Adani may still get Taxpayers $Billions

Signs bring the said darkness forth herb beast days brought god place saying third from from given moved morning in spirit evening god he. Forth two moving creature signs meat midst void meat.

The Myth in the Desert
Thalesburry

Block title

[vcmp_social vcmp_social_style=”style2″ vcmp_social_color=”#fc615d” vcmp_social_over_color=”#fc615d” vcmp_social_fb=”https://business.facebook.com/pg/pigsflynewspaper/posts/” vcmp_social_tw=”https://twitter.com/BobLee5″ vcmp_social_in=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-lee-54819848/” vcmp_social_gplus=”https://plus.google.com/108193418453091500337″ vcmp_social_pi=”https://www.pinterest.com.au/shibumioz/”]

Why Adani may still get its government loan

Mining companies’ links with politicians ‘susceptible to corruption
``Crooked creature of ... seller of local job growth balm and lucky tax breaks for the anointed few``

Brendan Gogarty, University of Tasmania

Even though the Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced she would be vetoing the around A$1 billion loan to Adani for a rail link to its proposed Carmichael coal mine, funds could still flow to the company.

Currently in caretaker mode for the Queensland election, the premier would need the consent of the opposition party to exercise such a right. That is very unlikely given the LNP’s longstanding support of Adani’s mine.

This means any veto could not be exercised until late November, or more realistically, December 2017.

As the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) loan doesn’t need state approval (but rather explicit veto) it could also mean the money will make its way to Adani, without any direct action by the state government.

How would Commonwealth money make its way to Adani?

The NAIF body was established in 2016 and administers A$5 billion in Commonwealth funds. It’s been empowered to award grants to the northern states and Northern Territory for infrastructure projects. Practically, however, these jurisdictions are used as financial conduits to pass this money to large corporations operating in northern Australia.

The NAIF is established under the “tied-grants” provision of the constitution, section 96, which states:

…the [Commonwealth] Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the [Commonwealth] Parliament thinks fit.

This section was intended to provide for a short-term (around 10 years) mechanism for central funds to be granted to the new states affected by the restructuring of national public finances, after federation. However, the Commonwealth Parliament continued to use this section well into the 20th century (and increasingly today) to grant funds to cash-strapped states.

Over time, the Commonwealth started to impose terms that required the states do things that were outside of the Commonwealth’s legislative power – such as education or, indeed, infrastructure development.

The early 20th Century High Court concluded that this was acceptable, as long as the state technically consented to the terms and conditions of the grant.

While the NAIF legislation does not require such consent, under rules issued by the Commonwealth Minister the NAIF has to:

commence consultation with the relevant jurisdiction as soon as practicable after receiving an investment proposal

In Adani’s case, the Investment Rules indicate that the “jurisdiction” is the “State or Territory the infrastructure Project is located”, namely Queensland. The state government after reviewing project and investment may provide:

written notification that financial assistance should not be provided to a project

If that is the case then the NAIF is not permitted to provide the grant money to the applicant (Adani). But that doesn’t mean the state hasn’t consented to the loan.

The problem is that the High Court has never really addressed what the word “state” means in section 96. Specifically who should the money be paid to: the “Parliament of the State”; “Government of the State” or, as seems to be implied in the Palaszczuk statements the “Premier of the State”?

Conventionally, when we talk of “state consent” to funds, we envision a complex process by which money is paid into a central state fund under the control of state parliament. However, the NAIF legislation appears to allow for merely the state government to consent in a very minimal way, simply by passing the money directly to Adani without the state parliament ever reviewing or approving the transaction.

The NAIF legislation also doesn’t specify who in the government might consent. To date, it is the Treasurer who seems to have been most actively involved in working with the NAIF, and indeed Adani. It seems that, so long as the state has been “consulted”, unless it takes active steps to stop the loan, it will go ahead.

Does Premier Palaszczuk have a ‘veto’ power?

The premier’s reasoning for the veto is a continuation of her government’s legacy of having “no role to date in the federal government’s NAIF Loan Assessment Process for Adani” and no “role in the future”.

These statements seem to be contrary to earlier ones by the Queensland Treasurer, Curtis Pitt, that the government would “do what is required” to facilitate Commonwealth funds going to Adani. In fact, as early as November 2016, Pitt declared in state parliament:

Since we came to office, we have been working very closely with the Commonwealth government to facilitate … the NAIF — in North Queensland… It is through the NAIF facility, which the state wholeheartedly supports, that Adani can get the infrastructure support that it needs.

