Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is unfortunate that that is the approach. Senator Macdonald needs to know that the Commonwealth government will ask the Commonwealth Auditor-General to periodically conduct audits at intervals no greater than three years to assess the adequacy of the Australian government’s responsibilities under the NDRRA, including determining whether the processes are appropriately transparent and whether there is best practice in determining when material is commercial-in-confidence. I really am grateful for the hard work of the advisers in the Prime Minister’s office. I am sure they got pretty sick of me towards the end of the process, maybe earlier in the process. They diligently and in good faith conducted this process with the aim of having a good outcome. That was my primary concern. If there is going to be a flood levy, I want it to be the last flood levy we have.

No longer can states hide behind the previous arrangements which were that the Commonwealth will always pick up the bill to the tune of 75 per cent. There has been a huge moral hazard here and that moral hazard has been quite apparent as a result of these terrible natural disasters in Queensland. I find the attitude of the Queensland government to be quite extraordinary. But this is a fair, robust and transparent process. It requires a review to be published within 90 days of receipt by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The Attorney will consider the report and make recommendations to the states in light of that report. If the Commonwealth Attorney-General does not accept any part of the recommendations in that report, the Attorney will table a statement in the parliament explaining the grounds for rejecting the recommendation. The Commonwealth Attorney-General will advise the state in writing of his or her final decision, including any decision not to reduce the rate of assistance provided, to be published within 14 days. There are some tremendous transparency mechanisms here, and I think this is a very good piece of public policy.

This is not a criticism of the coalition but, back in 2007, a decision was made by the Commonwealth not to self-insure their assets. I wonder whether these new criteria, while not directly applying to the Commonwealth, will set a new benchmark in how we determine these issues—although, to be fair to the Commonwealth, the assets that the Commonwealth has in terms of roads and infrastructure are much, much less than what states and territories have. So I hope this has answered Senator Macdonald’s concerns in relation to the document, but that was my key concern. I am looking at the big policy picture. The reason why we are having this debate and why we are having this levy in the first place is, I think, because the Queensland government decided, quite foolishly, not to take out insurance on its assets. I would like to think this will stand Australian taxpayers in good stead for a number of years. The transparency mechanisms are quite extraordinary. Again, I think this is the result of negotiations with the Prime Minister’s office which were hard, but which were conducted in good faith.