Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the committee stage to make a few comments on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and to perhaps make a broader point about the management of the government's business program. If we use this bill as an example, we have seen over the last two days this bill move up the program and down the program a bit yesterday, and then start listed in third place for bills today and be moved up to first position at the last minute before the program was printed. We saw the ridiculous position of bringing a bill on for debate and then having government members filibustering on that bill for at least four hours on a Monday, which is the day, one would presume, the government would like to progress through their legislative program promptly—that is, if they actually wanted bills passed.

The point I'd like to make is that I think it's disrespectful to the crossbench managing the program this way—putting bills on and off, moving them up the program, making these changes, filibustering and bringing it back on for debate this morning. We hear that there are government amendments that may be moved. We haven't seen any of those. We don't know if there are actually any government amendments; we hear rumours circulating that there are, but we haven't seen them. The expectation by the government is, presumably, that we should just be able to process these amendments, form positions on them, debate them, ask questions on them and deal with them without any notice at all. I guess, in general, the government cannot manage its program, and that has been exemplified by the management of this bill.

If, come Wednesday night or Thursday, there are a whole range of bills that the government do want progressed, I would draw their attention to the fact that they have used up the majority of their government business time on Monday actually filibustering their own bill. The opposition will not be disposed positively towards any extension or any motion by the government seeking to extend hours to deal with bills because they have failed miserably to manage this bill in an orderly way that respects other people in this chamber. For the crossbench and for the opposition, it means we have to ensure that people are ready with speeches at a time when the bill might be on, even though it might not be on, it might be pulled halfway or it might come back on without notice.

Now, we get the fact that the government needs to change its program from time to time. We are sympathetic to the reality of running a program, but this is becoming standard practice. It's not something that happens rarely, happens only in exceptional circumstances or happens when there are legitimate reasons; it is happening every business day and it is happening every sitting week. I see that the government amendments now have been circulated, but we're at the point in time when senators are expected to debate these amendments and, presumably, vote on them without any opportunity to discuss them more thoroughly and form a position on them. So, that's the point I'd make.

I hope that the manager of government business is listening because I am making this point not just on this bill but on the management of the government program as a whole. I think you can just look at the amount of time that the Senate is having to sit extended hours to deal with the mismanagement of the government and how it approaches its discussions around getting legislation through this Senate.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the comments made by Senator Gallagher. What we've seen in the last couple of days is nothing short of a complete shambles and a complete disrespect for this chamber. We have just received the government's amendments. I haven't had a chance to go through these amendment or the implications of the amendments proposed by the government. But I would like to say that I was very disappointed in the fact that we've come to the in committee stage and that a vote to oppose this bill outright defeated. I would also like to put the party's position on record. We do believe that the bill should have been chucked out. We believe that this is, again, the Deputy Prime Minister's pork barrel for a political advantage.

The Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 has been developed with no cost-benefit analysis as to whether the corporation will actually deliver any of the claims put forward by the government. There has been no transparent or fair process undertaken by the government to determine where the location of the RIC will be. In fact, a government senator, in their contribution, also questioned the location of the RIC. As I've said, the RIC is just another effort by Mr Joyce to serve a political purpose only.

Another point that the Labor Party made in our contribution to this bill was about the cost of establishing the RIC. We believe that the true cost is $81 million over the forwards, with the potential to be higher if there's a low intake of loans. The existing current loans that are administered by states and the Northern Territory will remain the responsibility of the states and the Territory. Establishing a new body to administer new loans is a waste of taxpayers' money, is inefficient and is costly.

There was a Senate inquiry into this bill. I would like to take a few moments to go through what the dissenting report from Labor senators reported. It was noted in that report that the government:

• Has failed to provide any coherent policy rationale for the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC);

• Has offered mixed messages when enunciating the policy objectives for the establishment of the RIC;

And, as I've said, and as the Senate dissenting report on this bill also noted, the government:

• Has failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to give confidence that the $28m cost of establishing and operating the RIC delivers good value for the Australian taxpayer;

But it is not unusual when something comes from Mr Barnaby Joyce that there's a failure to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. Given that there hasn't been a cost-benefit analysis, it doesn't give confidence that the $28 million cost—the government's own figure, I might add—of establishing and operating the RIC delivers good value for the Australian taxpayer. I will return to the dissenting report on this bill later in the committee stage.

