In Committee: 4 Dec 2008: Senate debates (OpenAustralia.org)

Senate debates

Thursday, 4 December 2008

Nation-Building Funds Bill 2008; Nation-Building Funds (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008; Coag Reform Fund Bill 2008

In Committee

NATION-BUILDING FUNDS BILL 2008

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

12:38 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move, on behalf of the Australian Greens and the opposition, amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 5963 together:

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 29), after the definition of COAG Reform Fund, insert:

committee means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building for the time being constituted under Part 2.5A.

committee member means a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building.

(2) Page 90 (after line 22), after Part 2.5, insert:

: Part 2.5A—Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building
: 115A Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building

(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building is to be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament with reference to the appointment of members to serve on joint select committees of both Houses of the Parliament.

(2) The committee must consist of 12 committee members; namely, 6 members of the Senate appointed by the Senate, at least one of whom is to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent senator or independent senators, and 6 members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House; provided that there must not be more than 5 members in total from either the Government or the Opposition.

(3) A member of the Parliament is not eligible for appointment as a committee member if he or she is:

(a) a Minister;

(b) the President of the Senate;

(d) the Deputy-President and Chairman of Committees of the Senate or the Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives.

(4) A committee member ceases to hold office:

(a) when the House of Representatives expires by effluxion of time or is dissolved;

(b) if he or she becomes the holder of an office specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (3);

(d) if he or she resigns his or her office as provided by subsection (5) or (6).

(5) A committee member appointed by the Senate may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the President of the Senate.

(6) A committee member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Speaker of that House.

(7) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the committee members appointed by that House.

: 115B Powers and proceedings of the committee

All matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the committee must be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament.

: 115C Duties of the committee

The duties of the Committee are:

(a) to consider Infrastructure Australia advice that is referred to the committee under section 119B;

(b) to consider EIF Advisory Board advice that is referred to the committee under section 171A;

(d) to consider relevant Ministers’ statements of reasons;

(e) to report to both Houses of the Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any advice referred to it under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and on any matter appertaining to or connected with that advice to which, in the opinion of the committee, the attention of the Parliament should be directed;

(f) to examine each annual report on Infrastructure Australia and report to the Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report;

(g) to examine trends and changes in infrastructure provision and provision of education, health and hospital services and report to both Houses of the Parliament any change which the committee thinks desirable to:

(i) the functions, structure and operations of Infrastructure Australia, the EIF Advisory Board or the HHF Advisory Board; or

(ii) the operation of the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund or the Health and Hospitals Fund;

(h) to inquire into any question in connection with its duties that is referred to it by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House upon that question.

(3) Page 93 (after line 4), after clause 119, insert:

: 119A Infrastructure Australia advice to be tabled

On receiving any advice prepared by Infrastructure Australia under subsection 116(1), 117(1), 118(1) or 119(1), the relevant Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the advice.

(4) Page 93 (after line 4), after clause 119, insert:

: 119B Reference of advice of Infrastructure Australia to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building

(1) If Infrastructure Australia provides advice in accordance with subsection 116(1), 117(1), 118(1) or 119(1) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice stands referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building for consideration and report.

(2) If Infrastructure Australia provides advice in accordance with subsection 116(1), 117(1), 118(1) or 119(1) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which does not exceed the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice must be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building.

(3) On receiving the advice of Infrastructure Australia in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the advice, together with such plans, specifications and other particulars as the Minister thinks necessary.

(4) Development of infrastructure which is the subject of advice that has been referred to the committee in accordance with this section must not commence before a report of the committee concerning the work has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament.

(5) If, after a report of the committee in accordance with subsection (1) has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament and before the development of the infrastructure has commenced, each House resolves that, for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the advice of Infrastructure Australia is again referred to the committee for consideration and report, the committee must further consider the advice and the development of the infrastructure must not commence before a further report of the committee concerning the advice has been presented to both Houses.

(6) In this section:

estimated cost, in relation to the development of infrastructure, means an estimate of cost made when all the particulars of the development of the infrastructure substantially affecting its cost have been determined and includes the life-cycle costs of the infrastructure.

threshold amount means:

(a) $50,000,000; or

(b) if another lower amount is specified in the regulations for the purposes of this definition—that other amount.

(5) Clause 171, page 132 (after line 21), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) On receiving any advice prepared by the EIF Advisory Board under subsection (1) or (6), the relevant Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the advice.

(6) Page 133 (after line 7), after clause 171, insert:

: 171A Reference of advice of EIF Board to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building

(1) If the EIF Advisory Board provides advice in accordance with subsection 171(1) or (6) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice stands referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building for consideration and report.

(2) If the EIF Advisory Board provides advice in accordance with subsection 171(1) or (6) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which does not exceed the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice must be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building.

(3) On receiving the advice of the EIF Advisory Board in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the advice, together with such plans, specifications and other particulars as the Minister thinks necessary.

(5) If, after a report of the committee in accordance with subsection (1) has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament and before the development of the infrastructure has commenced, each House resolves that, for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the advice of the EIF Advisory Board is again referred to the committee for consideration and report, the committee must further consider the advice and the development of the infrastructure must not commence before a further report of the committee concerning the advice has been presented to both Houses.

(6) In this section:

threshold amount means:

(a) $50,000,000; or

(b) if another lower amount is specified in the regulations for the purposes of this definition—that other amount.

(7) Clause 246, page 186 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) On receiving any advice prepared by the HHF Advisory Board under subsection (1), the Health Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the advice.

(8) Page 186 (after line 8), after clause 246, insert:

: 246A Reference of advice of HHF Board to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building

(1) If the HHF Advisory Board provides advice in accordance with subsection 246(1) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice stands referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building for consideration and report.

(2) If the HHF Advisory Board provides advice in accordance with subsection 246(1) in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which doe not exceed the threshold amount, the advice and any document it considered when formulating that advice must be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Nation-Building.

(3) On receiving the advice of the HHF Advisory Board in support of infrastructure the estimated cost of which exceeds the threshold amount, the Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the advice, together with such plans, specifications and other particulars as the Minister thinks necessary.

(5) If, after a report of the committee in accordance with subsection (1) has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament and before the development of the infrastructure has commenced, each House resolves that, for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the advice of the HHF Advisory Board is again referred to the committee for consideration and report, the committee must further consider the advice and the development of the infrastructure must not commence before a further report of the committee concerning the advice has been presented to both Houses.

(6) In this section:

threshold amount means:

(a) $50,000,000; or

(b) if another lower amount is specified in the regulations for the purposes of this definition—that other amount.

These amendments give effect to the parliamentary joint standing committee on nation building, to which I referred in my speech in the second reading debate. As I indicated, it is essential that there is parliamentary scrutiny over the disbursement of taxpayers’ funds to be spent on infrastructure in excess of $50 million and that the priorities that have been recommended are reflected. These amendments essentially establish a joint house committee that will consist of 12 people—six from each house and with each house having one independent committee representative—that is, five coalition, five Labor, one Independent and one representative from the crossbenches of the Senate. The committee members would scrutinise the three funds that are being set up.

