Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity to reject completely the accusations by our co-sponsor on these amendments of any rorting of programs under the coalition government. I want to place on record our complete rejection of those suggestions. Nevertheless, I do think Senator Milne is absolutely right about the virtues of increasing parliamentary scrutiny of these three funds.

These are three brand new capital funds, the like of which the Commonwealth government has never had before, that I think would benefit considerably from a committee of both houses specialising in the scrutiny of their activities and taking a proactive role in examining the virtues of prospective decisions. We have the estimates committee process but that is all after the event, and in the short time they have available to them estimates committees often get diverted by a whole lot of other issues that deny them the opportunity to properly scrutinise the sort of activities which these funds are undergoing.

Of course at some point down the track, if Senator Sherry was right and it was the case that other parliamentary oversight was sufficient to mean that this committee was no longer serving a proper purpose, that could be considered by the parliament. But we think that, given the uniqueness of these funds and the moneys available to them, specialist parliamentary scrutiny is entirely appropriate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (24) on sheet 5684 together:

Transparency by ministers

(1)    Clause 52, page 47 (after line 7), after subclause (3), insert:

     (3A)    If the Infrastructure Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Infrastructure Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(2)    Clause 52, page 47 (after line 23), after subclause (6), insert:

     (6A)    If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(3)    Clause 52, page 47 (after line 27), after subclause (7), insert:

     (7A)    If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (7) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(4)    Clause 52, page 48 (after line 11), after subclause (10), insert:

   (10A)    If the Energy Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (8) in relation to a payment, the Energy Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(5)    Clause 52, page 48 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

      (14)    If the Water Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (11) in relation to a payment, the Water Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(6)    Clause 64, page 55 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Infrastructure Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Infrastructure Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(7)    Clause 71, page 60 (after line 8), after subclause (3), insert:

     (3A)    If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(8)    Clause 78, page 63 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Energy Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Energy Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(9)    Clause 85, page 67 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Water Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Water Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(10)  Clause 90, page 71 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Infrastructure Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Infrastructure Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(11)  Clause 95, page 74 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(12)  Clause 100, page 77 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Energy Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Energy Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(13)  Clause 105, page 80 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Water Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Water Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(14)  Clause 177, page 136 (after line 10), after subclause (3), insert:

     (3A)    If the Education Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Education Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(15)  Clause 177, page 136 (after line 26), after subclause (6), insert:

     (6A)    If the Research Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the Research Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(16)  Clause 177, page 137 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

      (10)    If the EIF designated Ministers make a recommendation under subsection (7) in relation to a payment, the EIF designated Ministers must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(17)  Clause 184, page 141 (after line 20), after subclause (3), insert:

     (3A)    If the Education Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Education Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(18)  Clause 184, page 142 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add:

        (7)    If the EIF designated Ministers make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the EIF designated Ministers must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(19)  Clause 191, page 146 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert:

     (3A)    If the Research Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Research Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(20)  Clause 191, page 146 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

        (7)    If the EIF designated Ministers make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the EIF designated Ministers must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(21)  Clause 195, page 149 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Education Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Education Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(22)  Clause 252, page 188 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Health Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Health Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(23)  Clause 258, page 191 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Health Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Health Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(24)  Clause 263, page 195 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    If the Health Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Health Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

While these are lengthy amendments they all go to the one purpose and that is to improve transparency. I would have thought the Labor Party, given its track record and rhetoric in relation to transparency of executive decisions, should not have any objection to this series of amendments. All the amendments do is to seek to improve that transparency. All that is required is that when a minister chooses a project he or she table in the parliament a statement of reasons why that project was supported. The requirement would not go to all the supporting material but it would allow the public and the parliament to compare the project supported by the relevant minister to both the report of the joint standing committee, which the Senate has agreed should be established, and to the projects recommended by advisory boards.

We think this is an important element in the establishment of these funds. This is not a great burden on the government but, of course, governments find these things a nuisance. By virtue of these amendments the parliament would be asking the government to ensure that, when the government chooses a project to be funded from one of these funds, they lay on the table in the parliament a statement of reasons why the project was supported. I commend the series of amendments to the Senate.