Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Milne, I have a fundamentally different approach to these matters than you do. If my language was at times not to your liking, you ought to perhaps wait a little longer and I will give you something to complain about.

The assumption that a minister would make appointments to an interim board on the basis that they are going to cook the result I think is in itself offensive. It is offensive to Minister Martin Ferguson and it is offensive to this government to suggest that the government and a minister in this government would set up an interim board in such a way and, as you said, with a view to having a particular branch of the renewable energy sector excluded—‘set up to fail’ I think were the words you used. What a ridiculous proposition. If you look at the names of the people on the interim board, a reasonable person would immediately see that the minister has sought to ensure that there are a range of skills available and that the government has access to the best advice that it can to ensure the success of this venture—not for it to fail.

These amendments really go to the proposition that you want to establish a statutory authority. There are a range of views about the relative merits of any particular government’s model. The opportunity to get to know officers in the period of office I have been able to enjoy has shown me that there are a wide range of views to meet different circumstances. I do not think any particular model is inherently superior to another, but to suggest that the statutory model is in itself inherently better than any of the other models that have been proposed is equally wrong.

In my direct experience in the portfolio of Innovation I have worked with statutory authorities like the long-established CSIRO. It has an independent culture, as you would put it, but it has a mode of working that is different from other bodies in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, such as IP Australia, which is one of the foundation institutions of this federation and has always been part of the Australian Public Service. AusIndustry, which is part of the Australian Public Service, is seen by industry to be a body that delivers services in a highly competent and expert manner. It has the confidence of industry, but of course it is not a statutory authority.

What we are talking about here is the suggestion that somehow or other Australian public servants cannot be independent. That is the allegation that is being made. I find that an offensive remark as well. The Australian Public Service is made up of extremely competent, professional nation builders. They do not get everything right, but in my experience they are highly competent people who provide high-quality advice to government on most occasions. They are professional in their approach.

So what this amounts to here is the different values that you have towards public administration. In my experience trust is critical. I know officers in statutory authorities who have made mistakes, have provided ill-judged advice and have made errors, just as I know that in the Australian Public Service that happens. In our system of government ultimate responsibility for that comes back to the minister. It is the government that has to take ultimate responsibility for the action of officers, whether they be within the Public Service proper or employees of a statutory authority.

When it comes to the appointment of members of the board, the legislation we are considering here states:

… the Minister must ensure:

              …              …              …

(b) to the extent possible—that the members of the Board have, between them, experience in the following areas:

(i)

finance, economics, law and project management;

(ii)

the energy industry and energy markets;

(iii)

technical development, science or engineering;

(iv)

administration and program management.

Furthermore, the legislation states that, where the minister gives a direction to the board:

The Board must include in the report—

that is, their annual report to parliament—

details of any written directions given to it by the Minister under subsection 6(1) during the year.

Furthermore, the caveat on the directions in black and white in the legislation are:

(3)

The Minister must not give directions about the content of any advice that may be given by the Board.

So there are a whole series of checks and balances in the legislation to preserve the integrity of the advice tendered to the minister by the board. That is the issue here.

If you presume that ‘independence’ means ‘separation from’ then I think, Senator, you are mistaken. If you take ‘independence’ to mean ‘integrity and professional competence’ then we are on common ground. That is my experience of the Australian Public Service. If you think that I cannot have a discussion with a senior officer and it not be based on a disagreement then you are mistaken. In fact, the whole point of it is that officers have to have the confidence and the trust to put different points of view. That is what the old expression ‘frank and fearless advice’ means. You cannot do that if the discussion has to be conducted through the pages of a newspaper. For the same reason, Senator Milne, you do not publish the internal workings of your political party, on occasions when there are differences that need to be discussed in a proper manner every word that is uttered ought not be published. In fact, that would inhibit the free flow of ideas and the proper assessment of options.

So what we have here is a proposition which the government is seeking to establish—and I understand it is supported by the opposition—whereby there are built-in safeguards, built-in protections to ensure the integrity of the advice. A statutory authority model, as proposed by Senator Milne, does have certain quite explicit disadvantage—namely, around cost—and it is not necessarily superior to the model that is proposed that this be an agency within the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. This model has the great advantage of allowing a much freer flow of ideas across the portfolio. What tends to happen with statutory authorities is that the level of communication throughout the portfolio is restricted. We are arguing that this is the best balance of accountability, integrity and cost-effectiveness. It means that we will be able to have access to advice in the most professional manner and it will ensure that the government is able to administer projects to advance the cause of the development of renewable energy in a much more effective and timely manner.