Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

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

It is my pleasure to advise the Senate that, since we last met, during the last sitting week before Christmas, some more work has been done across the chamber in relation to this important bill. We do believe that there is now majority support for the bill in the Senate, even if former Senator Lambie were still here and voting against the bill. Furthermore, noting the proposal of the opposition to defer consideration of this bill until such time as a replacement for former Senator Lambie has joined the Senate, I'm also pleased to advise the Senate that the government and the opposition have had some further discussions in relation to the progression of this bill.

I'm pleased to be able to inform the Senate that we've reached agreement and that bill can proceed now, subject to certain amendments which we understand the opposition will move, which the government has indicated we will support. May I place on the record my thanks and appreciation for the way the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, has approached this matter by cooperating and working constructively with the government.

The government will support amendments which make the operating mandate for the Regional Investment Corporation a disallowable instrument. We will also support amendments that will make the rules and eligibility criteria for farm business, water loans and financial assistance disallowable instruments. We will also support amendments which require that ministerial directions and agreements regarding water infrastructure projects be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 days, after a final agreement has been received by the minister for agriculture. We will also, in a similar vein, support amendments which require that a copy of any agreement or ministerial direction, as above, must also be published on the internet within 30 days, after its receipt by the minister.

The location of the Regional Investment Corporation will be determined by a recommendation of the board, although it's of course well understood that the government's expectation is that the Regional Investment Corporation will be established in Orange. Finally, we will be supporting an amendment which requires the CEO of the Regional Investment Corporation to provide written notice to the board of any disclosure under section 20 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which deals with the duty to disclose interests. So, again I thank all those in the chamber who have engaged with the government. I know that Senator Leyonhjelm has also had some constructive engagement with the minister for agriculture, Mr Littleproud. We are very appreciative of the way the chamber has engaged with us. With the indications that the government will support these amendments, I hope that we can secure a speedy passage of the legislation.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the amendments on sheet 8362 together.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I'm not sure they have been circulated.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were in the process of being circulated, I believe.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you're speaking? We don't have them before us, but, go on—keep going.

Leave granted.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1)   Clause 11, page 10 (lines 6 to 9), omit the note, substitute:

Note:   Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).

(2)   Clause 11, page 10 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:

  (4)   Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a direction forming part of the Operating Mandate.

(3)   Clause 12, page 11 (before line 16), before subclause (4), insert:

  (3C)   For the purposes of subsection (3), any terms and conditions to be included in an agreement must be in accordance with the rules.

  (3D)   However, a failure to comply with subsection (3C) does not affect the validity of a particular term or condition included in an agreement.

(4)   Clause 12, page 11 (lines 19 to 21), subclause (5) (including the heading), to be opposed.

(5)   Clause 12, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:

  (5)   The rules must prescribe, in relation to agreements to be entered into under subsection (3):

  (a)   the terms and conditions, or the kinds of terms and conditions, that may be included in an agreement; and

  (b)   the matters the Corporation must consider in specifying terms and conditions to be included in an agreement.

(6)   Page 12 (after line 23), at the end of Part 2, add:

13A Tabling of water infrastructure project agreements etc.

  (1)   The Corporation must give the Agriculture Minister a copy of an agreement entered into under subsection 12(3).

  (2)   The Agriculture Minister must cause:

  (a)   a copy of the agreement; and

  (b)   any direction given under subsection 12(3) relating to the agreement;

to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving a copy of the agreement.

  (3)   The Agriculture Minister must cause a copy of the documents mentioned in subsection (2) to be published on the internet within 30 days of the Minister receiving the copy of the agreement.

(7)   Page 23 (after line 10), after clause 41, insert:

41A Disclosure of interests

  (1)   The CEO must give written notice to the Board of any disclosure made by the CEO under section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with the duty to disclose interests).

  (2)   Subsection (1) applies in addition to any rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

  (3)   For the purposes of this Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the CEO is taken not to have complied with section 29 of that Act if the CEO does not comply with subsection (1) of this section.

I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution just a moment ago, and I also thank the government for engaging with Labor on the amendments. But it is important, I think, to again reiterate that the Regional Investment Corporation is a poor piece of public policy. It was driven by politics, rather than the interests of our farmers. How else would you explain the decision to locate it in Orange, the place where the National Party lost a local seat for the first time in 69 years? The former agricultural minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, wants to spend $28 million of taxpayers' money to administer loans already administered by the states. He has offered no acceptable rationale other than to criticise the states. At the same time we know that he is asking the states how to do the job. We know that. We've heard that in contributions last year on this bill.

