Mr Ciobo presented reasons, which were circulated, and are as follows:
House of Representatives statement of reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments
Senate Amendments (1) and (2)
The amendment passed by the Senate changes the name of the Bill to the Encouraging Privatisation (Asset Recycling Fund) Bill 2014.
The Government does not support amending the Bill title or the name of the Asset Recycling Fund. The proposed changes do not reflect the Bill’s objective. Privatisation is only a means to an end where it is appropriate. Privatisation is not the primary objective of the Bill or the initiatives it support. The Government is keen for States to release capital from assets better managed by the private sector. It wants to encourage the States to use the proceeds of sales to build green field infrastructure.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate Amendments (5), (6), (12), (13), (15), (33), (34) and (36)
The amendments passed by the Senate would give effect to removal of provisions to transfer of $3.5 billion from the Education Investment Fund to the Asset Recycling Fund.
Without the proposed transfer from the Education Investment Fund to the Asset Recycling Fund the Asset Recycling Fund will not be viable for the purposes for which it is to be established.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate Amendments (16) and (37)
The negation of the amendments moved in the Senate has the effect of removing clauses that allow for the transfer of $3.5 billion from the Education Investment Fund to the Asset Recycling Fund.
The position adopted by the Senate prevents the transfer of necessary assets from the Education Investment Fund, without which the Asset Recycling Fund will not be viable for the purposes for which it is to be established.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate Amendments (19), (23), (27) and (31)
The amendments passed by the Senate require cost benefit analysis and evaluations performed by Infrastructure Australia to be tabled in Parliament and made available to the public.
The amendments add red tape with no additional benefit, The Coalition has already committed to Infrastructure Australia undertaking an assessment of cost-benefit analysis for our major investment decisions that receive Commonwealth funding of over $100 million. State Governments will undertake their own cost-benefit assessments as part of decision-making processes to privatise assets and reinvest in new infrastructure. These are rightly matters for the States. It makes no sense to duplicate cost-benefit processes.
They risk delaying the delivery of critical infrastructure that will enhance the long-term productive capacity of the economy. The amendments would introduce duplicative and disruptive parliamentary processes that stand in the way of delivering the benefits being sought.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate Amendments (20)
The amendment passed by the Senate supports the requirement that only the Infrastructure Minister may make a recommendation for the Asset Recycling Special Account to be debited for the purposes of making a grant of financial assistance to a State or Territory.
The amendment removes flexibility for a minister other than the Infrastructure Minister to recommend that a grant be made to a State or Territory under a National Partnership Agreement. The amendment fails to recognise that the nature of infrastructure being considered for support from the Asset Recycling Fund will not always be within the portfolio responsibilities of the Infrastructure Minister (for example, telecommunications infrastructure). In such cases, it is entirely appropriate the responsible minister makes the assessment and recommendation.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.
Senate Amendments (21) and (28)
The amendment passed by the Senate require the Government to table a disallowable legislative instrument for each and every grant of financial assistance to be provided to States and Territories under the National Partnership Agreement on Asset Recycling.
The amendments would create a disruptive and unnecessary process that would mean the States would have no confidence that the Commonwealth would make payments in accordance with already signed National Partnership Agreements. The proposal to use disallowance mechanisms against payments to the States would block or delay funding from the Asset Recycling Fund for critical infrastructure.
The Government is confident that the current Bill has robust accountability and governance arrangements.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate Amendments (32)
The amendment passed by the Senate prevents incentives being provided for reinvestments funded by the sale of infrastructure and services.
The decision of what assets to sell to fund new infrastructure is entirely a matter for the States. State and Territory Governments are best placed to decide which infrastructure and services are most efficiently provided by the private sector. The Australian Government does not wish to dictate this, or believe it is in a position to do so.
Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.