The progressive thinktank the Australia Institute has raised concerns
about the operation of the Turnbull government’s $5bn northern
Australia infrastructure fund, saying the organisation lacks resources
and is not being transparent about its internal procedures.
With officials from the $5bn fund due to front Senate estimates hearings in Canberra on Thursday, the thinktank has released a report arguing the NAIF is behind other comparable government organisations in terms of process and disclosure, and in operational funding.
The fund has been front-and-centre in national political debate, with the government flagging that it may invest in new infrastructure associated with the controversial Adani Group’s $16.5bn coalmine, or in new coal-fired power generation.
Last December the minister for resources and northern Australia, Matt Canavan, said the government had to “look seriously” at Adani’s request for a loan to help build a $2.5bn railway to carry coal from the project to ports for export. He argued that building a common user railway would have wider benefits to the economy.
In February Canavan also flagged subsidising a “clean coal” baseload power plant from the NAIF, and said the government had already heard from an interested party eyeing off economic development around the Adani project.
Officials from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation told a Senate estimates hearing
this week they had been approached last Friday by proponents of a new
$1.2bn coal-fired power station with carbon capture and storage
technology.
But the outgoing CEFC chief executive, Oliver Yates, said he believed such a development was not financeable without the government agreeing to indemnify the project against the future risk of a carbon price being introduced and against the cost of delays in the project prompted by likely community protest action.
The ABC subsequently revealed that the interested party was Clive Palmer’s Waratah Coal company, which was intent on seeking government assistance to develop a “clean coal” plant in the Galilee basin.
The NAIF now has four projects in due diligence but it is not clear what these projects are.
The organisation is independent of the government, and officials in Canberra expect it to make recommendations to the government on specific investment projects over the course of this year.
The Australia Institute made a number of requests under freedom of information laws seeking specific documentation about the fund’s applications and approvals procedures, its credit policy guidelines, its risk appetite statement and its public benefit policy.
The thinktank says inquiries for this material was knocked back on the basis that making the procedures transparent “would reveal to proponents and other interested parties the NAIF’s methodologies beyond what is required or appropriate to disclose publicly”.
The NAIF refused to release certain documents because disclosure of the information “could provide certain parties with an advantage, and could cause proponents to alter their contact with the NAIF and possibly the content of their application, in a manner that makes it harder for the NAIF to objectively and accurately assess applications”.
The institute says the NAIF refused to say in response to the FoI requests whether or not it has any documents containing the key words “Adani”, “Galilee basin” or “Carmichael”.
Tom Swann, the author of the report for the Australia Institute, said the NAIF’s processes were opaque.
“Key policies are still missing and the publicly available guidance leaves much unclear,” he said. “How will funds be prioritised? What scrutiny will be applied to the public interest requirement? How will negative impacts be considered?
“Compared to other comparable bodies, NAIF is behind in not only behind terms of process and disclosure, but it also its operational funding. It appears to be only a handful of staff.”
Swann said the government had put the organisation in a difficult position because it was attaching political urgency to projects and not backing the urgency up with appropriate resources.
The Australia Institute is one of a number of progressive groups strongly opposing the Adani mine project.
With officials from the $5bn fund due to front Senate estimates hearings in Canberra on Thursday, the thinktank has released a report arguing the NAIF is behind other comparable government organisations in terms of process and disclosure, and in operational funding.
The fund has been front-and-centre in national political debate, with the government flagging that it may invest in new infrastructure associated with the controversial Adani Group’s $16.5bn coalmine, or in new coal-fired power generation.
Last December the minister for resources and northern Australia, Matt Canavan, said the government had to “look seriously” at Adani’s request for a loan to help build a $2.5bn railway to carry coal from the project to ports for export. He argued that building a common user railway would have wider benefits to the economy.
In February Canavan also flagged subsidising a “clean coal” baseload power plant from the NAIF, and said the government had already heard from an interested party eyeing off economic development around the Adani project.
But the outgoing CEFC chief executive, Oliver Yates, said he believed such a development was not financeable without the government agreeing to indemnify the project against the future risk of a carbon price being introduced and against the cost of delays in the project prompted by likely community protest action.
The ABC subsequently revealed that the interested party was Clive Palmer’s Waratah Coal company, which was intent on seeking government assistance to develop a “clean coal” plant in the Galilee basin.
The NAIF now has four projects in due diligence but it is not clear what these projects are.
The organisation is independent of the government, and officials in Canberra expect it to make recommendations to the government on specific investment projects over the course of this year.
The Australia Institute made a number of requests under freedom of information laws seeking specific documentation about the fund’s applications and approvals procedures, its credit policy guidelines, its risk appetite statement and its public benefit policy.
The thinktank says inquiries for this material was knocked back on the basis that making the procedures transparent “would reveal to proponents and other interested parties the NAIF’s methodologies beyond what is required or appropriate to disclose publicly”.
The NAIF refused to release certain documents because disclosure of the information “could provide certain parties with an advantage, and could cause proponents to alter their contact with the NAIF and possibly the content of their application, in a manner that makes it harder for the NAIF to objectively and accurately assess applications”.
The institute says the NAIF refused to say in response to the FoI requests whether or not it has any documents containing the key words “Adani”, “Galilee basin” or “Carmichael”.
Tom Swann, the author of the report for the Australia Institute, said the NAIF’s processes were opaque.
“Key policies are still missing and the publicly available guidance leaves much unclear,” he said. “How will funds be prioritised? What scrutiny will be applied to the public interest requirement? How will negative impacts be considered?
“Compared to other comparable bodies, NAIF is behind in not only behind terms of process and disclosure, but it also its operational funding. It appears to be only a handful of staff.”
Swann said the government had put the organisation in a difficult position because it was attaching political urgency to projects and not backing the urgency up with appropriate resources.
The Australia Institute is one of a number of progressive groups strongly opposing the Adani mine project.
No comments:
Post a Comment