Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I've served on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation during the course of the previous parliament and during the course of this parliament. As you should be aware, the scrutiny committee has concerns with respect to any instruments which are not subject to disallowance. I note the crucial role that the so-called investment mandate plays under proposed section 71 of this bill, dealing with matters such as matters of risk and return, the allocation of investments of the corporation between various priority areas et cetera. I also note, with a great deal of concern, that in giving a direction the minister may have regard not only to the object of the act but also to any other matters the minister considers relevant. I'm not sure what that could, in fact, cover outside of the object of the act. Given that the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee has made clear, and this chamber has made clear, that there must be exceptional circumstances which apply to a statutory instrument, such as the investment mandate, not being subject to a disallowance process, could you, firstly, please advise us what those exceptional circumstances are?

Secondly, I have read the explanatory memorandum, which purports to give reasons for the investment mandate not being subject to disallowance processes, which it should be, no matter which government it is. From reading that explanatory memorandum, it's clear to me that there is nothing that would prevent on any ground, including the ground of commercial certainty, that investment mandate having been prepared, or promptly being prepared, and a period of disallowance being allowed prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making investment decisions, so that this chamber would have an opportunity to apply its disallowance processes to that statutory instrument prior to any investments being made. In that way, there is absolutely no rational reason I can think of that commercial certainty or operational certainty would be compromised. If I'm wrong in my analysis, could the minister please explain to me why it is that there are exceptional circumstances which apply in this case that would make it commercially impossible for the investment mandate to be considered by this chamber, especially considering that we're at the start of this fund—assuming the legislation goes through—and that investment mandate could be considered prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making an investment?