These amendments enable the setting up of the joint house committee and provide for its reference, which pertains to the three funds. The amendments also provide that the advice on which the advisory bodies makes their decisions, those decisions and the advisory bodies’ reports to the minister be laid on the tables of the houses of parliament within three sitting days after that report to the minister has been made so that the parliament has the ability to scrutinise the advice and the basis on which that advice was made. That advice would then clearly inform the deliberations of the joint house committee.

These are extremely sensible amendments that go to transparency, and we have heard a lot from the government about the need for transparency. The amendments go to the heart of accountability and will enable the community to see within a short time the recommendations of the advisory bodies for each of the three funds. Having given the advice to the minister, that advice is then made available to the parliament and to the people so that they can read the basis upon which the advisory committee’s recommendations to the minister have been made. The joint house committee will then be in a position to scrutinise that. Of course, that means that the community, through the joint house committee, will be involved in the process of nation building and of making determinations about nation-building priorities.

This process will take away the temptation of government to pork barrel with taxpayers’ money for the purpose of influencing election outcomes and providing election sweeteners. There has been way too much of that in this country. The amendments provide for transparency, accountability and proper parliamentary scrutiny. I urge the support of the Senate for these amendments to establish the joint standing committee on nation building.

12:41 pm

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

On behalf of the coalition, I indicate our pleasure to be moving these amendments jointly with the Greens. We think that this is a very important initiative to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of these three new funds. We think that it is in the government’s own interest to support these amendments. Any rejection of these amendments by the government for the very important element of parliamentary scrutiny of these funds will, in the public’s mind and indeed in the minds of members of this chamber, suggest that the government has something to hide.

When we were in government we were lectured for 11½ years by the Labor Party about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, transparency and oversight of activities of this kind. I would be amazed if the government had any credible arguments about a joint committee of this kind between the two houses, with neither the government nor the opposition having a majority of members. It is appropriate that there be a specialist committee of the parliament that pays close and particular attention to the activities of these funds and to which Infrastructure Australia is accountable. It is important to have a committee dedicated to this task rather than only having, as we heard from the government, general parliamentary oversight.

It is important to stress that we are not submitting here any proposal that involves a committee having veto power over expenditure from these funds. That is not what this is about. We are not trying to prevent the government exercising its proper executive authority but we are saying that there should be a mechanism of this kind to ensure proper transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight of the activities of the government with respect to these funds, which at least initially do involve some substantial sums of money. I would have thought it would be in the government’s interest to be able to avoid any suggestion, which will arise if this is not in place, that there is partisanship involved in expenditure from these funds. Having been in government I am well aware—and certainly the Labor Party accused us of this—that governments can be tempted to use these as ‘slush funds’. If the government wants to avoid that sort of accusation, the best way to do so is to accept these amendments. They do not cramp the government in any way. All these amendments do is ensure that there is parliamentary oversight and parliamentary scrutiny, without any veto being applied. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

12:44 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing the jointly sponsored amendments. There might be some validity in the claims made by the opposition and the Greens if, in fact, we had not sought to increase transparency, over and above that which we saw from the former government, in the assessment of these projects. The point I would make is that we have gone well beyond what the former government did in this regard in other areas. The Nation-Building Funds Bill 2008 already provides for rigour and transparency in relation to payments from the funds—much greater levels of rigour, I would argue, than we ever saw from the former government with respect to other allocations for particular projects. We have improved transparency and accountability.

The spending on specific projects is to be assessed by independent advisory bodies against evaluation criteria, and that is a significant change. The projects will then be considered through the budget process, and the infrastructure projects will be reported in the budget papers. Having improved the rigour and accountability of projects through an independent advisory body, we do not see why it is then necessary to add to the existing accountability processes, which are significant—all of us from the government and the opposition are very well used to the rigours of the estimates process. We fail to see why it is necessary to add yet another duplicative parliamentary process to the existing rigour of the Senate estimates process, given that we have included independent advisory bodies in the bill—which, as said, we did not see from the former government.

The annual appropriation acts will include the maximum limit on the amount that can be paid out in a particular financial year. The annual limit on expenditure will provide that parliament has the mechanism to oversee the rate at which amounts are being expended. As we all know from estimates, there are a whole range of projects which are funded through the appropriation bills and which are subject to enormous rigour at estimates. So we do not see why there needs to be the creation of yet another parliamentary committee beyond that which exists at the present time.

12:47 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am disappointed that the government is not supporting these amendments. I think it is disingenuous to say that there is a rigorous assessment of government spending through the estimates process. I remind the parliament about the grants that were made under the last government and the absolute rorting of some of those, particularly those regional grants and also the forest industry grants. I have been pursuing those through estimates. The Auditor-General wrote scathing reports on both sets of grants programs, saying they were appallingly administered.

In relation to DAFF’s oversight of grants, particularly those forest industry grants, DAFF have of course had to change their assessment procedures and so on. They were in a situation where grants were made without any kind of proper scrutiny at all. Getting the information out of them as to what happened has been like drawing teeth. There has been money spent in Tasmania in terms of the bushfire expenditure that the Commonwealth made after those terrible bushfires that happened. I have been asking for the last six months: how was the money spent? That is not an unreasonable question. Where was the money spent? How was it spent? The Commonwealth minister says to me: ‘We’re awaiting a report from Tasmania. Tasmania hasn’t provided that report.’ The people of Tasmania do not know where the money is spent. The federal parliament does not know how the money is spent.

So, whilst you might say that there are technically processes for securing this kind of information, they are long and drawn-out processes. It can take a year to get that information after the money is expended, or even longer—if you ever get to the bottom of how the money was spent. But the issue here is not that those processes do not exist; it is that it is important that those advisory boards—they are appointed with expertise and they are going to make recommendations to ministers—make their advice public in a timely manner and that it is scrutinised by the parliament. If that advice is not public, how do we know, when the minister announces his infrastructure project, whether in fact that was what was recommended?

I remind this chamber that, just before the last election, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, now the Leader of the Opposition, changed a recommendation that came in about a university grant process. He crossed out ‘ANU’ and put in the university of his choice, in the lead-up to the election—after an assessment process had been gone through and a recommendation had been gone through as to which universities should get this research funding, he just put his pen through it. We could not get that information for a long time—and now we have. The point I am making is that the people of Australia want the recommendations that the advisory boards are making, and any documents pertaining to that, to be available for people to scrutinise and for the parliament to scrutinise. So, whilst I totally accept the processes that the parliament has, they are neither timely nor particularly efficient in providing all the information you need. Whilst the grants I have spoken about were important, in terms of their dollar value they were small, compared with what we are talking about. That is why I have said that, where the expenditure is $50 million or more—we are not talking about every grant that is made; we are talking about grants where a significant sum is being spent—it is appropriate that the parliament scrutinise the grant.