The fact that the RIC is just a shocking pork barrel is not our only concern. There are a number of governance deficiencies in this bill. The lack of transparency and accountability should be of concern to every senator. They were certainly matters of concern to the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee. These deficiencies are not drafting errors; they are a deliberate attempt to keep secret the work of the RIC and to give the minister extraordinary powers to maximise the pork-barrelling opportunities. As I said last year when we were first debating this bill, Labor remains opposed to the RIC and we will remain opposed while ever the government is unable to provide a cogent reason for its establishment. But we are pleased by Minister Cormann's statements here today. We are pleased the government has finally been dragged into at least accepting some of the amendments which address some of the governance, accountability and transparency issues.

Senators need to be reminded that most of these amendments were put to the Senate last year. They were rejected by the government at that time but lost very narrowly—in one case, on a tied vote. The main effect of the amendments is to allow the parliament to scrutinise and monitor the ministerial direction. This will reduce further political exploitation of the RIC. The RIC's mandate will be disallowable, as will set rules and criteria. The location of the RIC will now be based on a recommendation from the RIC board, rather than ministerial edict. Of course, the board will be appointed by the minister, which, sadly, softens the impact of the measure. However, we believe it has the potential to bring some proper public guidance to the process, and we will put pressure on the board to justify its choice. We know that no other regional areas were given the opportunity to bid for this agency, and the future board should take this into account. Further, agreements entered into with state governments will, at the appropriate time, be made available to the parliament. Finally, the CEO of the RIC will now be required to declare any pecuniary interest. This is surely standard and good practice. The case for the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a new Regional Investment Corporation has not been established, and Labor continues to reject what we believe is a political stunt, but we are pleased that, if this bill does pass, people can at least have faith in its governance arrangements and that there are a few safeguards against the political abuse of the new entity.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm interested to hear of the amendments and the government's agreement to them, and I want to ask one question about that. But before doing that: I don't always agree with everything Mr Joyce proposes, but I do very much appreciate and support his actions in moving some obvious government agencies out of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne and putting them into rural communities. There has been a lot of criticism of Mr Joyce in relation to the veterinary authority moving. I applaud that, and I applaud the fact that this organisation is to have its headquarters, apparently, in Orange.

I do sound a note of warning, of course, that, where government ministers are doing this, they shouldn't send them all to New South Wales. There are other states of the Commonwealth where these agencies could well be situated. With modern communications and good internet these days—which you're getting under a government that understands the NBN and is trying to make it as good as Labor promised but never had any ability to deliver—you really don't need to live in the next door office building in Canberra to be able to properly administer particular government departments and, particularly, agencies. I applaud Mr Joyce's and, indeed, the government's approach of moving some of the obvious ones; not every one could go out into the country.

I'm disappointed that Border Force hasn't been moved up into the north of Queensland or the north of Australia where some of its operations are principally organised. Some of the activities of that organisation haven't been agreed to be put there, as I've been campaigning for for some time. But I do applaud the government doing this, and I again make the point that with modern communications you don't have to sit in the next door building in Canberra to be able to properly administer the Public Service; you can spread them out into the country. In fact, I suspect that very few public servants these days speak to each other; they usually get on the internet and email each other when they want to pass on some communications. So, that bit I do applaud but with the warning that they shouldn't all be set up in New South Wales and Victoria. There are other states of the Commonwealth where, with communications, this could happen.

There is a question that I want to ask the minister. It seems to me that there are similarities between this organisation and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I am furious that Australia has let itself into this situation with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The federal government set up a policy to develop Northern Australia; it promised it at two elections. The people of Australia supported the coalition because of its proposals to develop the north. Part of the proposal was that there would be an independent board that would deal with applications. An independent board, not a government or a politician, would deal with these applications. The board was a very good board, I think, of people with expertise in business and in the work that that organisation would do. The Commonwealth government made, as an election promise, certain commitments. The Commonwealth government provided the money, and then we find a state Labor government that has a different policy approach to things completely curtailing, completely abjuring and completely abrogating the Commonwealth government's policy, election promises and commitments.

