Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

Can I address both sets of amendments, although I understand that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has yet to move the amendments on sheet 8207. The opposition will not be supporting either set of amendments. On sheet 8206, there are questions that go to the banning of the resources project's support. The definitions, frankly, as outlined in these amendments, that specifically refer directly or indirectly are far too broad. With regard to the impact, it would lead to a significant loss of jobs for Australian workers, and it would undermine supply-chain companies that are currently operating within the industry. They're operating in terms of the suppliers to the mining industry. It will also undermine professional services companies operating within the resources sector as well. So for either those engineering companies that supply the resources sector or the professional services companies that are currently within the remit of the ethics charter, it is inappropriate that they should be excluded from that.

The current arrangements that Efic operates on were, in fact, outlined in a letter that former minister Andrew Robb distributed back in 2014, which I understand remains in force. It points out that Efic does not provide support for onshore resources projects and related infrastructure, given the private sector is active in that part of the market. In essence, the way Efic operates is that it provides finance where there is a gap—I think that's the word they use—in the market and so Efic is able to provide support for projects that involve suppliers to domestic resource projects that have an export component. However, that arrangement remains in force. We, the opposition, believe that strikes the right balance, where there is a market gap and where it helps to create Australian jobs.

In regard to the second proposition by Senator Hanson-Young on FOI matters, we are more sympathetic. We understand the intention of the amendments, and there is always an amendment in regard to transparency when it comes to public funds. However, there is also a need to ensure that Efic is able to do its job properly, and there is a legitimate issue here about genuine commercial-in-confidence matters. Efic is not there to provide commercial advantage to others that are competing with its operations or those that are applying to it for support. It would be a ludicrous proposition if, under FOI, competitors for a particular project could secure commercially sensitive materials and then use them against a competitor.

While we are sympathetic to the intention of providing more public information about the operations of public enterprise, we do not want to support the unintended consequences of crippling public enterprise—which would be the consequence of these amendments as they are put forward. We are more than happy to work with other parties in this chamber about ensuring greater transparency, but we will not be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that items (1) to (3) on sheet 8206 be agreed to.