12:51 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not be repetitive because of the time constraints but, on the logic that is being advanced, where we have significant expenditure in any government department on a major program, under these amendments we would set up yet another committee to oversight a program. We have got committees to do that and the process works very well—that is, the estimates process. We do not support the amendments. I recognise the numbers and we will not be calling a division.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for these amendments. I believe they do increase transparency and accountability. I note the arguments of the government in relation to this matter and what the government said occurred when they were in opposition. I also note the criticisms of the Commonwealth Auditor-General in relation to the Regional Partnerships grants. I think it is important that we learn from what has occurred in the past and these amendments give an added degree of accountability and transparency. I therefore welcome and support these amendments.

12:52 pm

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

I want to take this opportunity to reject completely the accusations by our co-sponsor on these amendments of any rorting of programs under the coalition government. I want to place on record our complete rejection of those suggestions. Nevertheless, I do think Senator Milne is absolutely right about the virtues of increasing parliamentary scrutiny of these three funds.

These are three brand new capital funds, the like of which the Commonwealth government has never had before, that I think would benefit considerably from a committee of both houses specialising in the scrutiny of their activities and taking a proactive role in examining the virtues of prospective decisions. We have the estimates committee process but that is all after the event, and in the short time they have available to them estimates committees often get diverted by a whole lot of other issues that deny them the opportunity to properly scrutinise the sort of activities which these funds are undergoing.

Of course at some point down the track, if Senator Sherry was right and it was the case that other parliamentary oversight was sufficient to mean that this committee was no longer serving a proper purpose, that could be considered by the parliament. But we think that, given the uniqueness of these funds and the moneys available to them, specialist parliamentary scrutiny is entirely appropriate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (24) on sheet 5684 together:

Transparency by ministers

(1) Clause 52, page 47 (after line 7), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) If the Infrastructure Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Infrastructure Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(2) Clause 52, page 47 (after line 23), after subclause (6), insert:

(6A) If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(3) Clause 52, page 47 (after line 27), after subclause (7), insert:

(7A) If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (7) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(4) Clause 52, page 48 (after line 11), after subclause (10), insert:

(10A) If the Energy Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (8) in relation to a payment, the Energy Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(5) Clause 52, page 48 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

(14) If the Water Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (11) in relation to a payment, the Water Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(6) Clause 64, page 55 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Infrastructure Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Infrastructure Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(7) Clause 71, page 60 (after line 8), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(8) Clause 78, page 63 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Energy Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Energy Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(9) Clause 85, page 67 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Water Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Water Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(10) Clause 90, page 71 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

(11) Clause 95, page 74 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Communications Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Communications Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(12) Clause 100, page 77 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:

(13) Clause 105, page 80 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:

(14) Clause 177, page 136 (after line 10), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) If the Education Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Education Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(15) Clause 177, page 136 (after line 26), after subclause (6), insert:

(6A) If the Research Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the Research Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(16) Clause 177, page 137 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

(10) If the EIF designated Ministers make a recommendation under subsection (7) in relation to a payment, the EIF designated Ministers must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(17) Clause 184, page 141 (after line 20), after subclause (3), insert:

(18) Clause 184, page 142 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add:

(7) If the EIF designated Ministers make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment, the EIF designated Ministers must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(19) Clause 191, page 146 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) If the Research Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Research Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(20) Clause 191, page 146 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(21) Clause 195, page 149 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Education Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Education Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(22) Clause 252, page 188 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Health Minister makes a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment, the Health Minister must cause a written statement of reasons for the recommendation to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 9 sitting days of that House.

(23) Clause 258, page 191 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

(24) Clause 263, page 195 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

While these are lengthy amendments they all go to the one purpose and that is to improve transparency. I would have thought the Labor Party, given its track record and rhetoric in relation to transparency of executive decisions, should not have any objection to this series of amendments. All the amendments do is to seek to improve that transparency. All that is required is that when a minister chooses a project he or she table in the parliament a statement of reasons why that project was supported. The requirement would not go to all the supporting material but it would allow the public and the parliament to compare the project supported by the relevant minister to both the report of the joint standing committee, which the Senate has agreed should be established, and to the projects recommended by advisory boards.

We think this is an important element in the establishment of these funds. This is not a great burden on the government but, of course, governments find these things a nuisance. By virtue of these amendments the parliament would be asking the government to ensure that, when the government chooses a project to be funded from one of these funds, they lay on the table in the parliament a statement of reasons why the project was supported. I commend the series of amendments to the Senate.

12:56 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have previously pointed out, the bill already provides for rigor and transparency. Spending on specific projects would be assessed by independent advisory bodies and I would point out that the Senate has added yet another body, a joint parliamentary committee, on top of the additional rigor of independent advisory bodies. Here we have a set of amendments that go to further requirements over and above that which this government has set out, which are a considerable improvement on the practices of the previous government. These amendments go over and above the joint committee that has just been supported by amendment. All the agreed infrastructure projects will be reported in the budget papers.

I point out, as I did earlier, that as all of these projects are reported we have the capacity, which no doubt will be used, for each minister that is referred to in these amendments to be questioned—as I am sure they will be, very rigorously and vigorously—as is the Senate’s rights at estimates. We already have a process, so why do we need to add another? I note that there are other amendments that go to even more processes over and above what has already been agreed to by the government in the bill and over and above what has already been included via passage of the amendment that has just been added by the Senate. We do not support the amendments moved by the opposition.

12:57 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the amendments.

12:58 pm

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for these amendments.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (25) to (47) on sheet 5684 together:

Payment recommendation criteria

(25) Clause 52, page 46 (lines 26 to 29), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 116 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(26) Clause 52, page 47 (lines 12 to 15), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The Communications Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 117 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(27) Clause 52, page 48 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (9), substitute:

(9) The Energy Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (8) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 118 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(28) Clause 52, page 48 (lines 16 to 19), omit subclause (12), substitute:

(12) The Water Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (11) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 119 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(29) Clause 64, page 55 (lines 14 to 17), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 116 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(30) Clause 71, page 59 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Communications Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 117 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(31) Clause 78, page 63 (lines 13 to 16), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Energy Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 118 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(32) Clause 85, page 67 (lines 13 to 16), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Water Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 119 that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(33) Clause 90, page 71 (lines 6 to 9), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 116 that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(34) Clause 95, page 74 (lines 9 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Communications Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 117 that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(35) Clause 100, page 77 (lines 15 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Energy Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 118 that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(36) Clause 105, page 80 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Water Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless Infrastructure Australia has advised under section 119 that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(37) Clause 177, page 135 (line 27) to page 136 (line 2), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Education Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 171(1)(a) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(38) Clause 177, page 136 (lines 15 to 18), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The Research Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 171(1)(b) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(39) Clause 177, page 136 (line 31) to page 137 (line 2), omit subclause (8), substitute:

(8) The EIF designated Ministers must not make a recommendation under subsection (7) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has:

(a) given advice under subsection 171(6) about the payment; and:

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—advised that the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(40) Clause 184, page 141 (lines 9 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Education Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 171(1)(a) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(41) Clause 184, page 141 (lines 25 to 28), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The EIF designated Ministers must not make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has:

(a) given advice under subsection 171(6) about the payment; and:

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—advised that the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(42) Clause 191, page 145 (lines 22 to 25), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Research Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 171(1)(b) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(43) Clause 191, page 146 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The EIF designated Ministers must not make a recommendation under subsection (4) in relation to a payment unless the EIF Advisory Board has:

(a) given advice under subsection 171(6) about the payment; and:

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—advised that the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(44) Clause 195, page 149 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Education Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless the EIF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 171(1)(a) that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(45) Clause 252, page 188 (lines 13 to 16), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Health Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless the HHF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 246(1)(a) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant HHF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(46) Clause 258, page 191 (lines 12 to 15), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Health Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a payment unless the HHF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 246(1)(a) that:

(a) the payment satisfies the relevant HHF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(47) Clause 263, page 194 (line 29) to page 195(line 2), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Health Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant unless the HHF Advisory Board has advised under paragraph 246(1)(a) that:

(a) the grant satisfies the relevant HHF evaluation criteria; and

(b) if the grant will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

We think this is a very important series of amendments to this bill which will improve it. The amendments ensure that any project recommended by a relevant minister must have taken into account the running costs of the project and prohibits any upfront fees being charged on a project, as we have seen occur in New South Wales where the government has required project proponents to pay upfront fees to the government. The wording is set out most clearly, for example, in subclause 25:

The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation … unless Infrastructure Australia has advised … that:

… … …

(b) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

As Senator Sherry would now know, being in government—as I certainly experienced in government—one of the real traps in providing capital funding to particular projects is the issue of ongoing running costs of the project. We think there is a real risk to the budget in future and to the recurrent expenditures in the budget in future, if there is no account taken of ongoing running costs, and who is going to pay for them, in the assessment of projects. We had a dramatic example of this problem with the Labor Party’s glib promise at the last election to provide computers to everybody in schools. It is a promise that has not been honoured in full and there has now been a massive blow-out in the total cost of that promise because they did not properly allow for the associated running costs of such a capital expenditure, with the government having to find another $800 million to ensure that these computers can actually be used. That is a classic case of not taking full account. I saw, in sitting around the NSC with Defence projects, that taking into account ongoing running costs is critical.

We think this is a very important series of amendments and we see no reason why the government would not want to support them. In relation to the prohibition of upfront fees, that has been raised with the coalition by a lot of firms in the development and examination of this legislation. As I understand it, without this prohibition there is a risk of superannuation funds being involved in these projects because they cannot make such payments. That is the advice as I understand it. In any event, we think the practice of these upfront fees being paid to governments is wrong and should be prohibited. I commend this set of amendments to the Senate.

1:02 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments cover two broad thematic areas. With respect to the requirement that all project funding decisions need to ensure there are financial commitments from all asset owners and stakeholders to meet the whole-of-life asset costs, I would point out that under the evaluation criteria framework for the funds, a core principle is that proponents must demonstrate they can achieve established standards in implementation and management. They cannot get beyond first base unless they disclose that. This framework includes that a recipient can support infrastructure once it is built. I think it would be very obvious that, in that criteria framework, you would take into account that the recipient can support the infrastructure once it is built. There would obviously have to be some ongoing arrangement.

The interim evaluation criteria for the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund require a demonstration of how the infrastructure proposal can continue to operate beyond receiving payments from the funds. It would seem to me to be fundamental common sense that you include that in the evaluation criteria, and we do that.

With respect to the prohibition of the payment of upfront fees on projects in situations where the federal government puts its money in but the state or the private sector do not, funding arrangements will be covered in funding agreements which will protect the Commonwealth’s interests. Prohibiting upfront fees could lead to less coinvestment from certain sectors, such as with the higher education institutions. The evaluation framework requires proponents to demonstrate that they can achieve established standards in implementation and management.

I do not know where Senator Minchin got his information about superannuation funds from. I do spend a fair bit of time with them in discussions around all manner of issues, but this issue around upfront fees and/or financial commitments over whole-of-life asset costs has not been raised with me by superannuation funds. I cannot recall one fund raising it with me. They have raised other matters about infrastructure investment generally, and a whole range of fronts where they experience some alleged frustration, I would have to say—sometimes a legitimate frustration and sometimes other issues I am not quite so sure about. But I have not had them raise any specific concerns about the government’s proposals in evaluation criteria. Indeed, superannuation funds that I have talked to overwhelmingly support the initiatives of the government and are not looking to this sort of amendment. Anyway, I suspect that Senator Milne is going to get up and support it, I recognise the numbers and I will not be calling a division.

1:05 pm

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

I thank Senator Sherry for his remarks, but I am disappointed he does not see the purpose of making the amendments. In relation to the first part of the clause in relation to the ongoing running costs, Senator Sherry is the star witness for the prosecution. If he says it is obvious that all this would be taken into account, then he cannot have any grounds for objecting to this being a requirement placed upon the minister in relation to any payments. I would have thought that would be of no concern to the government if the government is confident that this will be a function of the way in which the payments will work. I thank him for his support.

1:06 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting the amendments.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (48) to (54) on sheet 5684:

(48) Clause 14, page 18 (lines 23 to 26), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:

(4) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(49) Clause 15, page 19 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(50) Clause 17, page 20 (lines 3 to 5), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(51) Clause 133, page 103 (lines 22 to 25), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:

(4) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(52) Clause 134, page 104 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(53) Clause 216, page 164 (lines 17 to 20), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:

(4) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

(54) Clause 217, page 165 (lines 3 to 5), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A determination under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.

Again, this set of amendments goes to appropriate accountability and parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. As is the case with many other functions of government, it ensures that determinations are disallowable, and those are the determinations that place funds into these three new infrastructure funds. We think it is appropriate that the minister should do so by virtue of a disallowable instrument. That will ensure that there is scrutiny on the money going into these funds and ensure that the source of moneys placed into the funds is open and transparent and able to be scrutinised by the parliament.

We do not think this is onerous in any way. You would anticipate that, in the normal course of events, no disallowance would ever be moved. But we do think that it is appropriate that there is the parliamentary opportunity to scrutinise the funding sources of the funds in an open and transparent fashion. So I commend this set of amendments to the Senate.

1:07 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the government will not be supporting this new requirement. The arrangement for credits to the funds is consistent with the approach taken for the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Credits to the fund are determined through legislative instruments which are required to be tabled in the parliament and are also registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Normally such determinations would be regarded as administrative rather than legislative in character; however, to provide transparency to the parliament, these determinations have been made non-disallowable instruments. We will not be supporting the amendments.

1:08 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting those amendments.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (55) to (61) on sheet 5684:

(55) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 2), after the definition of Communications Minister, insert:

Competitive Neutrality Guidelines means the Australian Government Competitive Neutrality Guidelines for Managers contained in Finance Management Guidance No. 9, published by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, as in force from time to time.

