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

Could I first deal with the issue of Senate processes. I am gratified to hear that Senator Minchin does agree with me on anything, so let us just see if I can try to broaden out that level of agreement. As you are a senator who has been here for 17 or so years now, I have absolutely no doubt that in the past you would have criticised senators for misusing the processes of this chamber, particularly when it comes to the question of non-controversial legislation. Senator, as a former Leader of the Government here, you at times complained, if I recall, of the slow passage of legislation. I will not be too unkind to you on that and actually pull out the Hansards, but the statement that you have suddenly found great merit in the sanctity of senators’ capacity to move amendments is gratifying—but not entirely convincing.

As to the claim that I am arguing that senators do not have the right to move amendments, you are mistaken. Not at any point have I said that Senator Milne does not have the right to move an amendment to any piece of legislation that she thinks should be amended. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is a provision in our standing orders to allow matters which are generally agreed in this chamber to be dealt with promptly and judiciously through that non-controversial legislation provision. For those who might have any interest in this at all, we often deal with legislation in this manner and whereby amendments are moved. The issue of non-controversial legislation goes to the question of whether or not there are divisions. A senator is entitled to move an amendment to a piece of legislation under the non-contro provision of standing orders, but normally we would not have divisions.

My proposition is that where it is generally known, and genuinely known, that the overwhelming bulk of our membership is going to support a provision, it is a reasonable conclusion that if a division were held it would be a mickey mouse division. The results would be foretold—as we are, I trust, about to see. And this position would have been the case back in November, as it is now. We are more than capable of putting a position in this chamber and making it known that we oppose a measure, moving an amendment and having it declared on the voices. That could have happened last year, and this legislation could have been well in operation five months ago. So I think it is a tendentious point at best, Senator, to suggest that I am arguing against the right of senators to move amendments when I am clearly not. I think that non-contro provision in our standing orders is extremely important to allow for the rapid passage of legislation on which there is fundamental agreement in this chamber. It ought be preserved and it ought not be used as a device whereby one or two senators can hold up legislation which is essentially agreed on an across-the-board basis here.

Turning to the issue that Senator Milne goes to with regard to the board processes, I want to reiterate that the appointment of the board will be subject to the usual government processes. My understanding is that significant appointments will go to cabinet. I cannot pre-empt the recommendation of another minister with regard to appointments because that is the process that actually occurs: ministers put recommendations on significant appointments and the decisions are made on the basis of those recommendations or rejected. I am advised that the interim board will not be automatically rolled over or appointed en bloc to the permanent board. There may well be individuals here that reappear on a permanent board, but it is not the government’s intention and I understand it is not the minister’s intention to proceed on the basis of rolling over the interim board to the permanent board. I trust that assists Senator Milne in that regard.

The second point she goes to is whether or not the chair should be a person with a background different from that of the chair that the minister has appointed for the interim board. The chair’s appointment has been made on the basis of his pre-eminent expertise in project management and financial management and not on the basis of his pre-eminent expertise in one branch of the energy industry. It is a presumption, in any event, to suggest that because a person may well be an expert in one field of the energy sector they are not capable of making judgments on a proper basis about other fields. I have come across numerous people who have actually been trained in the nuclear industry, are now working in other industries and provide high-quality advice to government. So I do not think it automatically should be assumed that because that person works in the nuclear industry they can never, ever take a meaningful role in bodies of this type.

The pre-eminent reason for the appointment, however, was the expertise in large project management, financial management and in ensuring that projects actually run well. That is what the appointment was based on. It is important that the minister has confidence in the board and it is important that the minister is able to discuss options with the board. But when it is all said and done, it is the role of ministers to make decisions. Ministers are responsible for decisions and ministers are held accountable for decisions. In the 17 years I have been here, I have seen ministers pulled apart on the basis of decisions they made. It really is a question of how well senators perform their duties if they are unhappy about what has occurred in any particular administrative issue.

The decisions of ministers will stand or fall on the quality of those decisions and ministers have to have confidence in the advice they are given but, at the end of the day, they do not have to accept advice. If that was the case, why would we be here? Why would any senator feel the need to front here at all if you work on the presumption that only technocrats can make decisions and that no other consideration should be entered into? Do we just publish a technocratic opinion? Do we roll over? Neither you nor I would ever accept such a proposition in real life and neither do governments of any persuasion. There will be occasions when ministers choose not to accept the advice that is tendered to them. That is a prerogative that ministers have to exercise from time to time.

It is the parliament’s job to hold people accountable. The estimates process is a very effective way of ensuring that governments are accountable. But its strengths and weaknesses ultimately depend on the quality of all participants, not just the officers and not just the minister but those who are actually pursuing an understanding of why governments have made the decisions that they have.

I disagree with the approach that you are making on this matter, Senator. At no point have I said that a statutory authority is superior or inferior in all circumstances. In fact, what I indicated to you was that in my own department I have experienced the whole range of government structures. Some are more suitable than others. In the government’s view, on the proper assessment of the options, the statutory authority model on this occasion is not the most effective way to proceed.