The Morrison government’s pre-election had plenty of big, generous cash handouts. But buried deep in the fine print are several secret spending measures hidden from taxpayers because of commercial or legal sensitivities, and many other costs deemed unquantifiable. Here’s a list of some of the budget money we don’t know about.
Clive Palmer’s lawsuit
Last year, the High Court ruled against Clive Palmer in a court battle over a Western Australian law that blocked him from seeking $30 billion in compensation from the state. Palmer responded with initiating complex international arbitration claims against Australia, claiming the WA law breached a series of free trade agreements, affecting his company, which is linked to Singapore and New Zealand. If he wins, the budget notes the government will be liable for compensation, but can’t yet quantify how much.
Indigenous class action
The cost of court-ordered private discovery related to a wage theft class action brought against the Commonwealth by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living and working in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971 is withheld due to legal sensitivities.
Native Title liabilities
The government may be liable for any compensation under the Native Title Act 1993, but the amount can’t be quantified because of uncertainty about the number and effect of compensable acts.
Offshore processing
Support for the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea to support refugees in those countries under offshore processing arrangements is unquantifiable because of potential changes to the number of people involved, or litigation to bring them to Australia.
Critical minerals facility
Costs related to the Critical Minerals Facility, which helps domestic mining projects secure investment overseas, are shrouded in secrecy. According to the budget papers, negotiations on “an additional project” and financial implications of the budget measure are not for publication because of commercial sensitivities.
Taking on big pharma
The government will fund legal action to compensate for losses incurred by pharmaceutical companies delaying the listing of generic medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The value is hidden due to legal sensitivities.
Space industry
Last week, Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced the creation of a new space command, apparently to fight the threat of Russia and China. The budget contains $1.3 billion to expand the space sector, but further financial implications of the expansion are commercial-in-confidence.
Pacific infrastructure financing
The financial implications of infrastructure financing in the Pacific, as part of the Pacific Step-Up, are not for publication because of commercial sensitivities.
COVID treatments and vaccine claims
Purchase agreements for a range of drugs to treat COVID, and the cost of a scheme for people injured by vaccines, are undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities.
mRNA vaccine manufacturing
In his speech, the treasurer triumphantly announced funding for an agreement with Moderna to manufacture mRNA vaccines in Australia. But that funding is too commercially sensitive for the budget papers.
Energy and emissions
The cost of the Clean Energy Regulator streamlining processes related to the Emissions Reduction Fund is undisclosed because of commercial sensitivities. So is the cost of releasing crude oil stocks as part of an International Energy Agency collective action in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
This increasing secrecy about government expenditure is our bulls*t. Almost nothing in respect of government-private entity commercial contract should be secret. If a private entity chooses to contract with government, it should understand that the money involved will be public knowledge. What entitles commercial entities, who are not citizen because they are not human, to this secrecy? And what benefit accrues to society from this secrecy? It is all detrimental to society. That product of government not being held to account.
Hear, hear!
I would go even further and demand (When we get an ICAC.) Government contractors should also be covered by the same rules as Government.
I am tired of being told the private does it cheaper yet my sources (Those issuing the contracts.) suggest that Government employees can do it more efficiently and cheaper. Why subcontract out – simply NO transparency as it is commercial in confidence, irrespective of the question asked.
Today I heard reference to Frydenberg “opening his cheque book”. It is the taxpayers’ account, we deposited the money, our chequebook.
A fascinating list, thanks for this.
What is the point of presenting a National Budget if numerous high cost liabilities undisclosed? Here we go again . . . Unrestricted Auarchy!
Transparency X. Accountability X. Democracy X.
MERDE ! ! .. OCH ! ! Does all this BRILLIANTLY CRAFTED REPORT suggest that the only hope of any true Aussie National Conscience resides in the “Fourth Estate” … by which, of course, I refer to YOU most esteemed LOT?!?!? ( & of course the which I assist with the maintenance!!!) What hope do “We” have…?