(56) Clause 116, page 91 (lines 11 and 12), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In giving advice under subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) apply the BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether the owners of the asset will meet all the whole-of-life asset costs, including operational costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

(57) Clause 117, page 91 (lines 23 and 24), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In giving advice under subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) apply the BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether or not the owner or owners of the asset will pay the whole-of-life costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

(58) Clause 118, page 92 (lines 11 and 12), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In giving advice under subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) apply the BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether or not the owner or owners of the asset will pay the whole-of-life costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

(59) Clause 119, page 91 (lines 27 and 28), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In giving advice under subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) apply the BAF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether or not the owner or owners of the asset will pay the whole-of-life costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

(60) Clause 171, page 132 (lines 20 and 21), omit subclause (4), substitute:

(4) In giving advice under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the EIF Advisory Board must:

(a) apply the EIF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether or not the owner or owners of the asset will pay the whole-of-life costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

(61) Clause 246, page 186 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In giving advice under paragraph (1)(a), the HHF Advisory Board must:

(a) apply the HHF evaluation criteria; and

(b) apply the Competitive Neutrality Guidelines, if applicable; and

(c) if the payment will result in the creation or development of an asset—take into account whether or not the owner or owners of the asset will pay the whole-of-life costs; and

(d) take into account whether or not the project will require the payment of an upfront fee.

This is quite an important issue. It goes to the matters that should be taken into account in giving advice on projects. The important issue here is that of competitive neutrality. It is always an issue when governments fund projects—and I saw this often through the 11½ years that we were in government, and I am sure Senator Sherry is well aware of this. It is quite an important principle that government funding of particular projects does not breach the very important principle of competitive neutrality and, either by design or inadvertence, disadvantage private providers of similar or equivalent services by virtue of taxpayers’ money being used to fund particular projects.

It is an inherent principle of government—one not always necessarily properly observed by either side of the parliament at state or federal level, but one the coalition does believe is very important. It is one that I personally believe is critically important and, in my years as finance minister, it is one that I took great account of. So I do think it is quite important that, in relation to projects that are to be funded, there is this assessment of the question of competitive neutrality. It is quite important that the rights of private providers of services derived from infrastructure are taken proper account of and they are not commercially disadvantaged by the consequences of taxpayers’ money being used to fund particular projects. So I do commend these amendments.

1:11 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting those amendments.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that I am surprised the Greens are supporting this—for a pretty obvious reason. It is not always easy to tell what is in fact competitive neutral policy. Competitive neutral policy requires that the Commonwealth does not use its legislative or fiscal powers to advantage its own businesses over the private sector. As I say, it is not always easy to tell, as we have seen with ABC Learning, for example—which is why I would have thought the Greens would have been a little more hesitant to jump in to support these amendments.

The government does adhere to the neutrality policy. Consistent with best practice, applications for payments from the funds will be managed on a competitive basis. Existing government policy will apply to the funds where relevant, including competitive neutrality guidelines. Therefore, we do not believe there is any need to legislate this requirement.

Question agreed to.

1:12 pm

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, I note that amendments (62) to (69) all deal with the issue of the Communications Fund, but I seek leave to move them in the following manner, as set out in the running sheet: amendments (62) to (64) and (66) to (68) and then, separately, (65) and (69), because the nature of the question to be put to the chamber is different in relation to (65) and (69). Do I have leave to act accordingly?

Leave granted.

I move opposition amendments (62) to (64) and (66) to (68):

(62) Clause 11, page 15 (lines 10 and 11), omit:

The balance of the Communications Fund is to be transferred to the Building Australia Fund.

(63) Clause 11, page 16 (lines 12 to 14), omit note 1.

(64) Clause 14, page 18 (lines 15 to 18), omit notes 1 and 2.

(66) Clause 19, page 23 (lines 1 to 7), omit paragraph (b).

(67) Clause 19, page 23 (lines 13 to 17), omit paragraph (d).

(68) Clause 19, page 23 (lines 20 to 22), omit note 2.

I will speak to opposition amendments (62) to (69) together because they all relate to the Communications Fund. I referred to this very important matter in my speech in the second reading debate. One of the most significant initiatives of the coalition government was to set aside in perpetuity an amount of $2 billion in the Communications Fund, as I recall, to be managed, separately and independently, by the Future Fund board and to be preserved and set apart and unable to be tampered with for any partisan reason by any government of the day. It was set aside in perpetuity to provide in perpetuity the earnings from the fund—which, if you estimated at five per cent a year, would give you $100 million a year—to meet the telecommunications needs of rural and regional Australians.

Rural and regional Australians are the most underserved when it comes to telecommunications, as we all know, by virtue of the evident geography of this country. We set up—and I am pleased to see the government has continued—the regular Glasson reviews of the state of telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. The whole design was to ensure that, based on the findings of the regular Glasson reviews of telecommunication needs in this country, there was then available to meet the identified needs coming out of the regular reviews $100 million a year—every year in perpetuity—to assist rural and regional Australians approach metro equivalent telecommunications services. And that was going to be there forever, as I said.

The government are purporting to say, ‘We’re going to rip that $2 billion out of the Communications Fund and dump it into our Building Australia Fund. We’ll then run it down and it will be gone forever. But don’t worry about that because we’re going to provide in the budget $100 million a year. Trust us; it’ll be there.’ Well, frankly, rural and regional Australians do not trust the government when it comes to the ongoing provision of that $100 million a year. It may have appeared in this budget to get them through this electoral cycle, but, given that we are rapidly seeing the advent of deficits, you can bet your bottom dollar that the first thing to be cut out of the budget by a Labor ministry will be the $100 million per annum for rural telecommunications needs. It would be highly vulnerable to an expenditure review committee looking for easy money in a situation, like the one we are rapidly approaching, of deficit budgets. In stark contrast, the coalition’s provision was of an in perpetuity fund providing, separately and independently, $100 million to ensure that rural and regional telecommunications would be preserved in perpetuity.

What we have here is a proposal by the Labor Party to breach the walls surrounding this Communications Fund and to grab the money. It will all be gone—the $2 billion—in a flash, and then rural and regional Australians will be left to rely on the charity, at their whim and pleasure, of the Labor government. As I said, having sat around the expenditure review committee myself for many years, you can bet that the first thing that will be targeted will be that $100 million for rural and regional telecommunications. We know that the Labor government has slim regard for the needs of rural and regional telecommunications users, having cancelled the OPEL contract in relation to broadband for rural and regional Australians. So rural and regional Australians need the protection provided by the ongoing status of this Communications Fund.

These amendments seek to prevent this Labor government from getting its hands on the Communications Fund and from dissipating it within a few years. Therefore we urge the Senate to support these amendments to preserve the Communications Fund. This is the opportunity for the Senate to say to all those living outside metropolitan Australia that we do care for your vital telecommunications needs; we do understand how important this is to you. In my speech on the second reading debate I cited the fears of the New South Wales Farmers Association were the Communications Fund to be abolished. So I plead with the Senate to support all those that we represent outside the major cities of Australia who need this fund—to preserve it and protect it by supporting these amendments.

