|
senate vote 2019-07-24#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-08-22 16:52:16
|
Title
Bills — Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; in Committee- Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Consistency
Description
<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I will start by noting the outcome of that division, where it was just the Greens who voted in support of our proposal that the drought fund should divest itself from coal, gas and oil and from those companies that are the cause of climate change. I will reflect on what that means. It means that the Senate has just voted to say that it is perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in Glencore, in Santos, in Woodside Petroleum and in the Adani Group. It means, basically, that it's perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in the companies that are profiting from the very causes of our climate crisis, that are profiting from the ongoing use of coal, gas and oil and from the ongoing burning, mining and export of coal, gas and oil. They are the very things that are contributing to our climate crisis, that are causing our climate crisis.</p><p>That's actually in complete opposition to what BHP have come out with. They've said: 'This is serious. This is a climate emergency.' BHP are divesting out of coal because they recognise that it's not a going thing into the future, that the world needs to change, that if we are to have a future we've got to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that we've got to stop our over-reliance on them and that we've got to stop our fossil fuel dependency. Yet, despite the science saying that and despite companies like BHP saying that, this Senate does not accept that reality. This Senate is in denial. This Senate is not taking the future of Australia, Australians and our future generations seriously. It is vesting in them such a damaged future, and I find that appalling. I move amendment (1) on sheet 8703:</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.61.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice), which means it failed.
- Senator Rice [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.61.1):
- > *This amendment to the Future Drought Fund Bill requires the drought plan to be consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I note that in the bill there is a requirement for the drought plan to be consistent with Regional Investment Corporation activities. I think it is highly appropriate—in fact, much more important—that any projects funded under this fund and the plan that will come out of this legislation are consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan.*
- ### Motion text
- > *(1) Page 22 (after line 29), after clause 25, insert:*
- >
- > *25A Consistency with the Water Act 2007*
- >
- > *(1) Before making an arrangement or a grant under section 21 that affects Basin water resources (within the meaning of the Water Act 2007), the Drought Minister must request the Murray-Darling Basin Authority provide written advice as to whether the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.*
- >
- > *(2) The Authority must provide the written advice requested by the Drought Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request.*
- >
- > *(3) The Drought Minister may make the arrangement or grant if the Authority advises the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.*
- >
- > *(4) The Drought Minister must cause the publication of the Authority's advice on the Agriculture Department's website as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the advice.*
<p class="italic">(1) Page 22 (after line 29), after clause 25, insert:</p><p class="italic"> 25A Consistency with the <i>Water Act 2007</i></p><p class="italic">(1) Before making an arrangement or a grant under section 21 that affects Basin water resources (within the meaning of the <i>Water Act 2007</i>), the Drought Minister must request the Murray-Darling Basin Authority provide written advice as to whether the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the <i>Water Act 2007</i>.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Authority must provide the written advice requested by the Drought Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Drought Minister may make the arrangement or grant if the Authority advises the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the <i>Water Act 2007</i>.</p><p class="italic">(4) The Drought Minister must cause the publication of the Authority's advice on the Agriculture Department's website as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the advice.</p><p>This amendment to the Future Drought Fund Bill requires the drought plan to be consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I note that in the bill there is a requirement for the drought plan to be consistent with Regional Investment Corporation activities. I think it is highly appropriate—in fact, much more important—that any projects funded under this fund and the plan that will come out of this legislation are consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan.</p><p>I wouldn't have thought this would be controversial. Yes, we've all got our various views about how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is and how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be, but it is the plan that we have for the management of water across our agricultural regions, across all of the incredibly important agricultural areas in eastern Australia. It should be straightforward to make sure that any plans that come out of this drought fund are consistent with that and to make sure that, if there is any uncertainty in legislation as to which one should have primacy, it should be the plans of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This is good planning. Water is a scarce resource. In terms of the Murray-Darling, it's the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that sets out how water gets allocated, and anything impacting upon that should be consistent with the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>In relation to what Senator Rice has just mentioned about fossil fuel companies and about how mining in Australia is having a detrimental effect on the drought throughout Australia, I'd like to ask the minister if there is any evidence of that. Has any research been done to actually say that the fossil fuels mined in Australia have caused, and are causing, the drought in Australia, which is affecting our Australian farmers?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I'm not aware of any such research. Obviously, Australia has experienced droughts for ever and ever. That is just a function of the country we live in, and that's why we've got to come up with ever better measures to deal with the drought. Before the Senate we have an important measure to help support regional communities with projects to further improve their drought resilience and preparedness.