Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2021-2022

Today, the Government introduces the Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021 2022.

These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $122 billion. These bills ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover the funding needs of existing programs and for new measures announced in the Budget. This Bill is necessary to support the Government's COVID-19 recovery strategy, to get Australians back to work and to support essential services.

This Bill also proposes an Advance to the Finance Minister provision of a maximum of $2 billion, as part of a total $5 billion AFM envelope across Bills 1 and 2. This is half the level available under last year's equivalent legislation. The transparency arrangements for AFMs will be consistent with last year, including consultation with the Opposition on any extraordinarily large AFMs for $1 billion or more.

The new total AFM ceiling of $5 billion takes into consideration the evolving nature of the COVID 19 pandemic, allocations that have been made to date, the uncertainty around what may be required as part of the Government's future response to the pandemic and its economic consequences and the potential need for the Government to act quickly.

I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this Bill.

Firstly, the Bill proposes an appropriation to the Department of Defence of $30.8 billion. The appropriation will be used to raise, train, and sustain the Australian Defence Force for the conduct of Australian military operations overseas, and the delivery of capabilities across the Land, Maritime, Air, Space, and Information and Cyber domains in defence of Australia and its national interests. The appropriation will also provide funding for support to the Australian community and civilian authorities as directed by Government including assisting with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secondly, the Bill will provide an appropriation of $18.8 billion to the Department of Social Services, primarily for the National Disability Insurance Scheme which supports the improved independence and participation by Australians with a permanent and significant disability. The appropriation will also be used to continue the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children and to provide support to women experiencing family and domestic abuse.

Thirdly, the Bill will provide the Department of Health with an appropriation of nearly $16.2 billion to be used to support the best health outcomes for the Australian Community. The appropriation will support the extension of existing programs, the Government's response to COVID-19 and adopting the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission. This includes more than $800 million for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and more than $4.0 billion towards the funding boost for the Aged Care Sector.

The Bill proposes appropriations of $7.7 billion for the Department of Education, Skills and Employment primarily to support vocational education and training, the higher education and research sectors and employment services programs. This includes more than $1.5 billion to expand the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program to boost training and skills of workers across Australia as part of the National Economic Recovery Plan.

This Bill will provide an appropriation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of $5.9 billion to support Australia's foreign, trade and investment, development and international security priorities. The appropriation also supports Australia's Official Development Assistance activities including $162.6 million in COVID-19 vaccines and delivery of support for our partners in the Indo-Pacific, funds for country and regional specific programs across Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, and funds for global programs such as humanitarian, refugee and COVID-19 support. The appropriations will also support consular services for Australians who are overseas.

This Bill will provide the Department of Home Affairs with $5.2 billion for border enforcement, immigration management, settlement and migrant services and national security functions. The appropriation will also strengthen Australia's crisis coordination and the protection of nationally significant critical infrastructure.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements.

Passage of the Bills through the House of Representatives and through the Senate by 30 June is required to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2021-22 financial year.

I commend this Bill.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2021-2022

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for the coming financial year.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of

$20 billion. This Bill provides a full year of appropriations for purposes that are non-ordinary annual services of Government for 2021-22, including capital works and services; payments for the States, Territories and local government authorities; and funding for new administered outcomes not previously endorsed by the Parliament.

This Bill also includes a revised Advance to the Finance Minister provision for a maximum of $3 billion. This is down from the total $6 billion that could be issued under 2020-21 AFM provision in the equivalent even-numbered Appropriation Bill and takes into consideration the evolving nature of the COVID 19 pandemic, allocations that have been made to date and the uncertainty around what may be required over 2021-22.

This Bill includes appropriations for the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, recognising that this involves a new administered outcome and consistent with the Senate-Executive compact, this should be in an even-numbered bill.

I will now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill.

The Bill proposes an appropriation to the Department of Defence of $12.7 billion. The appropriation will be used to continue delivering on the Government's commitments in improving Defence capability as set out in the 2016 Defence White Paper, as well as the 2020 Force Structure Plan and 2020 Strategic Update.

