The CHAIRMAN (09:31): The committee is considering the Biosecurity Bill 2014 and four related bills. The question is that Australian Greens amendment (15) on sheet 7676 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:32): I indicate to the chamber that there will be some amendments that I will not be proceeding with. I am reading the sense of the chamber that I am going to go down in a screaming heap on a number of my amendments. However, there are a number of broader issues that I still want to canvass and ask the government some questions on and to get certain things on the record for implementation of the bill and also for interpretation of the bill. So I indicate that I will be withdrawing some of our amendments, because I have canvassed the broader issues that some of them relate to and some of them are dependent on other amendments that have already gone down.

The CHAIRMAN: It may be easiest if we continue through the running sheet and, as we approach those particular amendments, you indicate them then.

Senator SIEWERT: I provided the information to the chamber so that people know where I am going with this debate.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:33): I move amendment (16) on sheet 7676:

(16) Page 46 (after line 4), after Chapter 1, insert:

Chapter 1A—Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan

33A Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan

(1) The Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure an Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan is developed, and prepared in written form, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.

(2) The Plan must include:

   (a) how Australia will meet obligations relating to biosecurity risk under the Biodiversity Convention; and

   (b) how Australia will meet obligations relating to biosecurity risk under Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, as in force from time to time; and

   (c) how Australia will meet any other obligations relating to biosecurity risk that the Agriculture Minister, or the Environment Minister, considers relevant.

(3) The Agriculture Minister or the Environment Minister must consult the following when developing and preparing the Plan:

   (a) Indigenous groups;

   (b) industry groups;

   (c) State and Territory governments;

   (d) local governments;

   (e) public sector entities;

   (f) conservation organisations;

   (g) any other interested groups;

   (h) the general community.

33B Variation of Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan

(1) The Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister may vary an Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan.

(2) However, the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister must not vary an Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan unless the persons and groups mentioned in subsection 33A(3) have been consulted.

33C Environment Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan must be published

      The Environment Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan must be published on:

   (a) the Agriculture Department's website; or

   (b) the Environment Department's website.

33D Review of Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan

      The Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister must cause a review of the Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action plan to take place:

   (a) within 5 years after the Plan is first developed; and

   (b) once every subsequent 5‑year period.

33E Reporting requirements

(1) As soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister must prepare a joint report on the implementation and operation of the Environmental Biosecurity Strategy and Action Plan during the previous 12 months.

(2) The report must be included in the annual report of:

   (a) the Agriculture Department; and

   (b) the Environment Department.

This amendment relates to an environmental biosecurity strategy and action plan, specifically to the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Environment taking all reasonable steps to ensure that an environmental biosecurity strategy and action plan is developed and prepared in written form as soon as practicable after the commencement of this act. This is important because it is an essential component and complement to biosecurity laws.

We believe that biosecurity strategy and action plans that identify the priorities, targets and actions necessary to achieve national environmental goals are absolutely essential and must complement this process. The guiding principles for the implementation of article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity emphasise their importance and identify important elements. The proposed biosecurity strategy would encompass and build on existing strategies and address other invasive species categories, such as invertebrates, fungi and pathogens, and prioritise gaps. It is important to note that invertebrates, fungi and pathogens are often left off people's thinking, and we know how important they are. The development and implementation of these plans should manifest a partnership approach and meaningfully involve the community and the environmental sectors. The community has been arguing very strongly to have in place this strategy and an action plan, which is basically an implementation plan. We think these are important amendments, and those have been our reasons for wanting these amendments. I suspect that the government does not support this amendment, but I would like to hear from the government what it intends to do about putting in place a strategy and action plan/implementation plan.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:35): I am advised by my ministerial colleague that the government will not be supporting your proposed amendment to develop and publish an environmental biosecurity strategy and action plan. It is difficult to isolate environmental biosecurity risks within the overall system, because the system operates to manage all biosecurity risks. Dealing with environmental biosecurity as a separate issue or function may actually act to the detriment of the system as a whole.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:36): That is where I thought the government would go on this amendment, but I did ask a question about what the government does intend to do. I would like a little bit more detail around that. I am not trying to detain the chamber, but I do want an indication of where the government is going with this process.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:36): I understand we will be responding to that in the government's response to the biosecurity report.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:36): With all due respect, that does not answer the question and neither does the report. I am seeking to know whether the government has this on its agenda, what process of strategy development and implementation planning it is going to be undertaking and, importantly, whether it is going to involve the community. I mean community in the broad sense of the word: industry and the broader community, including environmental organisations.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:37): It is on the agenda.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:37): It would be useful to have time frames and an idea of the process. Is the process going to be consultative and is it going to happen in the near future rather than in the distant future?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:37): I am advised that we will be responding within the next three to four months.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:37): When the minister says responding, does he mean responding to the actual report?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:38): Yes; responding to that report and addressing those issues.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:38): I indicate that I will move Australian Greens amendments (40) and (41) on sheet 7676 together. Obviously, I am seeking leave to do so. These amendments relate to injunctions by interested persons.

