|
senate vote 2017-12-06#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-28 10:27:07
|
Title
Bills — Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017; in Committee- Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 - in Committee - Review
Description
<p class="speaker">Malarndirri McCarthy</p><p>The committee is considering the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 as amended. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.268.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Carol Brown](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/carol_brown) (Labor), which means it will now be included in the bill.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Senator Brown [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.268.1):
- > *Labor's amendments are seeking to strengthen the review of the corporation. The current bill provides no detail about the scope of the review. It is important that the review reflects the objectives currently put forward by the minister as to why this corporation is necessary. It is also important to include detail about who can undertake the review. Again, this requirement is similar to what is detailed in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act. To ensure that the corporation's review is independent of political interference, Labor believes that the requirements of the review should be proscribed in the current legislation. Labor further believes that the review date needs to be brought forward so that the work of the corporation can be assessed earlier as to whether it indeed is achieving the objectives stated by the government. Further, the review should be brought forward so that any recommendation of the review can be implemented in a timely manner.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(8) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) The persons who undertake the review must undertake any consultation that is:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) considered by the persons to be appropriate; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) reasonably practicable to undertake.*
- >>
- >> *(1B) In determining whether any consultation that was undertaken is appropriate, the persons undertaking the review may have regard to any relevant matter, including the extent to which the consultation:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) drew on the knowledge of persons having expertise in fields relevant to the matters relevant to the review; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) ensured that persons likely to be affected by the matters relevant to the review, including members of the general public, had an adequate opportunity to comment on the matters relevant to the review.*
- >
- > *(9) Clause 53, page 28 (line 6), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2023".*
- >
- > *(10) Clause 53, page 28 (line 8), omit "30 June 2026", substitute "30 June 2024".*
- >
- > *(11) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add:*
- >
- >> *; and (c) the effectiveness of the Corporation in facilitating the administration of farm business loans, including the ability of the Corporation to assess loans in a manner, and within a timeframe, that facilities the timely provision of loans to farmers in need; and*
- >>
- >> *(d) the ability of the Corporation to achieve national consistency in the provision and administration of loans; and*
- >>
- >> *(e) the effectiveness of the Corporation, in delivering grants of financial assistance to States and Territories in relation to water infrastructure projects, to fast-track particular water infrastructure projects that are considered, by the State or Territory, to be a priority.*
<p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (8) to (11) on sheet 8225 together:</p><p class="italic">(8) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) The persons who undertake the review must undertake any consultation that is:</p><p class="italic">(a) considered by the persons to be appropriate; and</p><p class="italic">(b) reasonably practicable to undertake.</p><p class="italic">(1B) In determining whether any consultation that was undertaken is appropriate, the persons undertaking the review may have regard to any relevant matter, including the extent to which the consultation:</p><p class="italic">(a) drew on the knowledge of persons having expertise in fields relevant to the matters relevant to the review; and</p><p class="italic">(b) ensured that persons likely to be affected by the matters relevant to the review, including members of the general public, had an adequate opportunity to comment on the matters relevant to the review.</p><p class="italic">(9) Clause 53, page 28 (line 6), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2023".</p><p class="italic">(10) Clause 53, page 28 (line 8), omit "30 June 2026", substitute "30 June 2024".</p><p class="italic">(11) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add:</p><p class="italic">; and (c) the effectiveness of the Corporation in facilitating the administration of farm business loans, including the ability of the Corporation to assess loans in a manner, and within a timeframe, that facilities the timely provision of loans to farmers in need; and</p><p class="italic">(d) the ability of the Corporation to achieve national consistency in the provision and administration of loans; and</p><p class="italic">(e) the effectiveness of the Corporation, in delivering grants of financial assistance to States and Territories in relation to water infrastructure projects, to fast-track particular water infrastructure projects that are considered, by the State or Territory, to be a priority.</p><p>Labor's amendments are seeking to strengthen the review of the corporation. The current bill provides no detail about the scope of the review. It is important that the review reflects the objectives currently put forward by the minister as to why this corporation is necessary. It is also important to include detail about who can undertake the review. Again, this requirement is similar to what is detailed in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act. To ensure that the corporation's review is independent of political interference, Labor believes that the requirements of the review should be proscribed in the current legislation. Labor further believes that the review date needs to be brought forward so that the work of the corporation can be assessed earlier as to whether it indeed is achieving the objectives stated by the government. Further, the review should be brought forward so that any recommendation of the review can be implemented in a timely manner.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>The Greens will be supporting Labor's amendments today because we believe these amendments will make what we see as a particularly bad bill at least slightly better. The fundamental problems with this bill and the setting up of the Regional Investment Corporation are around the issue of governance. We have so much evidence of poor governance in the requirements set out in this bill. We haven't got transparency. There is no ability to ensure that decisions that this corporation would make are transparent, accountable and associated with good governance principles.</p><p>In particular, the aspects of the Labor amendments that we support include making the operating mandate disallowable, because this is critical. If you are setting up an organisation where you can just change the operating mandate without it having to go back before the parliament, it just makes a mockery of appropriate processes. Rather than leaving the operating mandate to ministerial discretion, which is leaving the door wide open for things to occur, the operating mandate should contain rules for the eligibility criteria for loan recipients, information about water infrastructure project selection and the location of the corporation. As we heard during previous debate about this, the fact that the location for the corporation was chosen with no process whatsoever is symptomatic of the problems, overall, with this bill.</p><p>We are supporting the amendments that would make CEO conflicts of interest transparent and that ensure that the future review of the act is robust, independent and transparently reported. Although we believe that this bill is irretrievably bad due to its departure from good governance principles, in the event that the bill is passed these amendments would go some way towards preventing the most egregious abuses of power by the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>In response to the comments from Senator Rice, I'll reiterate what I said before, when this bill was on for debate at a previous time, that the government believes that there is an appropriate level of oversight, given the nature and significance of the directions that are set out in the operating mandate. We don't believe that making it a disallowable instrument is appropriate, as we believe that the way we have set it out is absolutely appropriate.</p><p>Specifically, in relation to amendments (8) to (11), which are currently before the chair, and how the review is going to be undertaken and by whom, we believe that the content of the act is sufficient to demonstrate the necessity of the review. We believe that the additional information that is being sought through amendment (8) is unnecessary. We believe the current provision included in the bill is reflective of other such entities and what has been included in their legislation in relation to their review mechanisms, so we believe that that is appropriate.</p><p>I will just try and clarify the issue of timing raised in amendments (9) and (10). The reason that we expressly put in July 2024 was that we believe that that is an appropriate time, two years out, for most of the current functions that are being proposed for the RIC—that is, the loans instruments and also the water infrastructure fund. Most of them are extended out to 2026. We believe that July 2024 was an appropriate time in which to review the ongoing functions of the corporation after 2026. The reason we put 2026 in the bill, which relates to amendment (10), was that that is the time when the existing activities that are currently proposed for the RIC are due to expire.</p><p>This isn't a matter of bringing it forward or putting it out. There is an express reason why these two particular dates are in the bill, and that is that they coincide, clearly, with a time line that allows us a two-year transition period to be able to work towards the end of the existing activities. That is the drop-dead date on which the current activities end. I'd be keen to hear from the shadow minister opposite as to the basis for wanting to bring forward the date of the completion of the review to 2023 and why it relates to June 2024, when it actually relates to the activities of the corporation post-2026.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that amendments Nos (8) to (11) on sheet 8225, as moved by Senator Brown, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|