1:17 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting amendments (62) to (68), (65) and (69)—that double lot of amendments. I certainly agree that it is absolutely critical that we get broadband to rural and regional Australia. We are totally committed to that happening and in my view Senator Conroy should have made clear that the government was going to roll out broadband from the outside in, if you like—to go to those areas which are underserviced and make sure that the rollout starts in rural and regional Australia rather than in the more profitable large city centres. The way to ensure that happening would be to make sure that the tender guarantees access to broadband for rural and regional Australia. So there is certainly an absolute commitment to that.

The reason that I think it makes sense to put the Communications Fund into the Building Australia Fund is that there is a high level of compatibility between rolling out energy infrastructure, intelligent networks, smart grids and so on and rolling out information technology. In the same way, when Basslink was built, linking it to Tasmania, we worked to make sure that we were able to attach to that the information technology capacity and so on. Increasingly, as information technology works with new energy technologies and, as I said, intelligent networks, we are going to see a recognition that you have to plan both together and maximise the synergies that those opportunities provide.

So I do not think you can continue to see communications as being separate from other forms of infrastructure when there is a high level of compatibility and you can maximise effectiveness and maximise efficiency. But I would like to hear from the government, once again, their commitment to getting broadband to rural and regional Australia. We do not want to see the blowing of a big hole in the fund for rolling out broadband—as I think the coalition’s amendments would do. That is one of the other reasons we do not support what the coalition is proposing. But we certainly do support rolling out broadband in rural and regional Australia as a priority. So I would like to hear from the government exactly how they intend to reassure everyone that that is still going to be the case.

1:20 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can reaffirm that we have a commitment. It would best come from the minister, Senator Conroy, because that is a debate about which there has been constant questioning in the Senate. Frankly, it is not my responsibility to give those assurances; it is up to Senator Conroy on behalf of the government. But I can give those assurances. That is the purpose for the transfer of the funds. I am sure there will be a very lengthy debate about whatever is the outcome of the process that Senate Conroy is overseeing. I am sure there will be an extensive debate about that but I really do see that as a detailed debate to have on another day.

The blunt point I make is that we do not even get to that point, whenever that debate takes place, without the funds. I hope Senator Xenophon, in particular, takes note of what is taking place here. This is an attempt by the opposition to gut the funding so we do not even get to first base. This is an attempt by the former government, the Liberal opposition, a judgement having been cast by the Australian public at the last election—the coalition spent years and years struggling with this very issue and its failure was recognised by the Australian people—to override an election promise of the Australian Labor Party.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right, again. It is non-stop. It is a totally irresponsible amendment. It threatens the funding source for the government’s NBN. Broadband is a critical enabling technology that will change how businesses serve their customers, how government delivers services and how citizens collaborate in the future.

I am following this very closely because I live in an area—the Forth Valley in Tasmania—that did not even have mobile phone reception until two years ago because of the nature of the terrain. So I am particularly interested in this, as one who lives in rural and regional Australia and has experienced the difficulties of ensuring adequate technology in the area in which I live. I know many others in this country—perhaps for different reasons, not just the nature of the terrain—have experienced significant frustration. The whole point of this is that we are providing funding to ensure that my colleague Senator Conroy gets on with the job of dealing with these issues.

On 13 November the government introduced the Nation-building Funds Bill 2008 into parliament. The bill establishes three separate funds: the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund. The bill and the associated transitional provisions abolish the Communications Fund and transfer the balance of the fund into the Building Australia Fund. Other funding can be transferred by relevant ministers. The Building Australia Fund will be used to provide the government’s contribution of up to $4.7 billion to the national broadband network.

As I say, the previous government spent years trying to get this right and failed. Judgement was cast on the opposition by the Australian people at the election, at least in part for their failures in this area. There were other reasons too, I accept. The Liberal opposition are here attempting the outrageous stunt of trying to gut a large part of the funding from the election promise we gave and which we intend to implement. We have only just got to first base on implementing the election promise and they want to knock one of the legs from the stool that enables us to progress this very, very important issue. It is simply outrageous and it is just another example of the generally negative approach to a range of issues we have seen from the Liberal opposition since their ‘transition’ from government to opposition.

We have had a debate and we accept—at least at this point of time—that we have not been able to influence the chamber in respect of a range of governance and oversight matters, but if this is passed it will have very severe ramifications for the future of the NBN program, for the reasons I have outlined.

1:25 pm

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Milne has indicated, the Australian Greens will not be supporting these amendments, for the reasons that the minister has just outlined. But there is a question that I think we need to put to you, Minister. Senator Minchin is correct in that the Communications Fund was earmarked for telecommunications services to rural and regional areas, and no such commitment has been made under Minister Conroy’s request for proposals that is afoot at the moment. For example, Telstra, one of the bidders to the process, have made no commitment to rolling the network in from the fringes, where services are extremely patchy, because they were not required to make any such commitment under the RFP. We do not know which way the other bidders are going. I think it is quite important and I would like to see that addressed. What guarantees can you give that the RFP will not simply lead to $4.7 billion being spent on broadband services in profitable inner city areas while rural and regional areas will continue to be disadvantaged—because there is nothing in the RFP that says that that cannot happen?

1:26 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have already indicated—perhaps not precisely enough, given I had a range of other commentary around—we are well aware of your concerns, but there will be a time for debate for you to determine whether those concerns are met when Senator Conroy has completed his process. I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of that process at the moment. The tender process has only just commenced. Whatever legislative requirements flow from the process that Senator Conroy has oversighted, there will be a judgement made. You may or may not be satisfied. I would contend you will be satisfied, without pre-empting that process’s outcome. But you will have a capacity to address whatever deficiencies you identify—hopefully you do not identify any—after Senator Conroy’s process is completed, when we consider effectively the outcome of the process he has been through in that legislation. I think that is the time for you to make your call. It is very difficult if we are expected not even to get to first base because the funding is not provided. That is what this bill goes to. I understand your concerns, but my hope is that you will make a judgement when Senator Conroy gets to the legislative requirements around his process, when it is completed.

1:28 pm

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

The coalition have had some salacious accusations from Senator Sherry on this matter. What is outrageous is what the Labor Party is doing here. This $2 billion only exists because the federal coalition government proceeded with the sale of the remaining 50 per cent of the shares of Telstra, something that the Labor Party bitterly opposed and fought all the way. But we had a clear mandate to sell those remaining shares. The shares were sold, and our undertaking with the Australian people and with this parliament was that $2 billion from the proceeds would go into the Communications Fund. That was our act of faith with people in rural and regional Australia who we understand had concerns about the sale of Telstra. But we said, ‘We’re going to take part of the proceeds of that sale and preserve them in perpetuity for the purposes of providing rural and regional Australians with ongoing funding in perpetuity to support them in their rural and regional telecommunications needs.’