How can that possibly be good for Australia? People elected us. They say to us, 'You promised to do this. Why aren't you doing it?' It is because—and I know they keep saying it's the Constitution—in the way we set that up, we had to pass the money through the states and we gave them some ability to veto a Commonwealth government policy and election commitment of the coalition. Here is a state government that has nothing to do with it not putting a cent into it and not contributing anything, except raw political deals with the Greens political party to stop the Adani project no matter what. It has nothing to do with the state government. The board of NAIF is not an environmental tick-off agency. In fact—and I keep repeating this—the Queensland Labor government actually ticked off the Adani project in every aspect. The Queensland Labor government approved Adani for its environmental requirements. The Commonwealth government, the department of the environment and all the bureaucrats we have there looking at the EPBC Act went through the lot of it. They ticked it off after a rigorous consultation process. In fact, on top of those two environmental agencies, all those bureaucrats and all those experts in the environment area dealing with it—in addition to that—the High Court's had a chop at it as well. There have been several Federal Court and High Court decisions in relation to environmental matters. They've all been dealt with. So it should go ahead. It should be left to the board to decide if this is the sort of business proposition that should be supported. But, no! The board are being targeted—personally, I might say—by activists and accused of being environmental vandals. It's got nothing to do with the board of NAIF. The NAIF board is a bankers board, not an environmental board. The people responsible for the environment—the Queensland government, the Commonwealth government and the courts—have all looked at it and determined it.

It just disturbs me that a sovereign government that is elected on a particular policy cannot get that policy implemented simply because a state government of a different political persuasion, in this case the Labor Party doing deals with the Greens political party, is stopping a Commonwealth initiative. That is wrong and it should not happen in the case of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

My question to the minister is this. In this instance, I must confess I haven't closely studied the Regional Investment Corporation and the details as much as I did with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but I want to make sure that, in agreeing to the amendments put forward by Labor, we are not again giving state governments, be they Liberal state governments in New South Wales or Labor state governments in Queensland, the ability to override Commonwealth policy and to abrogate coalition election commitments which the people of Australia supported and expect to be dealt with and to be honoured. Can I be assured that, in this case, by accepting the amendments proposed by Labor, we are not repeating that folly of giving other governments—who have nothing to do with it, are not putting in the money and are not promoting a particular policy approach—that ability to then abrogate and avoid and overturn the policies and commitments of an elected federal government?

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

I can reassure Senator Macdonald that none of the amendments that the government is supporting and which were moved by the opposition today have that effect. These are essentially amendments that go to the capacity of the parliament to scrutinise, and, if considered appropriate, disallow certain rules and the operating mandate, though we obviously don't expect that the Senate will, and we hope that it won't, be inclined that way. I understand the point, and essentially all of the other amendments go to transparency and to disclosure requirements. So none of it relates to the rights or the powers of a state to stop anything that the Commonwealth would want to initiate from getting ahead.

Let me make this general point. Senator Macdonald raises the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Obviously we were very disappointed when the Queensland Labor government made the decision they did in relation to an important piece of rail infrastructure, which was designed to have opened up the Galilee Basin as the next frontier of coal production and exports, and, of course, the Adani project, being a very substantial project which, when it is built, will create many thousands of jobs, which we want to see happen. When it comes to the development of infrastructure, the Commonwealth of course has to work with relevant state and territory governments about infrastructure in their respective jurisdictions, which is why the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was set up the way it was. We still hope that this project will proceed. We strongly support the Adani project. We strongly support the need for infrastructure to open up the Galilee Basin as a coal-producing and exporting region across Australia. We very much hope that the billions and billions of dollars of investment that are ready to be deployed can be deployed, and that the thousands and thousands of jobs can be generated. But, as far as the specific amendments in front of the chair are concerned, which the government has indicated we will support, none of them go to the rights of states to stop Commonwealth initiatives when it comes to infrastructure.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister's assurance in that regard. I must say that, at a recent inquiry into NAIF set up by the Senate, by the Labor Party and the Greens, it was raised that there were conflicts of interest which were unresolved. Again, I understand that, under the CAC Act and other Commonwealth legislation—and, indeed, under the NAIF's own legislation—there are the natural requirements for disclosure where there are conflicts of interest and for avoiding even participating in discussions or votes where that occurs. So I just hope that these amendments don't take that disclosure obligation, or that avoidance of any involvement in anything in which a board member may have a conflict of interest, any further.

