David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 7732 standing in my name:

(1) Clause 13, page 8 (line 18), omit "$25,000,000,000", substitute "$11,000,000,000".

The bill sets a debit limit for national partnership payments in 2015-16 of $25 billion, but government budget documents propose only $10.6 billion of national partnership payments in that year. So the bill provides a blank cheque to the government of $14.4 billion. My amendment changes the debit limit for national partnership payments from $25 billion to $11 billion. The amendment would do nothing to interfere with the $10.6 billion of national partnership payments proposed by the government in budget documents, but, if the amendment were to pass and if the government substantially increased its planned national partnership payments in the months ahead, the government would be required to seek authority for a higher spending limit in follow-up appropriation bills. Such follow-up appropriation bills are not uncommon. The advantage of this approach is that parliament would be able to see any new national partnership payment proposals in updated budget documents before the parliament agrees to a higher limit on national partnership payments. This would represent a very limited exercise of the parliament's responsibility to scrutinise the government and its spending.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The debit limit for national partnership payments or drawing-rights limit, as it was previously known, has been around $20 billion for several years. In 2013-14 it was set at $19 billion and in this financial year it is set at $25 billion, as it is proposed to be for next year. The amount is set at this level to ensure that the Commonwealth has appropriate provision to not only deal with existing undertakings to the states but also to deal with any large-scale natural disasters or to fund new programs that may be required between estimates updates or to manage other major unexpected events. There is also a large difference between cash and accrual estimates for natural-disaster relief and recovery-arrangement payments. This is a factor that needs to be taken into account when considering Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment. We do not believe it would be responsible for the Senate to support this amendment and we very strongly recommend the Senate vote against it.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do support the passage of the government's appropriations bill, as we do not block supply. We will not be supporting Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment, although we thank him for consulting with us on the subject of the amendment prior to it being circulated and recognise his genuine interest in this area.

We do see the merit in allowing government the flexibility when it comes to increasing the national partnership payments. While we will not be supporting the amendment there are legitimate questions to ask the government as to why the limit is $25 billion when there is only $10.5 billion budgeted for the national partnership payments as per the Treasurer's portfolio budget statements—that is, the amount budgeted is less than half of the total budget spend. Note that a buffer of this magnitude was in the 2014-15 appropriation bills as well. Is the minister able to explain why the buffer is as large as it is?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe I have just done that and, mindful of the time, I recommend that we now deal with this amendment.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo the comments made by my fellow Tasmanian senator, Senator Polley. We also will not be supporting the amendment tonight and will register that no to the vote, when it comes through. We will not be going on the voices.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the amendment on sheet 7732, moved by Senator Leyonhjelm, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.