House debates

Monday, 17 June 2013

Questions without Notice

Clean Energy Finance Corporation

2:42 pm

Photo of Andrew RobbAndrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is funded with borrowed money, is set to lend $100 million for an existing wind farm 50 per cent owned by a New Zealand state-owned organisation being readied for privatisation. Given commercial banks reportedly were prepared to lend this money but were outbid by your government's corporation, does the Prime Minister believe that this market intervention is an appropriate priority for the expenditure of tax payers' money?

Photo of Julia GillardJulia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. It enables me to get some of the facts on the table. Once again I understand that the opposition is going to start interjecting once the word 'facts' is said because they cannot stand facts, cannot deal with them, because of course they always stand in the way of the fear campaign that the member for Goldstein is trying to run at the instruction of the Leader of the Opposition. I would refer him to the following facts: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was established almost a year ago and it is now carrying out its legislative mandate to look at clean energy proposals which it can begin to invest in from 1 July.

When you look at who is making the decisions at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, of course, you see people with extensive business experience. In raising these criticisms, the member for Goldstein is effectively insulting them. There has been a resounding positive response to date from the market, demonstrating the positive role that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can play in providing finance for the clean-energy sector.

Indeed, it is recognised by countries overseas as an example of a good way to cartelise clean technology investment. We understand that on that side of politics, amongst their very many plans for wrecking the Australian economy, what they want to introduce into our national economic debate is sovereign risk. What they want to say to responsible business people—

Photo of Andrew RobbAndrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order: we are over halfway through the answer and there has been absolutely nothing of relevance so far by the Prime Minister. She was asked whether it is proper to use borrowed money to outbid commercial banks.

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

Photo of Julia GillardJulia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I am asked about what is proper and what is not proper. What is not proper is introducing sovereign risk into our national economic conversation, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and his team are endeavouring to do. We have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation working in accordance with Australian law, making responsible arrangements as a finance corporation guided by leading Australian business people. And to that the Leader of the Opposition says: 'Too bad! If I'm ever Prime Minister then I will trash those arrangements, I will hurt private businesses, I will trash our nation's global economic reputation.' The Leader of the Opposition says he will introduce into our global reputation this element of sovereign risk. Well, it is only one way in which the Leader of the Opposition would hurt the Australian economy, hurt jobs and hurt families. I thank the member for Goldstein for asking this question because this should be the focus of public engagement and public debate: the Leader of the Opposition's plan to trash Australia's reputation as a place to invest, ultimately meaning fewer jobs, less prosperity, less opportunity for Australians and their families.