I won't pursue this further, except to say—just returning to the Adani issue—that not only were all the environmental approvals given, not only did this go to the Federal Court and the High Court any number of times and not only hasn't the NAIF board been able to do its job because of the intervention of the Queensland government—which has absolutely nothing to do with it—but also, more importantly, in this inquiry there were a number of contributors at the Darwin hearing who spoke about the importance of Indigenous involvement, in that instance in the development of Northern Australia, and how it was important to get Indigenous people involved.

I know in the Adani case the local Indigenous population, by I think a majority of about 98 per cent, supported this. Why did they support it? It is because they wanted jobs for themselves and their children. They wanted to be able to employ their children on their own lands. Yet, notwithstanding that, the Greens political party and now the Labor Party government in Queensland—and, indeed, it seems Mr Shorten and the federal Labor Party with their sop to voters in Batman—have also ignored the wishes of the local Indigenous people who wanted that project because it provides jobs for them.

Clearly you hear a lot of bleating from the Greens and the Labor Party about Indigenous employment, but when there is a real opportunity for Indigenous employment, as there is with the railway line construction in Central and North Queensland, the Labor Party, rolling over to the Greens political party again, simply ignore the wishes of Indigenous people. It seems that Mr Shorten, in his determination to fight with his Green mates in Batman and to promise the people of Batman anything that the Greens will promise, is saying, 'We don't give a stuff about Indigenous employment.' I suspect there are not a lot of Indigenous people in Batman, so that wouldn't be an issue in that particular electorate. It is in Central Queensland. It is in North Queensland. It is in northern Australia, where we are trying to get development that will assist Indigenous people into real jobs. What do we get? We get the Queensland Labor government rolling over to the Greens who keep them in power in Queensland. Now in Batman, because Mr Shorten has the fight of his life on with his former allies in the Greens political party, they will both promise anything they need to win the latte set, completely ignoring the wishes of Indigenous people who want real jobs in northern Australia.

And so, Minister, I won't delay the passage of this legislation anymore. Suffice it to say that we have your assurances that the requirements on accountability and conflicts of interest are not outrageous. They are part of the normal approach. We expect all government agencies, all public servants, all minister and all parliamentarians to disclose and, where they do have a conflict of interest, to remove themselves from any discussion that relates to the subject matter before the board.

Fraser Anning (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. I rise to speak strongly in support of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. This bill will establish a Regional Investment Corporation to be the single delivery agency for the Commonwealth's Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. A major part of these loans is about managing drought. Successive governments have failed in their duty to drought-proof Australia. In my own state of Queensland, every year millions of litres of fresh water are allowed to flow to the sea which could easily have been used to water hundreds of thousands of acres of parched inland areas. Simply capturing water that is currently wasted by being allowed to flow out to sea could be used to drought-proof many hundreds of sheep and cattle properties, as could lowering power costs through hydroelectric schemes and opening up central barren land and cultivating it, in the process creating thousands of jobs. The economic benefits to Australia of the nation-building Bradfield Scheme, for example, would be enjoyed by many generations to come. The Romans 2,300 years ago, for instance, were moving water to irrigate their land, but we haven't done a very good job of irrigating ours.

Since 2013 and 2014, the Commonwealth has been offering concessional loans under the government's Farm Business Concessional Loans program to farm businesses to help them through difficult times and to encourage infrastructure and economic development. To date, over $680 million in loans has been approved to 1,270 farm businesses. Until now, these concessional loans were delivered through the states. However, this not only is ineffective but also results in a lack of consistency in loan delivery, as individual state government policies reflect their own agendas. More importantly, the state governments are currently pocketing fees of between 2.5 per cent and eight per cent, which is money that would otherwise have been provided to the farm businesses. There are expensive administration costs involved in having a state-administered fund, and having to undertake separate negotiations with each state makes the operation of the fund protracted and cumbersome.

By replacing this process with the Commonwealth Regional Investment Corporation, the sticky-fingered Labor states will be removed from involvement and the Commonwealth will be able to allocate its own money to farmers in need, rather than capital city bureaucrats. In addition, the program will have broader powers compared with the bodies administered by the states, which currently handle the funds, because the Commonwealth has broader constitutional powers, including trade and commerce and external affairs.

