation to the tabling of financial reports in this parliament and that there be provisions in relation to what the annual report should say that were tabled in this parliament. In that case, those provisions were in relation to dairy service payments rather than forestry service payments, and in relation to matching funds, which are taxpayer funds, and the outcomes on which those funds were spent. Those outcomes are measured against the objectives that apply to the industry services body. The amendment does not sound too radical to me. It sounds as though it is eminently sensible for the body that actually authorises the company to collect these payments, and that authorises other payments to this company, to report back to it and to be the subject of appropriate scrutiny through this process on behalf of taxpayers.

The amendment also requires the minister to table other reports in relation to the industry services body that has been authorised by the legislation that is going through the chamber now. It talks about the amount of forest industry levy payments received and the amount of taxpayer funding received and a statement by the minister that says the minister is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by the industry services body, that those funds have been properly spent or, alternatively, that they have not been properly spent and the reason that the minister thinks that. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for some radical imposition of obligations. Frankly, it is laughable to talk about this being a red-tape issue for the company. They already have to provide an annual report under the Corporations Law. All we are saying is that matters that would have to be reported to the minister under the statutory funding agreement should be reported to the parliament. This minister of this government does not want the parliament to see that information. He wants the information to sit only in the hands of the minister.

One has to ask the question: why would a minister be concerned to prevent the parliament from knowing whether the funds the parliament authorised have been properly spent, how much they were, what the matching funds were and whether the minister, or a previous minister—or a successor—was satisfied that the statutory funding agreement they signed was being complied with? Why would the government oppose that? Why would it be sensible for that to not be in the legislation, particularly when the government has previously agreed to it? I do not understand that. We have had a very glib statement saying that the egg industry has different provisions. If the egg industry provisions are not adequate, that is a different matter, but the opposition—