The Bill also proposes an appropriation to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications of over $3.5 billion in 2021-22 to support rail, road and aviation infrastructure throughout Australia and to support local governments deliver key community infrastructure. This Bill will provide nearly $400 million to extend the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program.

The Bill proposes an appropriation of $600 million to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. This includes $500 million partly for the Plantation Development Concessional Loans to be delivered by the Regional Investment Corporation.

Passage of the Bills through the House of Representatives and through the Senate by 30 June is required to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2021-22 financial year.

I commend this Bill.

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2021-2022

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021 2022 provides appropriations for 2021-22 for the operations of:

The Bill proposes total appropriations of $287.5 million. The most significant item in this Bill is for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which will receive $226.2 million for the maintenance of the Australian Parliament House, and to support the functions of Parliament and parliamentarians through the provision of professional services, advice and facilities. This Bill continues the very significant funding uplift provided in last year's Budget on an ongoing basis. It also includes funding consistent with present levels of Senate committee activity, through to the end of the current Parliament.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements.

I commend the Bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills seek to appropriate funding for the operation of government for the 2021-22 financial year. A total of $122 billion is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, nearly $20 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and $287.5 million in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. They accompany the delivery of the 2021-22 budget, which was delivered just over a month ago. Labor, of course, will be supporting the bills. But it should be made patently clear that our support for the bills does not represent blanket support for what the government is doing. It's not often $100 billion of spending can be announced and disappear without a trace. Yet, here we are, six weeks after the Treasurer stood up in the other place—and it's almost the sound of crickets. I wonder why that is the case. It could be that they're embarrassed about the hypocrisy they've shown on debt and deficit.

Labor has been consistent when it has come to this. We understand when it is necessary for fiscal policy to step in when an economic shock occurs. It's what we did when the global financial crisis hit. We put money into the economy, into the hands of Australians, and we prevented the economy going into recession, saving over 200,000 jobs.

Let's look at those opposite. It's hard to forget the phrases 'budget emergency', 'debt and deficit disaster' and 'a challenging fiscal and economic mountain'. Fast-forward to what actually transpired. When those opposite were saying there was a budget emergency, and a debt and deficit disaster, debt and deficit was far lower than what they have got to under this government. Debt doubled under this government prior to the onset of the pandemic, before they needed to spend money to save jobs. It went from $280 billion in September 2013 to $568 billion in January 2020. Despite initially promising a budget surplus every year in office, they never delivered one. The budget was in a deficit position every year they occupied the Treasury benches. Debt is set to continue to increase on the government's own projections, smashing past the trillion-dollar mark.

The budget also remains in deficit for as far as the eye can see. We've seen, between last year's budget in October and this year's budget, nearly $200 billion worth of spending. That's an astonishing amount. Maybe those opposite are a little reticent about the budget because they know, as we do, that it is a budget weighed down with rorts and waste. With the budget in the state that it is, with debt increasing to $2 trillion, it's important that every dollar spent—which is borrowed—represents quality spending. It's extremely important that it is quality spending. Unfortunately, this government, over eight long years, in office hasn't got a great record. Take the Safer Communities Fund. Ninety-one per cent, or $30 million in round 3, week 2—you guessed it—is for government-held, Independent or marginal Labor seats. The government rejected advice from community safety experts. They reduced funding for 19 projects while directing money to 53 of their own picks, ahead of projects the experts said were more important. Then there is the Building Better Regions Fund: 112 out of the 330 projects in round 3 and 49 out of the 163 projects in round 4 were approved, against departmental recommendations, by a hand-picked ministerial panel. And how can we forget the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, otherwise known as sports rorts? The ANAO found:

There was evidence of distribution bias in the award of grant funding.

And:

The award of funding reflected the approach documented by the Minister's Office of focusing on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates held by other parties or independent members that were to be 'targeted' by the Coalition at the 2019 Election.