Finally, the corporation will also administer the government's National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. The corporation's administration of the loan facility will provide further incentive for states and territories to fast-track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure projects. This is particularly important in my state of Queensland, in which successive Labor state governments have appeared to be allergic to dam building. Billions that should have been earmarked for dam-building projects, including raising the wall of the Burdekin dam, building Hells Gates dam, building the Rookwood Weir and building the Wolffdene dam, has instead been frittered away on useless Tugun desalination plant and the South-East Queensland Water Grid water shell game—billions of dollars spent that added not one drop of additional water for irrigation and domestic use.

Thanks to the RIC bill, $2 billion worth of concessional loans have been made available for states and territories to deliver much-needed water infrastructure. Hopefully, this will entice even the Queensland government to stop constructing random tram lines on the Gold Coast and unnecessary tunnels under the Brisbane River and finally build the additional water storage Queensland needs.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens are pleased to hear of the negotiations that have occurred since we last were discussing the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, as some measures are going to increase elements of transparency and accountability as to how the Regional Investment Corporation is run. But, in doing these negotiations, the government's agreement to these amendments—we're told they're about to agree to these amendments, which are essentially the same amendments that they rejected last year—just highlights the political nature of the whole Regional Investment Corporation.

The Regional Investment Corporation was a political invention. It was created to shore up government support in an area of Australia where their stocks were low. It was created to be able to direct money to particular areas where it was going to have the most political gain—and, fundamentally, the Regional Investment Corporation is still going to be able to do that. The government is going to agree to these measures that are improving accountability—and don't get me wrong; I welcome that—but it's clear that the reason that they are agreeing to them today is that they want a political win. They want to be able to say, 'Tick; we've achieved the Regional Investment Corporation.' I'm not sure what else is going on or not going on, but obviously it's important for them to be able to do that today rather than next week. It just underlines the political nature of this whole corporation that's being set up. These amendments are welcome; the Greens will be supporting them, but they do not address the fundamental nature of the RIC, which could end up being a political slush fund, without the full level of transparency and accountability needed for determining where our precious financial resources are being directed.

Senator Macdonald was ranting and raving about the NAIF and the Adani coalmine. In fact, in one way, linking the two of them is accurate because they are both institutions that have been set up in order to deliver on particular political initiatives without the full range of transparency and accountability, without looking at whether the investments that the money is being put towards are actually in the long-term interests of the country. It's very clear when you're talking about the NAIF and its, hopefully, now completely knocked over prospect of providing finance for a rail line to serve the Adani coalmine, that this investment—the whole Adani coalmine and the rail line—was not in the public interest, not in the long-term interest. It would be climate-destroying to dig up so much coal. It would add to climate change. It would add to dangerous global warming just at the time when the rest of the world is shifting away from fossil fuels and rapidly shifting to renewable energy—'Here's Australia, continuing on with the old, dirty, last-century polluting industries.' But the NAIF was going to be able to do that. Similarly, I expect that we will see potential investments from the Regional Investment Corporation made not in the long-term interests of Australia. Even with the amendments that are going to be passed today, there won't be the accountability, there won't be the transparency and there won't be the assessment needed to know if these investments are really the right thing for the long-term future of Australia.

I'm going to finish by putting on the record that we're certainly going to support the amendments that have been negotiated, and we welcome the fact that that's happened. But we remain opposed to this bill and the Regional Investment Corporation overall as being not in the interests of the long-term, sustainable development of Australia.

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

By way of final contribution and in answer to Senator Macdonald's question, I can reassure him that the government is very comfortable with the additional accountability and transparency measures that are included in these amendments. We believe that they're broadly in line with what applies in other parts of government. They certainly don't go beyond what we feel is appropriate in the circumstances. I can also confirm previous advice that the government intends to include a reference within the rules presenting the terms and conditions for any agreement with the states and territories for the construction of water infrastructure—that the states cannot privatise or sell off water infrastructure that has been built using Commonwealth funding through the Regional Investment Corporation. These rules will be disallowable instruments as a result of the amendments that have been moved by the opposition.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (3), (5), (6) and (7) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that clause 12.5 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Senator Cash did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Lambie .

Senator Carr did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.