The Labor Party have proposed and circulated a number of amendments, and we will be requesting that those amendments be moved separately. We are hoping that the minister at the table will seek to explain the intention of the government amendments that have just been put before us.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in response to the comments of Senator Brown in relation to the costs, there were some wildly exaggerated figures thrown around in the House of Representatives when this particular bill, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, was debated. There was some sort of bizarre suggestion that this was going to cost taxpayers $81.4 million over the forwards. That is manifestly false. The government provided $28.5 million in the budget of May 2017 for the current program to establish the RIC over the next four years. Those funds will be offset against charges and are expected to be cost neutral over the life of the project.

In relation to the policy intent of the organisation that we're seeking to establish under the bill, as I said in my summing up notes following the finalisation of the second reading speech, it is for a number of purposes, not least of which is to get a more responsive and streamlined approach to get money to our farmers as quickly as possible when they're most in need. Creating a purpose designed organisation to enable us to be very quick and responsive in times of need for our farmers is a very sound and valid policy reason for the establishment of this particular corporation. It's about giving farmers the quickest and easiest opportunity to respond to unforeseen circumstances and, most importantly, take advantage of market opportunities.

In offering to administer the national water infrastructure loans and grants program through this organisation, we provide a far greater level of transparency than is currently necessary. So it seems somewhat bizarre that those opposite would not accept the offer extended by the government in good faith to provide a greater level of transparency and accountability in relation to the administration of a considerable amount of taxpayers' funds for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund.

Senator Brown, in her opening remarks, asked me to explain the reasoning behind the small amendments that we have tabled for consideration today. Explicitly included in this bill is a statement to make it absolutely clear that the responsible ministers under this instrumentality, should it become enacted, must exercise their powers consistently with the Water Act. That was implicit in the existing bill, but we put it forward to make sure that it is explicitly stated in this bill that the ministers must act consistently with the Water Act. We are proposing to put forward an added level of transparency. We have charged the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the responsibility of ensuring that any actions that are taken by the RIC meet the requirements of the Water Act, and we would have a second body that would validate that the Water Act has been complied with, and that validation would be made public. That is the intent of the amendments that have been tabled by the government in relation to this bill, Senator Brown.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for clarity for myself and the clerks, Senator Brown is going to move amendments (1), (3) and (6) separately.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for some explanation as to the amendments that the government has put forward, but a first question comes to mind. These two amendments are directed to the Murray-Darling Basin. I would like to know: what does that mean for the water infrastructure projects that are outside the Murray-Darling Basin?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I respond to Senator Brown's question, I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to the bill.