We can't forget the infamous colour coded spreadsheet as well.

Then there's the waste. When every dollar is borrowed, you would like to think that this government would be paying more attention to whether everything it's spending represents value for money. Unfortunately, you would be disappointed—but hardly surprised, given the track record of this government. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, wasted on consultants, contractors and costly labour hire, with millions paid out in JobKeeper payments to companies that made profits and paid out dividends or executive bonuses; it really isn't a good record.

Labor has a better alternative to all of this. We've outlined some of our policies and we will have more to say between now and the next election—key and targeted investments in areas that have economic benefit as well as good social dividend. We have policies such as the working families childcare boost, covering 87 per cent of families and increasing workforce participation; a future made in Australia—our secure Australian jobs plan ensuring workers benefit from increased job security, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system; the reconstruction fund; the electric car discount; the community battery plan; and new energy apprentices—harnessing the opportunities provided by new energy technologies to reduce emissions and create jobs; the housing Australia fund, providing a funding source for 20,000 social housing properties. We will present a clear choice: do you want the tired old policies of a government seeking to be in office longer than John Howard or do you want policies that have the Australian people at the centre of their thinking, implemented by a party that's on your side?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022. The Greens will support the bills because to not do so would be to block the supply of funding to departments and halt the machinery of government. However, the budget handed down by the Treasurer, which prescribes detail of the expenditure facilitated by these bills, is an absolute dog of a budget delivered by a government that is intent on cooking the planet and warping the social fabric of our nation. As I said in my budget-in-reply speech, don't believe the Treasurer's spin.

This budget was anything but a transformative event because the budget for the next financial year, just like the last seven budgets that this government has delivered, is built on the con that is trickle-down economics. The budget makes absolutely no change to the fundamentals of our economy and makes absolutely no change to our tax and transfer system. So the planet will keep cooking, nature will continue to be under siege, young people will continue to be priced out of the housing market and house prices will continue to rise, which means that rents will continue to rise, which means that rent stress will continue to rise, which means that homelessness will continue to rise. All of those negative impacts and many, many more will keep on existing because the government that delivered this budget is a government that exists to serve its donors—the big corporations and the billionaires, who exert so much power and influence in Australia. Under this government they are the ones who are truly in control.

Nothing in this budget challenges the might of the big corporates and nothing in this budget challenges the power of the billionaires. Nothing in this budget challenges the stranglehold that the big corporates and billionaires have over our economy and over our politics. In 1938, the best part of a century ago, the 32nd President of the United States, Franklin D Roosevelt, said:

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.

He might as well have been talking about Australia in 2021. I wonder what FDR would make of Australia in 2021.

What would FDR say of this government that has given billions of dollars of public money to big corporations in the form of JobKeeper payments to profitable companies, that has allowed billionaires to grow their wealth by 20 per cent, by 50 per cent or even, in some cases, by over 100 per cent in 12 short months in the middle of a global pandemic when so many Australians are out of work and doing it tough? While this country faced its first recession in 30 years, the billionaires made off like bandits, applauded all the way by this government. What would FDR say of a government that's opening up new gas fields with public subsidies—taxpayers paying for these new gas fields—so that multinational companies, many of whom pay absolutely no tax whatsoever and therefore can afford to donate obscenely to the major parties in this place, can reap even bigger profits from publicly owned gas that they're basically being given for free at the same time that the rest of the world is warning that we simply cannot afford to open up a single new fossil fuel project anywhere on the planet if we are to have any hope of stopping runaway climate change? What would FDR say of 2021 Australia? Clearly, he would say that we're living in a fascist state, and he would be right.

