Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing these amendments. These amendments would require all funding arrangements, every single funding arrangement, to be a disallowable instrument. It would require the minister for drought to ask the consultative committee about whether programs are consistent with the plan and have regard to that further advice. The minister for drought would also be required to call for public nominations for members of the consultative committee and to publish written notice on proposed members and, further, allow 30 days for the public to make submissions on those proposed members. It is entirely unreasonable and unnecessary to expect a tabling of every single funding arrangement, which would include a number of specific grants under the broader programs within each year's allocation of funding. This would cause significant delay and uncertainty.

I would also refer the Senate to section 27A, on page 24 of the bill, which requires the drought minister to publish each amount paid from the fund as soon as practicable, and also to the extensive 42-day consultation process and consultative committee, whose advice must be sought on the disallowable Drought Resilience Funding Plan. The Drought Resilience Funding Plan itself is a disallowable instrument, and it is based on a substantial consultative process.

The consultative committee also must provide advice on the design of the programs under the fund, and the Senate should also note that the Regional Investment Corporation board, which is subject to the strict provisions within the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, must also provide advice to the minister for drought on funding arrangements. In providing that advice, the Regional Investment Corporation must have regard to whether the minister has complied with the widely consulted Drought Resilience Funding Plan.

The Productivity Commission will review the Drought Resilience Funding Plan every four years, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the plan with regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes, as I've previously indicated. This will be a further test of the consistency of the projects with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan. Within those frameworks, and within those robust transparency and governance arrangements, it must be possible for the government of the day, whoever the government of the day is, to make appropriate decisions on the prioritisation of funding allocations. That is what governments are elected to do by the Australian people.

Regarding the public call for nominations to the consultative committee and associated notice and public objection periods, I would remind the Senate that there are already a number of procedural steps that are required to ensure funds are ready to be dispersed from 1 July next year. There is also strict language in the bill that outlines clear requirements around the selection of consultative committee members. I would specifically direct the attention of senators to clause 36H(3), which provides:

(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Committee unless the person has expertise or experience in 2 or more of the following areas:

(a) drought resilience measures;

(b) climate risk;

(c) the agriculture industry;

(d) rural and regional community leadership and resilience;

(e) rural and regional development;

(f) applied research;

(g) agricultural extension;

(h) economics

Further, clause 36H(4) also provides:

(4) In appointing a person as a member of the Committee the Drought Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, there is a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the Committee.

Again, these are ultimately within that framework of the legislation. These are ultimately then decisions to be made by the elected government of the day.