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>Also in relation to comments from Senator Rice with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Water Act, can the minister give me any evidence or assure me that it will actually help those drought affected people, including up at Longreach, where people have been in drought for eight years? In relation to what Senator Rice has put in her amendment in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, is there any evidence that it will have any impact on drought affected areas throughout Queensland?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I thank Senator Hanson for that question. The amendment that Senator Rice has moved and which we are opposing would make things worse for the farmers that you're concerned about, Senator Hanson. That is because it would impose a further requirement to first seek written advice from the Murray Darling Basin Authority around funding arrangements, which would unreasonably add further delay to the disbursement of funding to support projects to support them.</p><p>The drought minister, of course, has already the ability to seek further advice under clause 28(4) if and when that is required and appropriate. The decision-maker, which is the minister, already has to abide by the Water Act when making a decision. So the amendment is superfluous and adds unnecessary red tape. The additional red tape would mean that those drought affected farmers around Australia who could benefit from the additional support from this fund would have to wait longer for that support.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>The Greens have made a claim today that this whole fund has been set up as a slush fund for the National Party to fund their corporations and their big mates. Can the government give me assurance about where this money will be spent—where the $100 million a year that we put into the fund will be going—and of the accountability of this fund? I don't think the Australian people would be very happy if it was a slush fund for the National Party. The people of Australia have the right to know exactly where the money is going and who it will benefit and help.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I thank Senator Hanson for that question. I can 100 per cent reassure Senator Hanson and the Senate that this is not a slush fund for the National Party. This is a very important capital fund that will help generate a reliable, secure, sustainable funding stream which will see an additional $100 million every year go into projects to improve drought resilience and preparedness in rural and regional communities impacted by the drought.</p><p>I have previously put on the record the very stringent governance measures that are in place to protect the integrity of the decision-making process. The governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is robust and transparent. In particular, it involves requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching Drought Resilience Funding Plan and consideration of independent expert advice before allocating funds. Indeed, the Future Drought Fund programs will have published guidelines, where appropriate, to ensure all applicants are treated equitably and selected based on merit. Grant programs would be developed in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. Future Drought Fund procurements will be accountable and transparent in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules 2018. There is an extensive governance framework in place that will help ensure all of the decisions that are made to allocate funding are based on merit.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>We know that there is no time limit on drought. Drought has affected Australia for over 100 years and will continue to do so unless we can put in the resources that are needed. Is there a time limit on this bill and, if so, what is it?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>That's a very good question. No, there is no time limit, but obviously I would expect that after the fund has been in place for a period there will be a review into its effectiveness and further judgements can be made about the future at that point. This capital fund will start with $3.9 billion invested. It is expected, based on the investment mandate that the Treasurer and I will issue, that the capital in the fund will grow to $5 billion within the decade, while at the same time disbursing an additional $100 million every year from 1 July 2020 to fund investment in projects to help drought-proof and improve the drought resilience and preparedness of rural and regional communities.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>What is of concern to a lot of Australians is that we set up these administrative bodies and see a lot of the money intended to go to those people that need it is caught up in administrative cost and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. What assurance can you give that the majority, if not all, of the money will be going to those needy farmers and people to help them?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I thank Senator Hanson. One hundred per cent of the $100 million will go directly to them. But, of course, there will be appropriate provision for administrative costs in terms of the administration of the capital funds, which is consistent with what applies to the Medical Research Future Fund and other funds. The Future Fund is a very efficient organisation with a very low administration cost ratio, and we expect that to continue into the future.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>Minister, I am aware that this bill is for resilience and for helping those on the land to actually put in place better usage of water. But will the government be looking beyond this to put in dams, water projects and infrastructure projects in the foreseeable future that will help our farmers?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The answer to that question from Senator Hanson is yes. This is only one part of an overall approach. The government does have a commitment to a substantial infrastructure program, including investment in dams where that can be part of an overall approach to help drought-proof Australia. This is one component of a broader policy approach and a commitment from the government to support drought affected areas across Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I was just wondering if the minister could rule out whether Mr Joyce would have any role or be consulted or get his mitts on any of this money at any point.</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I'm not sure that 'mitts' is an appropriate word.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>It is obviously an entirely inappropriate question. I have extensively explained to the Senate what the government's arrangements are, how the board will be appointed, how it will be composed and who will make the decisions, and I think it's very clear to the Senate how that all operates.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I feel offended on behalf of Barnaby Joyce. The member of the lower house is not here to defend himself against the comment that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young made, and I would like it withdrawn.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.</p>
|