There's only one explanation for a government that's so intent on such a destructive and apocalyptic policy agenda. They have ceded control to the big corporations and to the billionaires, and they exist only to serve their masters. The policy agenda of this government is to deliver wealth to the already very wealthy who are driven by greed. That's why this government is overseeing a growing divide between those who already have the most and everyone else. That's why this government is deliberately fuelling a speculative bubble in real estate while the productive capacity of our country continues to wane. That's why this government is turning Australia into an international pariah state, at odds with the rest of the international community who are trying to preserve this planet, the thing we rely on for our very lives and our very existence as a place that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren might be able to survive on. That is the end game of neoliberalism.

All of the pretence of the early days of what was called economic rationalism in Australia has been stripped away. Back in the eighties and nineties, the privatisation and deregulation agenda started, or was at least turbocharged, under Mr Hawke and Mr Keating as Labor prime ministers and continued apace by the LNP. That privatisation and deregulation agenda was spun as modernising the nation by doing such things as delivering efficiency dividends. There's no talk of that now. There's nothing modern or efficient about this government, and there is nothing modern or efficient about this budget. The government doesn't even pretend that there's any more. So, unable to sustain the facade, the government has embraced the pure beating heart of neoliberalism—a corporate state serving the interests of a few and shielded by a culture of avoidance, intimidation and secrecy.

That's why this government gave $443 million to what is effectively an astroturf group to avoid UNESCO saying four years ago what UNESCO has said in the last 24 hours, that the Great Barrier Reef is officially in danger. At the same time, this government publicly subsidises new, climate-destroying, planet-cooking power stations. These are the very power stations that the market refuses to finance because the market understands they'll be stranded assets in the future. Yet this government is going to give away hard-earned taxpayer dollars to get these projects up.

That's why this government knowingly pursued an illegal robodebt campaign. It wasn't because it recovered any great sum of money for the Commonwealth or because it targeted people who'd actually done something wrong; it was because it helped keep the already marginalised in this country squarely in their place. That's why this government pursued Bernard Collaery, who it is still pursuing in a secret trial, and Witness K. It wasn't because they were any threat to national security; it was because they dared to tell the truth—the truthful story of a former Liberal government that used intelligence agencies to illegally bug the cabinet offices of a foreign power, one of the poorest countries on the face of the earth, to secure greater access to oil and gas reserves for multinational corporations at massive strategic cost to our country. Then, of course, the minister who oversaw that, Mr Downer, rolled straight out of the great revolving door in this place and walked into a massively high-paying job as a lobbyist for the corporation that benefited the most, Woodside. What an absolute scandal! What a disgrace of a government! It's a government of mercenaries. If needed, they will make small adjustments to the times, such as what looks like a temporary abandonment of the surplus fetish or their belated adoption of a wage subsidy, but their first instinct—the one they will always go back to—is to serve their corporate masters.

It doesn't have to be like this. Budgets are about choices, and the Greens have made their choice. We choose to take on the big corporations. We choose to take on and stand up to the billionaires, who wield far too much power and influence, and we choose to stand up to and take on their puppets in this government—the puppets of the big corporates and the puppets of the billionaires. The Greens have a clear plan to create a fairer and more equal society. Our plan is for truth and justice for First Nations peoples and, ultimately, a treaty or treaties for First Nations peoples. Our plan is a government led program of action to set us up for a future where the planet is burning. Our plan will establish a national jobs and income guarantee. Our plan is for 700 per cent renewable energy by exporting our clean energy to the world. Our plan is for real climate action, not the climate con perpetrated by the government, which is cooking the books to hide the fact that it is cooking the planet. Our plan would build a million affordable, accessible and high-quality accessible homes. Our plan would revitalise Australian manufacturing, including locally made vaccines. Our plan is for universal, free child care and free tertiary education. Our plan is to care for nature and to restore degraded wild places. Our plan is for the billionaires and big corporations to pay their fair share of tax so we can afford to do those things and fund the quality public services that Australians rightfully expect.