The CHAIRMAN: Can I take it that you will not be proceeding with all the amendments prior to that on the running sheet?

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:38): Most of those relate to matters that we have traversed and on which I have gone down in a screaming heap. I am prioritising the issues for debate in the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN: Leave to move the amendments together is granted.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:39): I move Australian Greens amendments (40 and (41) on sheet 7676 together:

(40) Clause 528, page 519 (after line 14), at the end of subsection (2), add:

   ; (c) an interested person (other than an unincorporated organisation); or

(d) a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is an interested person.

(41) Clause 528, page 519 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:

Meaning of interested person—individuals

(5) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an individual is an interested person if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia, and:

   (a) the individual's interests have been, are, or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; or

   (b) the individual engaged in a series of activities for protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment, or research into biosecurity, at any time in the 2 years immediately before:

      (i) the conduct; or

      (ii) in the case of proposed conduct—making the application for the injunction.

Meaning of interested person—organisations

(6) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an organisation (whether incorporated or not) is an interested person if it was incorporated, or otherwise established, in Australia, and one or more of the following conditions are met:

   (a) the organisation's interests have been, are, or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct;

   (b) if the application relates to conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the conduct:

      (i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment, or research into biosecurity; and

      (ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment, or research into biosecurity;

   (c) if the application relates to proposed conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the making of the application:

      (i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment, or research into biosecurity; and

      (ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment, or research into biosecurity.

These amendments are about injunctions by interested persons and relate to issues around third-party review and injunction rights. They provide third-party rights for review of decisions to seek injunctions to restrain unlawful activity equivalent to those available under the EPBC Act for decisions and activities relating to imports of live specimens. Appeal rights under the Biosecurity Bill are lopsided and provide only for import applicants. Providing appeal rights to people acting in the public interest equivalent to the existing rights under the EPBC Act should improve the quality of decision making and increase accountability. We think it is particularly important that others are able to seek these injunctions and take these actions. As I articulated, we are looking for the equivalent activity that is available under the EPBC Act. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide for that. As I said, the appeal rights are lopsided. We think these are important amendments that deal with very significant issues.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:40): I move Greens amendment (45) on sheet 7676:

(45) Page 556 (after line 15), at the end of Chapter 10, add:

Part 6—Biosecurity Advisory Council

Division 1—Biosecurity Advisory Council establishment and functions

566A Establishment of Biosecurity Advisory Council

      The Biosecurity Advisory Council is established by this section.

566B Functions of Biosecurity Advisory Council

      The Biosecurity Advisory Council has the following functions:

   (a) to promote a coordinated strategic response to biosecurity issues;

   (b) to promote the shared responsibility in minimising all levels of biosecurity risk;

   (c) to provide a forum for discussing significant biosecurity issues in relation to meeting Australia's ALOP;

   (d) to provide policy advice on biosecurity issues to the Agriculture Minister, the Director of Biosecurity or to State or Territory governments;

   (e) to liaise with the Director of Biosecurity and the Inspector‑General of Biosecurity;

   (f) if requested to do so, to provide advice on any matters relating to biosecurity to the Agriculture Minister;

   (g) to engage in public consultation in relation to the performance of any of the above functions;

   (h) any other functions conferred on the Council by this Act or another law of the Commonwealth.

566C Directions by Agriculture Minister

(1) The Agriculture Minister may, by legislative instrument, give directions to the Biosecurity Advisory Council in relation to the performance of its functions.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) must be of a general nature only.

(3) The Biosecurity Advisory Council must comply with a direction under subsection (1).

Division 2—Membership of the Biosecurity Advisory Council

566D Membership of the Biosecurity Advisory Council

      The Biosecurity Advisory Council consists of the following members:

   (a) a Chair;

   (b) 9 other members.

566E Appointment of Biosecurity Advisory Council members

(1) Each member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council is to be appointed by the Agriculture Minister by written instrument.