Senator Brown, in response to your question in relation to how these amendments apply in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin versus the Water Act, the principal amendment, which is seeking to amend clause 12(3A) on page 11, says the minister must act consistently with the Water Act. The Water Act obviously covers more than the Murray-Darling Basin, so it is in essence a broad-reaching requirement that the RIC must be compliant with the Water Act in relation to all federal water policy.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank the minister for some of her explanation and the belated tabling of the explanatory memorandum on these amendments. I want to go to the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform, which has been signed up to by the Commonwealth and by the states and territories. I ask the minister: what work is being done in terms of this intergovernmental agreement?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that they're currently in a review process in relation to the intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the states in relation to this particular instrument. The review is to be completed by June 2018, at which time, obviously, the necessary actions will be taken as part of the recommendations of that review.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask when the actual agreement expires?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The agreement expires in June 2018.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just please explain this to me: you have indicated there's a review, and that is going to be delivered in June 2018, and the agreement expires in June 2018.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Brown. To be clear, the review is currently being undertaken by the states. The states will then report to the ministers by the end of 2017 to enable any changes and actions to have taken place by the time the intergovernmental agreement expires in June 2018. I am sorry for perhaps misleading you in my first answer.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You indicated that the states and territories are doing some work. Who else is doing some work on this review?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under usual processes, obviously, outside the state and territory governments that would necessarily be involved in the review, broad consultation also occurs with impacted industry. But I offer to you and the opposition, if you would like, a brief on the full details of the process that's currently being undertaken in relation to the review of this intergovernmental agreement. I would be happy to offer that to the opposition.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I just want to go to the objectives of the agreement. The agreement aims to: assist farm families and primary producers adapt to and prepare for the impacts of increased climate variability; encourage farm families and primary producers to adopt self-reliant approaches to manage their business risks; ensure farm families in hardship have access to a household support payment that recognises the special positions of farms; ensure social support services are accessible to farm families; and provide a framework for a jurisdiction's response to needs during periods of drought. My question to the minster is: can the government provide detail to the chamber as to how the farm concessional loans will be administered and will any of those functions be outsourced?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just seeking clarification on what you are seeking in response to the answer to the question. At the moment, the administration of this particular suite of loans package is being administered under the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Obviously we are seeking to have the Regional Investment Corporation undertake the administration of these loans in the future, so I am not quite sure what the question is you are asking. The terms and conditions, the requirements and the objectives we are seeking to achieve by this particular suite of loans package remains the same. We are just seeking for it to be administered by the corporation because we believe it will be delivered in a more streamlined and effective way.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank the minister. My question is: has the government been consulting with state bodies that have been administering the concessional loans?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that question is yes. Also, the minister, who is a party to the agricultural ministers council that meets several times a year, has raised the matter with state jurisdictions at that level as well as at official levels.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So has the question about outsourcing some of the functions been raised?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately, the decision about the most efficient and effective way to administer and deliver these particular programs, should this bill become successful and translate into the establishment of the corporation, would be made by the corporation. There have been, to my knowledge, no discussions specifically about outsourcing particular aspects of these loan instruments. Is there anything that you have specifically got an issue about? To the best of my knowledge, I can't think of anything that has been discussed to date.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I am attempting to find out some detail around the intent of the bill and exactly what discussions have been had because, quite frankly, of the secrecy around it. It is not transparent in the bill as to the actual need for, in my view, the Regional Investment Corporation. Quite often we see in legislation and bills that are produced by the Deputy Prime Minister a lack of transparency and a lack of good governance in legislation that he wants to put forward.

What I'm attempting to do is to find out, through the committee stage, exactly why we need the RIC. You talk about an efficient and effective way of delivering loans, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated that this is going to be doing that—that the bill is actually going to deliver what you say that it will deliver.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown. Well, there are a number of things and factors here that have gone towards why the government believes that the Regional Investment Corporation is the appropriate mechanism by which to deliver loans into the rural and regional farm community.

Firstly, it is to come up with a nationally consistent approach to the delivery of these loans. Very often, when we find that we have a particular situation, it affects a number of states and territories. To have a consistent approach so that we don't have one farmer on one side of the fence and a farmer on the other side of the fence actually being treated differently is certainly seen to be a great advantage.

Secondly, because the corporation is going to be designed with the specific purpose of delivering this type of instrument then, obviously, the charter of the organisation, the mandate of the organisation and the authorities of the organisation will be particularly targeting the efficient and effective delivery of the activities that it is empowered to do.

And, obviously, lastly: as I mentioned to you earlier, an independently-established standalone organisation, like the proposal for the Regional Investment Corporation, delivers a level of transparency. Throughout the whole process of determination of the loan assets and the delivery of the programs transparency will be much greater under this particular organisation than is currently the case.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could just ask how so, but, again, I will go to the dissenting report from Labor senators. That has really homed in on one of the great concerns the opposition has with this legislation. It goes to the transparency and the governance in the bill. This is notwithstanding the two government amendments that you have just put forward—no doubt to garner the support of some on the crossbench. Otherwise, we wouldn't see these two amendments that enable some sort of transparency.

This is what the dissenting report said about the bill: the Labor senators believe that the enabling legislation has been structured deliberately to minimise parliamentary scrutiny and/or veto of ministerial directions. The report also indicated that the bill has failed to provide sufficient oversight for the activities of the corporation. Now, I do note, as I said, the two amendments. But they don't go anywhere near allaying concerns that this legislation addresses the lack of governance arrangements and the lack of transparency. And, of course, as we have said before, we believe there has been a lack of proper consultation on this bill, and nothing that you have said to me here this afternoon has allayed those fears. So if you can add to the consultation and address my concerns about lack of transparency and the lack of good governance arrangements, I'd appreciate that.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go to your second question first. I draw to the chamber's attention that the corporation will be accountable to the parliament through a series of measures that have been outlined in the bill, such as the requirement to table the operating mandate, requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act—the PGPA Act—and it is also subject to the same Senate scrutiny processes.

