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

I indicate to the Senate that the opposition will not be supporting the Greens amendments, but I do defend the right and prerogative of the Greens to move these amendments. I think that it is a little rich of Senator Carr to criticise the Greens for allegedly delaying this Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009 by acting in a fashion that meant it could not be dealt with as a noncontroversial bill. I think that is a bit rich. Senator Milne properly said that if the government were so anxious about the passage of this bill it could certainly have listed it for debate much earlier than it has. I think that it is the right of every party or any Independent in the Senate to bring forward amendments which enable debate of bills, and I think that Senator Milne is quite right to say, in the light of some of the mismanagement of government programs, that it is important that all of these new initiatives are tested on the floor of the parliament. So we certainly defend their right to bring these amendments to our attention and make us all think about the structure of the bill and the body that is being established in this case.

Nevertheless, it is the opposition’s considered view that the bill should stand as printed. In relation to the amendments the Greens have moved, I certainly respect their enthusiasm for transparency with respect to the first amendment that is proposed, but I find myself in that rather rare position of essentially agreeing with everything that Senator Carr said on that matter. This is not an experience that I have had very often, but I think that he is absolutely right in this matter. Certainly it is my experience in government that a body such as this, set up to advise the minister—and its role is to advise the minister—must be, and must be seen to be, able to give them advice, as the minister in the chamber properly said, ‘fearlessly and without favour’. Inevitably the publication of such advice will severely compromise the nature of the advice provided. This is a body set up to advise the minister; it is not a body set up to advise the parliament per se, and if the board is to tell the minister exactly what he needs to hear—it being a he in this case—I think it essential that that advice is provided on the basis as set out in the bill and not on the basis as would prevail were the Greens amendments to be carried. I think that would inevitably compromise the nature of that advice and the board would not function as well as it could or should. So we are not in a position to support that.

In addition, in relation to the board, while I do not know all the members and we do not yet quite know whether the interim board will be the permanent board, certainly I know some members of this board, and albeit at the expense of sounding parochial, I am disappointed that there is no South Australian. I do know Professor Mary O’Kane, for example, who has a lot of experience in my state, and John Ryan and Drew Clarke from the department. These are outstanding Australians and I think they will comprise a good board.

Their job is not to be a lobby group for the renewable energy industry. It is a body to provide advice to the minister on a range of matters and, most importantly—and I think in the wake of the debacle over home insulation—to provide advice on the running and implementation of programs, the management of renewable energy technology programs, improving existing program delivery, the provision of venture capital funding, and priorities for government. In fact, I think it is important that they bring a certain objectivity to the table and a certain degree of professional experience above and beyond direct involvement simply in renewable energy, because of the nature of advice that will be sought from them to ensure that the government has its priorities right, that the programs are being run well and cost-effectively. So it is not simply a lobby group inside the department for renewable energies. I think that a range experience needs to be brought to bear, and that board, on the face of it, would appear to have it.

With respect to, essentially, the second part of the Greens amendments, as Minister Carr properly said, it goes to the proposition that his advisory board should be a statutory authority. Again I find myself in complete agreement with Minister Carr on that matter. I do not think that it is at all appropriate in the circumstances, given the nature of this board and the task which it has, to contemplate it being a statutory authority.

The proposition is that it be established by legislation as an advisory board to the minister. It is not to run these programs itself or have any separate statutory role per se but to provide what I hope will be fearless and professional advice to the minister on the matters listed in the bill. I certainly shared the view of former Prime Minister John Howard that governments should be very wary about establishing new statutory authorities because they can develop a life of their own. I think that can detract from the capacity of the body in question to perform the functions that have been assigned to it. As I say, this is an advisory board. It is not being set up to perform particular functions or deliver programs or anything of that sort; it is being set up to provide advice to the minister. I think it will improve the coordination and delivery of renewable energy programs, but I do not think that will be at all enhanced or assisted by it becoming a statutory authority. I think that is completely over the top. In relation to this matter, I think the government has got the balance right. As the minister pointed out, the minister must not give any directions about the content of any advice that may be given by the board—that is a legislative prohibition.

The opposition are confident about the board’s capacity to give independent advice. Presumably, it will be subject to full inquiry at the three Senate estimates hearings we have each year, and it is required to give an annual report. So the opposition and I are satisfied with the degree of accountability that this board will have. That is balanced against the need for it to be able to advise the minister in a way that enables it to be fearless and without favour, so we think the balance is right. I regret that we are not able to support the Greens amendments, but we defend vigorously their right to bring those amendments.