Senate debates

Monday, 31 August 2020

Regulations and Determinations

Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020; Disallowance

6:05 pm

Photo of Katy GallagherKaty Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to put a few comments in the Hansard in this debate on the Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020. I rise as the shadow finance minister, because I think it is important, when we're having this discussion about where money is going at the moment, to remind everybody in this chamber that every cent of the $3.3 million feasibility study that's going to go to this project is borrowed money. It is—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator Rennick, I sat and listened to you, and now I'm going to make a few comments myself. The $3.3 million is all borrowed money, and we think that the government should consider that against the comments its own team members have made, in the sense of: 'It's fine because it was an election commitment. So we can go ahead with it, even though it costs $3.3 million, because the project's not going to get up anyway.' Those are the comments of your own team, whether they be from Mr Zimmerman, Mr Sharma or Mr Falinski.

We don't think that's right. We don't think we should be in a position where gross debt was, I think, as of last Friday, $768.6 billion, almost $300 billion of which was borrowed before the pandemic hit. Although we'll wait for the final budget outcome, we know that the budget for last year has a deficit of $85.8 billion. This financial year, in July, the government was forecasting a deficit of $184.5 billion, and we know they've made additional expenditure commitments since that time, so I would imagine the deficit will be significantly bigger than that when we are given that update in October. You are making further expenditure decisions in a time when you have record debt and record deficits, when you're heading into your seventh and eighth budgets, when you're delivering your seventh and eighth budget deficits in a row after promising a budget surplus in every year in your first term—remember, that commitment doesn't get spoken about very often anymore, does it? 'We will deliver a budget surplus in the first year and every year after that.' It never happened. 'We will pay down debt.' It never, ever happened.

Now, when those fiscal conservatives opposite should be looking at ways to repair the budget, we find ourselves in a situation where we have a project that it seems universally accepted won't get government funding to continue, but it's okay to hand out $3.3 million just to keep the Nats quiet. That's what it seems to be, because there hasn't been a very strong defence from Liberal members on this point. Well, we did have your contribution, Senator Rennick. I reaffirm that we haven't had a very strong argument from Liberal members of the coalition to defend this. It's a pay-off to the National Party.

It's $3.3 million. Imagine what that $3.3 million could be used for. I have witnesses before the COVID committee on an almost weekly basis who would have equal claim to that, whether it's to create jobs or to put food on the table for families that are struggling or to pay support for all the people that are excluded from JobKeeper. You name it; there's a whole range of worthy causes where you could actually argue the case for extra expenditure. I'm not sure a project which the government's own members acknowledge will not get up without further government subsidy is the right way to be spending $3.3 million in a time when we have record debt and record deficit, when we're heading into our seventh and eighth budget deficit under this government, and when the Parliamentary Budget Office is telling us that we are going to be in deficit for the next decade. That is the financial situation we are in, and, for some reason, those opposite who have argued the case tonight think it is fine to chuck $3.3 million to a private company whose project, on all the information I have read, is unlikely to get up without further government expenditure. And if there is going to be further government expenditure, why should this $3.3 million dollars be flushed away on a feasibility study that is apparently, according to government members, going nowhere?

Comments

No comments