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) In making appointments, the Agriculture Minister must ensure that he or she is satisfied that:

   (a) each member has a broad understanding of biosecurity issues; and

   (b) the members of the Council have, between them, expertise, skills or knowledge in the following fields:

      (i) livestock‑based industries;

      (ii) cultivated plant‑based industries;

      (iii) marine‑based industries;

      (iv) import transport and port‑related industries;

      (v) environmental conservation;

      (vi) marine ecology;

      (vii) terrestrial ecology;

      (viii) risk assessment;

      (ix) economics;

      (x) community engagement; and

   (c) each member is willing to engage with stakeholders relevant to their area of expertise, skill or knowledge.

(3) Before appointing a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council, the Agriculture Minister must consult:

   (a) if the member is the Chair—the Environment Minister and each State or Territory; and

   (b) otherwise—the Environment Minister.

(4) A member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council may hold office on either a full‑time or a part‑time basis.

566F Term of appointment for Biosecurity Advisory Council members

      A member of the Biosecurity Advisory holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

566G Acting Biosecurity Advisory Council members

Acting Chair

(1) The Agriculture Minister may appoint a person to act as the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council:

   (a) during a vacancy in the office of the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

   (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council:

      (i) as absent from duty or Australia; or

      (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Acting member (other than the Chair)

(2) The Agriculture Minister may appoint a person to act as a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council (other than the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council):

   (a) during a vacancy in the office of a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council (other than the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council), whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or

   (b) during any period, or during all periods, when a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council (other than the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council):

      (i) as absent from duty or Australia; or

      (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Eligibility

(3) A person is not eligible for appointment to act as:

   (a) the Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council; or

   (b) a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council (other than the Chair);

unless the Agriculture Minister is satisfied that the person meets the requirements of subsection 566E(2).

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Consultation

(4) The Agriculture Minister must consult the Environment Minister before appointing a person to act as a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council.

566H Remuneration

(1) A member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council is to be paid such remuneration as the Agriculture Minister determines in writing.

(2) A member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council is to be paid such allowances as the Minister determines in writing.

(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(4) Payments under this section are to be funded out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this section.

566J Resignation

(1) A member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council may resign his or her appointment by giving the Agriculture Minister a written resignation.

(2) The resignation takes effect on the day that it is received by the Agriculture Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

566K Termination of appointment

      The Agriculture Minister may at any time terminate the appointment of a member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council.

566L Other terms and conditions

      A member of the Biosecurity Advisory Council holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Agriculture Minister.

Division 3—Other matters

566M Persons assisting the Biosecurity Advisory Council

      The Biosecurity Advisory Council may be assisted by persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 and made available for the purpose by the Agriculture Secretary.

566N Commonwealth bodies to provide information to assist Biosecurity Advisory Council

(1) The Chair of the Biosecurity Advisory Council may request a Commonwealth body to provide information relevant to the Council's functions.

(2) A Commonwealth body must comply with a request under subsection (1) unless it is not practicable for the body to do so.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if providing the information would contravene another law of the Commonwealth.

This amendment relates to the biosecurity advisory council. It is an issue that both industry and environment groups are particularly interested in. We believe that there is a need for greater ability for the government to seek advice from a process that is outside government and that the government should be putting in place a process that enables them to seek advice from those that are outside the system, from people with a range of expertise in biosecurity issues, from an industry perspective, an expert perspective and an environmental perspective. If the government are not prepared to support this amendment, what are they prepared to do?

The functions of the biosecurity advisory council would include: to promote a coordinated strategic response to biosecurity issues; to promote the shared responsibility in minimising all levels of biosecurity risk; to provide a forum for discussing significant biosecurity issues in relation to meeting Australia's ALOP; to provide policy advice on biosecurity issues to the minister for agriculture and the states and territories; to liaise with the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, which the government has now very significantly put in place; if requested to do so, to provide advice on matters of biosecurity to the minister for agriculture; to engage in public consultation; and any other functions conferred on the council by this act and another law of the Commonwealth.

We think this is a particularly important function. As I said, if the government are not prepared to support this amendment, I would ask them what arrangements they are prepared to put in place that extend the ability for input from such a body of experts in industry, environmental protection or academia and other areas of expertise needed to address biosecurity issues.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:43): The government does not support Greens amendment (45), which, as Senator Siewert has outlined, seeks to establish a biosecurity advisory council. The proposed council does not need legislative powers to support its role. It could be established administratively. The department regularly utilises the expertise of consultative committees and groups to provide advice and coordinated approaches to management of biosecurity, including with state and territory governments, scientists, primary producers, farming associations and environmental NGOs, and does not require legislative power to engage or establish these groups.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:44): I note the government said that it could be put in place administratively. I make two points there. We want this in the legislation so that it is permanently there, because the current government may be committed to doing something—and I will seek that commitment in a moment—but it does not bind future governments, and that is our concern. I know there is a bit of difference of opinion between the way we see legislation and the way the government sees legislation; we actually believe there are certain things that need to be embedded in legislation and not left to administration—whether it be purely by a process that is set up, or by a regulation or a delegated instrument; those things actually need to be the legislation. That is why we think this should be in legislation—because it is such an important issue. So I will get that on the table: we think this has to be there in legislation and not left just to administration.