Our plan and our commitment to the Australian people is that we will fight for them every day and we will do that by standing up to the big corporations, by standing up to the billionaires and by standing up to the vested-interest puppet masters that exist in this country and pull the strings of this government and pull the strings of Treasurer Frydenberg. That is our commitment to the Australian people and that is the commitment we make to nature, to our climate, to our wilderness, to our forests and to our coastlines—all of which are under siege at the moment and being smashed up by rampant neoliberalism that cares nothing for those things and cares only about greed and profit.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the Senate estimates process in recent times—indeed, on Monday 24 May 2021—I had occasion to ask some questions of the rural and regional affairs committee. I was asking questions about Community Chef, which was funded in 2009 under the infrastructure program. The official at the time said to me:

It sounds like a community aged-care program. Are you sure it is in the infrastructure program?

I responded by saying:

It was under Minister Albanese as minister for infrastructure. He entered a joint venture with the then health minister Dan Andrews in the state of Victoria.

I, like the official, was gobsmacked that it was somehow funded under the infrastructure program. The department, rightly, given the passage of time, took the questions on notice. The reason I asked these questions was that I had heard a whisper that there had been untoward behaviour in relation to the funding of this organisation. What we had was funding by the federal taxpayer of some $9 million towards this program which was co-funded by organisations from the state Labor government and also local government. What it was doing was, in fact, prejudicing the viability of a private firm known as I Cook Foods.

In recent times—indeed, just yesterday, 21 June—media outlets, such as the ABC and others, started to disclose some of the consequences and issues surrounding this matter. At the time that this organisation was being established, health officials in Victoria sought to close down I Cook on the basis of allegations that somehow a slug had been found in I Cook's food preparation area and that I Cook was responsible for the transportation of listeria from their food production to a lady in an aged-care facility who unfortunately later passed. The full results of listeria testing at the factory were then withheld from I Cook Foods for several weeks whilst its contracts were being bid for by a rival council operated outfit named—you've guessed it—Community Chef. I Cook were stunned by what was known about the company's innocence before such drastic action was taken. Namely, the Victorian health department closed the show down on the basis of allegations, when it is now relatively obvious on the evidence provided to us by the media that there was, in fact, no case to answer by I Cook.

Mr Cook could have done substantial jail time if he had been convicted. Indeed, the allegations in relation to I Cook show that the patient only consumed food from the hospital, with all food provided by the Knox Private Hospital's sole caterer I Cook. That was the allegation by one Professor Brett Sutton. The department of health spokesman said evidence of the parliamentary inquiry showed that four samples from I Cook had the same genetic sequence that they had found in Mrs Painter, the lady who unfortunately passed. The list goes on in relation to the evidence provided to the committee by Professor Sutton and others.

It now transpires that it appears—and I stress 'appears'; I don't make the allegation. I just make the observation that it is now being asserted that Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton signed and issued the order to close I Cook Foods, and the consequence of that order was that the government-owned, loss-making competitor to I Cook Foods, Community Chef, secured the business of food supply to aged-care homes and other facilities previously supplied by I Cook Foods. By the way, since it was set up by $9 million of federal government funding under Mr Albanese, Community Chef has run at a $30 million loss, funded by taxpayers. Previously food preparation and meals were supplied by I Cook in a private venture that did not need a $30 million subsidy from the taxpayer. But the evidence now to hand, as reported in the media—and this is vitally important—is that some hours before the closure order was issued, that very allegation upon which the closure order was issued proved to be incorrect. The elderly woman who died, allegedly as a consequence of eating food supplied by I Cook Foods, had not eaten any food supplied by I Cook Foods. Based on those facts, as reported in the media recently, it would appear that the order to close I Cook Foods may well have been illegal. From the facts currently available, there is every reason to suggest that there may have been a conspiracy conducted by health officials in Victoria to close I Cook Foods for the purpose of commercially benefitting the government-owned, loss-making enterprise Community Chef.