It's probably also worth mentioning that the approach proposed to be taken in this bill and that is written into this bill is very similar to other entities, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that was set up under previous arrangements. In a sense, what we have attempted to do in the drafting of this particular bill is to make sure it is consistent and replicates the kinds of requirements in relation to public governance and accountability, reporting and scrutiny, that have been applied to other similar types of organisations and government instruments.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you advise the committee about the points you have made about reports coming to the chamber. Are they non-disallowable instruments?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are proposing that the reports not be disallowable instruments, as I said, consistent with other entities of a similar type. We believe that it wouldn't be an appropriate role for the Senate to take on the role and the responsibility of executive government, which is what you would be proposing to do, if they were disallowable instruments.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure it's no surprise to the senators in this chamber that they would be non-disallowable instruments. It's certainly no surprise to the opposition that that is the case with anything that comes from the Deputy Prime Minister. It's like some sort of protection racket when it comes to legislation that he puts forward. There always appears to be a lack of detailed scrutiny and a lack of work carried out in terms of the initiatives that Mr Joyce puts forward. So it is no surprise that we again see the lack of parliamentary scrutiny with regard to this bill and, certainly, the lack of transparency. The minister hasn't allayed those concerns for the opposition in her answer at all. What I would like to ask the minister is: what work has the government done to establish the RIC in Orange?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will start from the beginning. Firstly, I don't think for a minute that you are suggesting that the government, of which you were a member when you established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, were running a protection racket when you put in the provisions in terms of the public governance, accountability and reporting of that particular organisation. On the basis that this particular bill is proposing to establish this organisation in an almost mirror image of how that organisation was established along its governance, accountability and reporting requirements, I'm not quite sure why you would suggest that we are running, as you put it, 'a protection racket'. I'd be interested to hear from you the difference between your establishment of something not being a protection racket, but you seem to think you can throw that at us.

In relation to the specifics of the requirements in relation to governance, accountability and reporting, as I said, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 requires this particular organisation to be subject to the provisions of that particular act, as is every other entity of a similar type. You'll also note that, because of the way it's been established, this organisation will be subject to the same sort of Senate scrutiny as others through the estimates process, in which you, obviously, actively take part.

There is, we believe, an appropriate level of parliamentary oversight over the directions of the responsible ministers through exactly the same method and means and in exactly the same way as you have accepted over many years with the reporting of other organisations. This will be no different. The level of oversight, reporting, accountability and transparency will be absolutely no different to other organisations of similar establishment. So I'm struggling to work out what particular aspect of the proposed establishment of this organisation you see as different to the mechanisms and requirements of the establishment of other organisations—as I said, particularly the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, set up under your government.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I may have not heard whether you responded to the question about any work that's been done around establishing the RIC in Orange.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown. It was remiss of me—I failed to respond to the final part of your previous question. The Australian government, as this chamber would be well aware, has a very strong commitment to rural and regional Australia, and the decision made by the government to locate the Regional Investment Corporation outside our capital cities is clearly consistent with that policy. I don't know whether you've spent much time in Orange, but Orange is a really important agricultural hub in this country. It's well serviced by transport links to the major capital cities, particularly Sydney. We are seeing an extraordinary increase in growth in this community and the relocation of a number of New South Wales government departments to Orange, creating a very strong rural and regional agricultural hub in that community. The decision to locate this organisation in Orange is extraordinarily consistent with the government policy to establish strong regional centres across the whole of Australia.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her response, but my question was whether any work has been done around the establishment of the RIC. I understand that the government is looking to establish the RIC by 1 July 2018.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my answer to the previous question, I'm sure that everybody in this chamber who comes from a rural and regional community would be delighted to have a government entity, particularly of the size, importance and prestige of the Regional Investment Corporation, located in their community. But, for the reasons that I stated in my previous answer, the decision was made that Orange was a very suitable place for this organisation to be located. Obviously, should we be successful in enacting the establishment of this organisation, it will be up to the board to undertake the preparatory work about the location of the agency in Orange.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it from that response that the government has chosen a location but that the RIC will be doing the work of establishing the corporation in Orange. I'm not understanding what you're saying. I've asked you: have you done any work? Are you're telling me the only work that you've done is in choosing a location for the RIC? I'd also like to know what consultation you've done around the location.

Progress reported.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being almost 2 pm, we move to questions without notice.