I ask the government: are they intending to set up such an advisory committee? And what is their time frame for setting up such an advisory committee? Is it going to be done by regulation? And if so, when do we expect to see those regulations?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:45): The minister already has a ministerial advisory council with significant biosecurity expertise. Is the government intending to set something up specifically on the basis that you have proposed—not at the moment. But the government is very happy to have discussions with you, Senator.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:46): I thank the minister for that response. We are very keen to progress those discussions, at least—given that you are not going to support this amendment—to get a firmer process, such as one using a delegated instrument or a regulation, by which to put in place an advisory committee.

I accept that invitation to hold further discussions about how we can progress that advisory committee and about how we can put such a committee in place in a way that is not just administrative; in terms of not having any form of protection for its existence. I thank the minister for that commitment.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (45) on sheet 7676 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:47): Greens amendment (46) on sheet 7676 relates to the Eminent Scientists Group. I move:

(46) Page 556, at the end of Chapter 10 (after proposed Part 6), add:

Part 7—Eminent Scientists Group

566P Establishment of Eminent Scientists Group

      The Eminent Scientists Group is established by this section.

566Q Functions of Eminent Scientists Group

(1) The Eminent Scientists Group has the function of reviewing and reporting to the Director of Biosecurity on the following:

   (a) draft BIRA reports prepared by the Director of Biosecurity;

   (b) submissions (if any) received in response to draft BIRA reports;

   (c) whether all relevant matters relating to the likely economic, social and environmental consequences of a disease or pest entering, emerging, establishing itself or spreading in Australian territory or a part of Australian territory have been considered in the draft BIRA reports;

   (d) whether the conclusions of a provisional BIRA report are scientifically reasonable, based on the material presented.

Timing of the report

(2) The Eminent Scientists Group must give the Director of Biosecurity the report on a review under subsection (1) within 60 days of receiving the draft BIRA report.

Directions from Director of Biosecurity

(3) In performing its functions, the Eminent Scientists Group must comply with any directions given to the Group by the Director of Biosecurity.

566R Appointment of Eminent Scientists Group members

(1) A member of the Eminent Scientists Group is to be appointed by the Director of Biosecurity by written instrument.

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) The Director of Biosecurity must, in appointing members to the Eminent Scientists Group, ensure that the composition of the Eminent Scientists Group reflects the diversity of the interests in the matter or matters that the Group will be dealing with.

(3) The Director of Biosecurity may designate a member of the Eminent Scientists Group as the Chair of the Group.

566S Terms and conditions of Eminent Scientists Group members

(1) A member of the Eminent Scientists Group holds office for the period determined by the Director of Biosecurity.

(2) A member of the Eminent Scientists Group holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not otherwise covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

(3) A member of the Eminent Scientists Group may resign his or her appointment by giving the Director of Biosecurity a written resignation.

(4) The Director of Biosecurity may at any time terminate the appointment of a member of the Eminent Scientists Group.

As we know, the Eminent Scientists Group is a body for which there is a lot of strong support. We believe that this is an essential component of how we deliver biosecurity, and that the Eminent Scientists Group is a key part of delivering for biosecurity.

The functions of such a group would be to review and report on biosecurity—draft BRIA reports prepared by the department; submissions received on any draft BRIA reports; whether all relevant matters relating to the likely economic, social and environmental consequences of a disease or pest emerging, entering, establishing itself or spreading in an Australian territory or a part of the Australian territory have been considered in such reports; and whether the conclusions of a provisional BRIA are scientifically reasonable based on material presented.

