Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I share the words that came from Senator Paterson in congratulating you on your ascension to Acting Deputy President. I note that at one point today we were sitting on the same side of the chamber when we voted, and I believe that did as much damage to my reputation as it did to yours.

I find it unbelievable that I would be the one here making an argument to a former advocate from the IPA about what the role of public funds should and should not be. There is a whole host of issues regarding a proposed Adani mine. There is a whole host of environmental issues, there is a whole host of environmental concerns—legitimate concerns I believe. Some of them may be exaggerated at times, but they are legitimate concerns about the possible impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the possible impact on tourism jobs and they need to be properly addressed. Fundamentally though, the bit that needs further scrutiny at this point in time is the role of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the lack of transparency in how it is going about making its decisions. When you are looking at a fund that has been given $8 million, compared to the $23 million that is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's operating figure, it really makes you wonder how and what processes are being undertaken.

The fact is this is a secretive process, this is a process where there has been a complete lack of disclosure, lack of information; how these decisions are being made are not being made in a transparent way. If we are seriously talking about $1 billion of taxpayer funds being put up as a loan for a project to make it commercially viable, the first question you have to ask yourself is: why isn't it commercially viable to begin with? Why is it the private sector is not underwriting and providing these funds? If that is the case, then it needs that intervention. Ask yourself: should we be intervening in areas and policy areas that we do not necessarily want or need to be encouraging?

There is a lack of transparency in how these decisions are being made. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has repeatedly come before Senate estimates and, in a very open and transparent way, has answered legitimate questions that should be asked when taxpayer funds are being put up in these types of projects. When it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, nothing of the kind has taken place. We really run the risk that this just becomes a pork-barrelling exercise for the government to find another way of funding projects, but doing it off budget, off the balance sheet, and doing it in a way that is not realistically feasible to see how this money will ever be repaid. Are we talking about a $1 billion loan or are we talking about a $1 billion investment to a private corporation simply for the purpose of their own project? If that is what we are doing, then let us at least be upfront with the Australian people and let us be upfront in how this decision has been made and how this decision has come about, because I believe that there is a right for people to know.

With the huge concerns over the Adani proposal when it comes to environmental considerations—again, we are not going to have time in this debate or in this chamber now to be able to adequately cover the different debate that is going on around the environmental concerns—surely we can agree that transparency over $1 billion of taxpayer funds is a good place to start. I think the Senate should have and needs to have a much bigger role in getting to the bottom of what potential loan is taking place, especially when you look at the concerning tax arrangements that Adani has used around the world. Frankly, these are things that we should get to the bottom of.

I want to note too that we heard some beautiful words from Senator Malcolm Roberts a little bit earlier. I have to say I was a bit confused, because I thought Senator Roberts had gone on strike. It was exciting to see him say a few words. I just want to say this, because I know the One Nation senators will be listening to this: I completely support their right to take industrial action. I do note, however, that it appears to be a secondary boycott. If the ABCC was being applied to them right now, this would be unprotected action—unprotected action in the industrial sense, not in the other sense—and that the legislation that they themselves have voted on would make the type of action they are taking, the strike that they are on, potentially illegal. We heard from Senator Abetz earlier today: apparently there are some laws that some people—be it Mahatma Gandhi, be it Rosa Parks or be it Pauline Hanson—are prepared to break. I think the secondary boycott provisions are the law that Pauline Hanson has decided she wants to break in the chamber. That is really matter for her. I support the right of trade unionism—