Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I also ask him about if this amendment is to be voted down. Once again, it is not about the amount of money; it is only about transparency. I ask him to refer to page 129 of the June 2009 edition of the standing orders of the Senate, under item 14, were the Senate has voted and required that:

There be laid on the table, by each minister in the Senate, in respect of each department or agency administered by that minister … by not later than 7 days before the commencement of the budget estimates, supplementary budget estimates and additional estimates hearings:

A list of all grants approved in each portfolio or agency, including the value of the grant, recipient of the grant and the program from which the grant was made.

Was the minister aware of that Senate order? Did he tell the auto industry of this Senate order when he told them it would be better to have a grants scheme rather than a credit system? Methinks not. Given the bizarre sensitivity of the auto sector to making these grants public, I ask them rhetorically: would they expect the minister to defy this Senate order? I want to know whether the minister will defy the Senate order in relation to this. Why wasn’t that included in the second reading speech? This government promised transparency. Remember Operation Sunlight—everything was going to be shown openly and publicly; we were going to have freedom of information and you name it; it was all going to happen under ‘Sunbeam Rudd’. Well, the clouds have come over quickly, and they are very dark clouds. We are not going to have any sun shone in relation to these particular grants, which the Senate in fact requires. This has been an order of the Senate for well over 12 months now. As the ATS was being developed, the minister must have been aware of his obligations. Did he tell the industry sector that this would be an obligation and ask whether they would be happy for that obligation to be met—and, if not, whether this was the best way to go?

The minister has asserted that we somehow want to put at risk all the jobs in the auto sector. No, we do not. Transparency does not put anything at risk, other than the integrity of his argument. I think that might be one of the reasons why the minister might be concerned. Let me simply say that, when we left government, we had unemployment at 3.9 per cent. Do not say that we are not concerned about jobs. We had a job-creating record second to none in the modern world—indeed, in modern Australia as well. So do not come into this place suggesting that we will jeopardise jobs because we will not. We believe in integrity and transparency, and I will be most interested to hear the minister’s response to the questions that I have raised.