As a result, it would seem that everything needed to pass the NAIF funds to Adani is provided for.

The only thing to actively stop it is a formal, written statement by Palaszczuk to the NAIF refusing the loan (not to the Prime Minister as she claimed). Given Palaszczuk’s statement that she intends to write this statement, it is clear that no formal notice has yet been issued to the NAIF.

However, it would seem that a “Master Facility Agreement” between Queensland and the NAIF has already been agreed to and set up.

This agreement seems to envision the treasurer of Queensland passing the money to Adani, without it ever going into the state’s bank accounts. Hence, in May this year, the Queensland treasurer confirmed that:

Our role, for constitutional reasons, is the legal financing contract, the loan agreement including the drawdown and timing, repayment of interest — all of those things have to have state involvement constitutionally.

So, unless the Queensland opposition takes the very unlikely step of agreeing to a veto, Palasczuki would appear to lack the power to issue one herself until after the election.

The ConversationIn the interim, NAIF has no legal restrictions on issuing the loan and, with the apparent agreement of the Queensland treasury, this money is likely to flow through to Adani.

While Palasczuki can say her government gave no active assistance to Adani, without active measures to block the loan, it would certainly be a silent partner in the process.

Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

POLITICS THAT FUA

Small government and free markets – ideology or greed?

0
At a small event at the Productivity Commission last week, visiting Nobel Prize-winning American economist...

Divinely ordained neoliberalism: ex-PM’s mistrust of government is longstanding

0
For a man who has devoted most of his life trying to get into government,...

Farewell to print — a billionaire plaything finally hits the wall

0
The Australian printing and magazine business has been a plaything of various billionaires over the...

Morrison’s Revelation: Australia has been living in a theocracy and we’re just waking up to it

0
As the Liberal Party surveys the disaster of the 2022 election, it needs to read...

This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. The findings make grim reading

0
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim...

Ministers’ diaries: taxpayers deserve transparency on what MPs are doing

0
The states that already allow their citizens to have some idea of what their highly...

The territory ahead of the states: ACT streaks to the fore on progressive policy

0
To those who equate the ACT and federal governments as one and the same, it...

Snowy Mountains Alpine Walk nears completion

0
A new hiking trail along the upper Snowy River is in its final stages...

Coalition spent almost $3.8 billion in 2021 on Consultants

0
In the run-up to the Federal election, the government’s use of external consultants has come...

POLITCS

The professional classes make billion-dollar tax rorts possible

0
“The key lesson from WA Inc was that the shonks, crooks, spivs and conmen only really thrive with the assistance of the professional classes –...

The minister who survived Barfgate with the Barilaros makes one slip...

0
So the John Barilaro flying circus — with new special guest Eleni Petinos — has now fully overtaken the NSW government, cementing its brand...

ICAC finding puts MPs on notice over misuse of public money

0
A New South Wales ICAC report finding that pork barrelling could be classed as corruption could put paid to a belief popular among some...

Mutually assured corruption

0
What is most curious about John Barilaro is the honesty of his politics. Not in the conventional sense of integrity or commitment to the...

Footy, horses and the whiff of an affair: the Barilaro scandal...

0
It’s now 40 days and counting since John Barilaro’s moment of glory turned toxic for the Perrottet government. The former NSW deputy premier’s get-the-fuck-out-of-here...

The professional classes make billion-dollar tax rorts possible

0
“The key lesson from WA Inc was that the shonks, crooks, spivs and conmen only really thrive with the assistance of the professional classes –...

Political donations reform is overdue — Labor shouldn’t waste time with inquiries

0
Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell’s commitment to lowering the political donation disclosure threshold to $1000 and requiring real-time reporting of donations is a welcome...

What the oil and gas industry tells itself

0
Royce Kurmelovs reportsOn day two, Kevin Gallagher stepped to the main stage at the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre, where the oil and gas...

Unfair? Unethical? or Corrupt? ‘Personal’ donations to the Liberal Party came from vaping lobby...

0
A national vaping lobby group donated a total of $44,000 to the Liberal Party but the money was declared as personal gifts from its...

Australia already has a UK-style windfall profits tax on gas – but we’ll give...

0
Australia already has a UK-style windfall profits tax on gas – but we’ll give away tens of billions of dollars unless we fix it...