So here is Senator Sherry on behalf of the government saying, ‘Isn’t it dreadful that the coalition wants to preserve this $2 billion?’ The $2 billion would not be there if Labor had had their way. If they had succeeded in preventing us selling our remaining shares in Telstra then this $2 billion would not exist. So for them to accuse us of hypocrisy on this and to be outraged is ridiculous. The money is there for rural and regional Australians because of a policy we pursued that the Labor Party opposed at every step. Our act of faith with the people of rural and regional Australia was that that money would be preserved to support their communications needs. I urge the Senate to support us in this endeavour of preserving this funding.

Senator Ludlam, I think quite properly, raised the fact that Labor propose to grab this $2 billion and use it as part-payment towards Labor’s ill-fated and deeply-flawed national broadband network. This again shows the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. As I have said, the $2 billion comes from the proceeds of the sale. The other $2.7 billion also comes from the proceeds of the sale. What Labor have done is grabbed the second instalment of the payment for Telstra shares—and they have the capacity to do this. That was meant to go to the Future Fund in fact. So they have deprived the Future Fund of the $2.7 billion to go towards paying the superannuation for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and public servants, and whacked it into Senator Conroy’s national broadband network.

As Senator Ludlam has properly said, Telstra has made it abundantly clear that all the $4.7 billion is going to do is subsidise the provision of broadband in metropolitan Australia. Rural and regional Australians are not going to see the benefit of this $4.7 billion so they are double losers—they lose the $2 billion from the Communications Fund and then they see it go into metropolitan Australia to provide fibre in metropolitan areas. With the cancellation of the OPEL contract by this government, rural and regional Australians are going to be left hanging out to dry. This is a moment for the Senate to really stand up for rural and regional Australians. Do you care about them or don’t you? What are your priorities? If your priorities are to ensure that rural and regional Australians are protected from the ravages of this Labor government wanting to take away that $2 billion then you will support these amendments.

1:32 pm

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add to what Senator Minchin has said. The minister used the word ‘outrageous’. I am going to use the word ‘outrageous’ too. The minister knows full well that that $2 billion was set aside for the future proofing of rural and regional communications. That is what it was put away for in the bank, to earn interest—to keep those services up in rural and regional areas. I find it appalling that the government now want to withdraw that money. They knew what it was put aside for. They knew the previous government put it there. I know full well that people like John Anderson argued very hard, when it came to the debate on the full sale of Telstra, that this money should be put aside for the future of those country communities, and I think it is deplorable that you consider withdrawing it.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is just one problem with your argument, Senator, through you, Madam Temporary Chairman: the Australian people do not agree with you.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Country people will find out about it, I promise you that.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue was well canvassed before the last election. We specifically announced this—

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

You can’t claim a mandate for this.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can claim a mandate for this.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition got more votes in the Senate than you.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Governments are not formed in the Senate. We gave a specific election promise. We have not done this after the election; we put it up there in lights. I remember the announcements made. I remember the discussion, as a member of the shadow ministry in opposition, about this and I remember the announcements about this. It was put up in lights well before the election. It is a fact of life that you lost the election. Learn to live with it. This is an election promise—an election commitment. I want to borrow a phrase from Senator Conroy yesterday—

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

That’s dangerous.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually want to borrow the same phrase, Senator Minchin, because I would suggest that you are putting the cart before the horse. What you are attempting to argue in your assertion—and it is an assertion—is that the process that Senator Conroy has commenced is deeply flawed.

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

Senator Minchin interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we do not know, Senator Minchin, because it has not been concluded. You can assert a process is flawed but, as Senator Conroy has pointed out, well and very effectively, I might say—other than putting the cart before the horse—what you are trying to do is to bring a halt to a process that you claim is flawed by refusing to allocate the moneys, in large part. We gave an election commitment, a specific promise, which we went to the election on. We won the election—you lost the election.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is called a mandate.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is called a mandate. I can think of a lot of other things to say but I know that time is getting away.

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

It is called a rip-off, actually.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot call it a rip-off. Here you are alleging a rip-off. We sat down in a considered way and developed a policy which we believe will ensure the development of a national broadband network that will well service the needs of rural and regional Australians as well as everyone else who lives in Australia, as I said. It was a well-announced policy. As I recall it was very well received. The people of Australia voted on it, and they voted in favour of us.

1:35 pm

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions to ask of both the mover of these amendments and of Senator Sherry on behalf of the government. As I understand it, the $2 billion Communications Fund was set up by the coalition. I think it was supported by the Labor Party. And that fund arose out of the proceeds of the sale of Telstra—something I would have opposed if I had been in this place. But that is another debate that has been and gone. We would not have had this problem if it had not been sold. Be that as it may—

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

You wouldn’t have had the money without the sale of Telstra.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to get into a debate about the privatisation of Telstra, Senator Minchin.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s live today’s battles.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, let us deal with today’s battles. But I do have concerns in respect of the Communications Fund being transferred into the Building Australia Fund because there does not appear to be any legislative guarantee that that $2 billion that has been earmarked for regional and rural Australia’s telecommunications needs will be spent on that. So, as I see it, there is no guarantee that that will occur. That is my principal reservation.

If there were an alternative approach that would see these moneys transferred into the Building Australia Fund but quarantined by legislation on the basis of how they were supposed to be used and subsumed in the processes that are in this legislation—improved on, I believe, by the amendments of the opposition and the Greens—then I would be more disposed towards that. I do not know what Senator Minchin’s views are in relation to that, but I think the important thing is to guarantee that the money that has been earmarked for telecommunications in regional and rural Australia is there for the purpose for which it was intended—and which, I note, the Labor Party supported, albeit in the circumstances of a privatisation that they opposed.

1:38 pm

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

In relation to Senator Xenophon’s points, there are no guarantees. The only guarantee is preserving the Communications Fund under the legislation which was passed by this parliament—and which was not opposed by the Labor Party—to establish this Communications Fund in perpetuity in order to protect it from the passing whims of governments of the day and ensure that all of the earnings, which at five per cent would be $100 million a year, go to rural and regional telecommunications. The government has sought to provide some assurances about that, as I mentioned before, by providing in this year’s budget for $100 million a year over the forward estimates. But that lasts as long as each year’s budget. All of the moneys in the forward estimates can be taken away in next year’s budget. I am sure Mr Tanner and Mr Swan are right now looking for as many savings as they can possibly find to try to prevent the budget from going into deficit.

So there are no guarantees on that score and there are no guarantees in relation to these moneys—the $2 billion here and the $2.7 billion from the second tranche of T3—going to rural and regional telecommunications. All we have is a glib promise from the Labor Party to use $4.7 billion to roll out a national broadband network. Those of us who have been on the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network are increasingly appreciating that that is not going to go any way towards ensuring broadband gets to rural and regional Australia. There is no commitment from the Labor Party on that score. All they can do is make glib assurances.