Given media reports that Victoria Police are now investigating corruption claims around the I Cook Foods closure, the question then arises as to whether or not the Chief Health Officer of Victoria has been interviewed and whether or not he is assisting the police in their investigations. At what point in time did Professor Sutton become aware that the closure order was based on a false allegation? This is a very serious business. A family company has been brought to bankruptcy and closed down as a result of health orders, and the department knew, on the evidence, that they should not have closed it down. So at what stage did they officially become aware that the allegations against I Cook Foods were false? At what stage did the person who signed the closure authority become aware? When should he have become aware? Why was the fact that the closure was inappropriate not acted upon immediately by the authorities?

The questions remain. Before the closure statement was signed by Brett Sutton, why did he issue the closure order? After the issue of the closure order, why did he not retract the closure order? Before the litigation of I Cook Foods in the Magistrates Court, why did he not intervene to have the litigation withdrawn? When he gave evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiries into the I Cook Foods matter, why did he maintain that the closure order was valid before the parliamentary committee? After Brett Sutton gave evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, why did he not advise—he still has not advised—the parliament that the closure order has proven to be invalid? One has to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr Sutton that he may not have been aware of all the factual circumstances when he signed the closure order, but he must have become aware somewhere along the way. To the best of my information, knowledge and belief, Mr Sutton has not corrected the evidence that he gave to the Victorian parliament. By now, he must be fully aware of the fact that the evidence that he gave was not necessarily as accurate as he may have believed at the time or as it should have been at the time. If Mr Sutton had been aware of the false allegation against I Cook Foods, can he explain how, as the Chief Health Officer and the person who authorised the closure, he was not made aware of that? Somebody must be responsible for this egregious offence against I Cook Foods as a business, against the family, more importantly, and against about 35 employees who lost their jobs as a result of the closure.

The I Cook Foods matter and the signing of the false and likely illegal closure by Brett Sutton goes to the very heart of the integrity of the operations of the Victorian health system and to whether or not a conspiracy existed to close I Cook Foods. In the circumstances, Mr Sutton needs to answer these questions immediately, on the public record and with absolute clarity, because without such clarity there will remain very real questions about the integrity of the evidence that was provided to him, about the evidence he provided to the parliamentary committee in Victoria and about the signing of the closure order, which I understand bears his signature.

These matters were the basis of my questions on 24 May at Senate estimates. I was clothed with some of this information at the time, seeking information from officials. Understandably, they could not provide all the information being sought, given the passage of time, but one has to ask the question: why did Mr Albanese and Mr Andrews engage on this joint venture which saw the demise of a private enterprise business? It also begs the question why the Chief Medical Officer at the time signed the closure, which, might I add, was based on evidence which was, allegedly, that a slug had been found in the food preparation area of I Cook Foods, and which is now being referred to as 'slug-gate'. It would appear as though the slug and the photograph taken of it were in fact planted and manufactured evidence. I hope that is not the case, but the allegations surrounding this are now becoming exceptionally serious.

A business has gone broke, 35 people have lost their jobs and high-up officials in the Victorian health department seem to be complicit in the demise of this business. There are a huge number of questions to be answered. These questions are fundamentally important. They go to the integrity of public administration and why a public authority would seem to be so desperate to see the demise of a private sector operator and the establishment of a public authority manufactured by Mr Dan Andrews, as health minister at the time, and Mr Anthony Albanese, as infrastructure minister at the time. They put so much effort, so much taxpayers' money, into an enterprise which has been running at a huge loss and has seen the demise of what was otherwise a profitable business. Lots of questions need to be answered, and I hope they are answered as a matter of urgency.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. These appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the 2021-22 financial year. In introducing the bills, the government has already highlighted some of the more significant items provided for in these bills. The total of appropriations sought through these three appropriation bills is just over $142 billion. These bills ensure continuity of government business throughout 2021-22 and give effect to many of our budget measures, to implement our plans to suppress the spread of the coronavirus and to ensure the growth of investment, trade, jobs and living standards. Once again I thank all senators for their contribution and I commend these bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.