There are no requirements that any part of that money be used to ensure metro-equivalent services for rural and regional Australians. They have cancelled the OPEL contract, which was specifically to subsidise rural and regional Australians to acquire high-speed broadband. No such guarantees exist at all in relation to the $4.7 billion. The government quite glibly says that there will be no cost-benefit analysis of the expenditure of this $4.7 billion, unlike other expenditure from the Building Australia Fund. This will just be spent on whichever proponent comes out of this extraordinary process. As Telstra has already said, you cannot roll this out beyond metropolitan Australia with $4.7 billion.

I say to the Senate: do not trust Labor on this. Respect the needs of rural and regional Australians. Respect the fact that this parliament set up this Communications Fund specifically to provide that support for rural and regional Australia.

1:41 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the NBN, the national broadband network—not solely but in large part—is to meet the needs of rural and regional Australia, Senator Xenophon. That was the purpose of our election commitment. To deliver, to meet the needs of rural and regional Australia through the NBN, we need the funding. It will cost up to $4.7 billion. We came to the conclusion before the election that transferring the $2 billion in the Communications Fund was the most effective way to deliver.

People can make a judgement about the outcome of the national broadband network, but we are not doing that today. The process has just begun, effectively. We cannot make a judgement about that. What Senator Minchin is effectively doing is bagging the outcome before the outcome is known. I accept the political critique of the opposition and Senator Minchin, although it is a somewhat negative approach. They have reached the conclusion that it is a failure when the process has barely begun. I would suggest that that is not an appropriate way to make a judgement. As I said, there will be a debate about whether the national broadband network delivers to rural and regional Australia on another occasion, when Senator Conroy brings his legislation to this parliament. That debate will occur, but that process is not complete. What we do know is that, if the opposition’s amendments are adopted, that is the end of the funding. What hope is there for the current process that Senator Conroy is going through if the $2 billion cannot be transferred? I would suggest the implications of these amendments being carried would be very, very significant indeed.

The bottom line is that the setting aside of the fund and of the income that was being derived from the fund—and I acknowledge that it was set up by the former government—was not working. It was not delivering the outcome. We established through our policy that an alternative approach was needed. We carefully researched our policy and we presented it before the people. At the end of the day, the Australian people liked our policy—the Labor Party’s policy—in this regard more than they did the Liberal and National parties’ approach. The Liberal and National parties had years to deal with this issue. It was not working, and our approach was preferred. It was an election commitment given very specifically. What we now have is a backdoor attempt by the Liberal opposition to kneecap the process—which has only just started—of establishing a national broadband network to, in part, deliver to the people who live in rural and regional Australia.

1:44 pm

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s cut to the chase. We have a situation here where $2 billion was set aside with respect to the communications fund. I think it would be fair to say that that money was supported in a bipartisan fashion. That money was earmarked, quarantined for regional and rural Australian telecommunications—which obviously would principally include broadband services and the like. My concern—and I believe it is a legitimate one—is that, if you transfer it into the Building Australia Fund, there is no guarantee that the entire quantum of the money that was earmarked before will necessarily be earmarked for the purpose for which the communications fund was set out. That is my concern. I flagged that, if there were a way that that could be quarantined within the Building Australia Fund through a legislative guarantee, I would be quite comfortable with that. I invite the government, if they wish to report progress, to look at this as an alternative amendment. In the absence of that, I am inclined to support the opposition’s amendment.

1:46 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not going to adjourn it. Senator Xenophon, we are not going to accept this amendment. I hope you understand the implications of this amendment. I think it has been well debated. We will be calling a division on this matter.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the government to consider that it might be more expeditious to allow an adjournment so that the matter can be resolved or at least an amendment can be put. Otherwise, yes, we will go to a division, and that will be the end of it.

1:47 pm

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I understand your consideration, Senator Brown, I will be frank with the chamber: there is no way the government would consider this amendment given what I have outlined. I think it is better that we cut to the chase. We will be voting no, and we will be having a division on it.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (62) to (64) and (66) to (68) on sheet 5684 be agreed to.

1:54 pm

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

by leave—I indicate that the opposition opposes clause 16 and clause 33 in the following terms:

(65) Clause 16, page 19 (lines 13 to 23), clause TO BE OPPOSED.

(69) Clause 33, page 32 (line 19) to page 33 (line 9), clause TO BE OPPOSED.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that clauses 16 and 33 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

1:55 pm

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5645:

(1) Page 2 (after line12), after clause 2, insert:

: 2A Principles of Nation-building Funds

(1) The underlying principles of the Nation-building Funds established by this or any other Act are that projects financed from the Funds must:

(a) address national infrastructure priorities;

(b) demonstrate high benefits and effective use of resources;

(d) prepare for the global oil production peak and subsequent decline in oil production;

(e) efficiently address infrastructure needs;

(f) demonstrate achievement of established standards in implementation and management.

This amends the principles relating to the funds. In particular, it requires that the principles be amended so that the principles now have inserted in them that projects must address ‘climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity conservation’ and ‘prepare for the global oil production peak and subsequent decline in oil production’. These two insertions are critical if we are to make sure that these funds actually do not act as a counterpoint to our climate change mitigation efforts. What I am trying to do here is make sure we have a whole-of-government approach that is internally consistent. The government says its aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I have not heard it say so, but it should be saying that we ought to also be addressing energy security to make sure we reduce our dependence on foreign oil as that was certainly a recommendation of the Senate committee of inquiry into Australia’s future oil supplies and alternatives.

What I am saying is that if the whole-of-government approach is to ensure we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil then the best way of doing that is to make sure that, in considering what infrastructure to support, we prioritise infrastructure which gives us a win-win situation as to the climate and the economy, which helps us make the transition to a low-carbon economy, and which helps us restructure our cities and redesign our cities accordingly. I cannot believe, in this day and age, with the climate crisis as it is, that anybody would not want to see infrastructure be under, as one of the principles of the fund, consideration as to climate change, greenhouse gas abatement and peak oil. I look forward to the support of both the government and the opposition for this amendment.

1:58 pm

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

While we understand the motivation of the Greens for this amendment as to the principles that would be required in relation to grants made from these funds, the opposition do not, on balance, support this amendment. There are one or two elements of the six requirements that we might otherwise have been able to support, but we do believe it would be very difficult to apply appropriately several of these criteria. We also believe that all of these projects, being major infrastructure projects, will be subject to the normal laws of the land and of course there are, at a state level and at federal level, significant requirements in relation to infrastructure projects that go to environmental impact statements. So we believe the environmental scrutiny that will be applied to all these projects, by dint of existing state and federal laws, will be sufficient to meet the concerns of the Greens in this matter. While I have enjoyed supporting the Greens—and have enjoyed their support—on several of the amendments to these bills, on balance I am afraid the opposition is not in a position to support this particular amendment.

Progress reported.

Senate debates

Thursday, 4 December 2008

What are Senate debates?

Nation-Building Funds Bill 2008; Nation-Building Funds (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008; Coag Reform Fund Bill 2008

In Committee