We have articulated in our amendments that the Eminent Scientists Group must give the report on a review under section 1 within 60 days of receiving the draft BRIA report; that the group be appointed; that a member of such a group holds office for a period determined by the department; that a member of the group holds office on terms and conditions—in relation to matters not otherwise covered by this act—that are determined by the minister; that a member of the group must resign his or her appointment by giving a written resignation; and that—obviously—we believe that we need a group of eminent scientists who are able to conduct independent review of the BIRA reports. As I said, we believe this is an essential component of biosecurity risk analysis, and it is concerning to us that this has not been better considered in this legislation. We know that there is a lot of a strong support both in the industry and particularly in environment groups for such a group. Such a group has existed in the past and has provided excellent support, so we ask the government to reconsider this amendment to establish such a group.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:50): The government does not support the proposed amendment. The government has outlined its intention to provide for external scientific input into the biosecurity import risk analysis process within supporting regulations and administrative guidance.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:51): I understand the government would not be supporting this amendment. I am deeply concerned. Again, it is the same argument as for the advisory group: we do not think it is appropriate to include this in delegated legislation and regulation. It is a key part of the approach that we take to biosecurity risk assessment and, therefore, it should be part of the legislation. The same argument stands: if it is in regulation, it is much easier to get rid of that regulation under a new government. This is long-term legislation. The Quarantine Act was in place for a very long time, and it has taken a long time to amend. You could not get rid of such a scientific group if it was actually in the legislation as easily as you could if it was in regulation. It takes a lot more thought to get that process changed. So our argument stands that the establishment of this particular group, because of its essential role in biosecurity risk assessment, should actually be part of the legislation.

I ask the government: when is the regulatory process going to be undertaken to put this body in place? What is the time frame for that and how soon can we expect to see it?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:52): The government will be seeking to implement its arrangements as soon as practicable after the legislation receives royal assent. I understand Senator Colbeck yesterday gave important assurances.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:52): Thank you. 'As soon as practicable'? I have heard that before! Are we talking about the same sort of time frame as mentioned before, within the next three or four months? Also, will there be consultation about the process?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:53): The Eminent Scientists Group already has an integral role. But, in relation to this legislation, there is a 12-month phase-in period.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:53): I am not trying to be pedantic here but I am trying, obviously, to get a clearer indication. Does that mean implementation within 12 months or that it will be in place during the phase-in period of this legislation, during the 12 months?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:53): During the 12 months, yes.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (46) on sheet 7676 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:54): We traversed quite a lot of the issues in the debate, yesterday. I am double-checking that I have discussed all the broader issues that I sought to discuss, that I have sought from the government the assurances that I wanted to seek about how we are going to implement this legislation and about getting it as rigorous as possible. The one area that we have not traversed is the general biosecurity obligation, which is Australian Greens amendment (38)—I beg your pardon, I am going backwards. I move Australian Greens amendment (38) on sheet 7676:

(38) Page 412 (after line 21), after clause 427, insert:

427A Biosecurity industry participant must mitigate risk when carrying out biosecurity activities

(1) A biosecurity industry participant contravenes this subsection if:

   (a) the biosecurity industry participant is authorised to carry out biosecurity activities in accordance with an approved arrangement covering the biosecurity industry participant; and

   (b) the biosecurity industry participant knows, or ought reasonably know, that carrying out the activity is likely to pose a biosecurity risk; and

   (c) the biosecurity industry participant fails to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise the risk.

Note 1: See section 427 in relation to when a biosecurity industry participant is authorised to carry out biosecurity activities in accordance with an approved arrangement covering the biosecurity industry participant.

Note 2: The physical elements of an offence against subsection (2) are set out in this subsection.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

427B Requirement to mitigate risk when carrying out biosecurity activities

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

   (a) the person:

      (i) handles or deals with goods that are subject to biosecurity control; or

      (ii) is an operator, person in charge of, or otherwise associated with, a conveyance that is subject to biosecurity control; or

      (iii) is in a biosecurity response zone; or

      (iv) is subject to a determination under subsection 445(1); or

      (v) has been given a direction under paragraph 446(1)(a); or

      (vi) has a human biosecurity control order in force in relation to them; or

      (vii) is subject to a requirement determined under subsection 477(1); or

      (viii) is subject to a direction given under subsection 478(1); or

      (ix) is subject to any other obligation under this Act; and

   (b) the person engages in conduct; and

   (c) the person knows, or ought reasonably know, that the conduct is likely to pose a biosecurity risk; and

   (d) the person fails to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise the risk.

Note: The physical elements of an offence against subsection (2) are set out in this subsection.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   50 penalty units.

This amendment relates to the general biosecurity obligation that requires all biosecurity participants to exercise a general biosecurity obligation to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent and minimise biosecurity risks with provisions similar to those in Queensland's Biosecurity Act 2014, which is one of the most modern of the acts around Australia.

The amendment will create an offence of accepting goods knowing, suspecting or in wilful disregard of whether the goods are illegally imported or derived from illegally imported goods. We think this is important because, no matter how comprehensive biosecurity laws are, there will inevitably be myriad actions and omissions contributing to biosecurity risks that are not addressed.

The bill review expressed and emphasised the importance of biosecurity as a shared responsibility which requires that biosecurity participants not only obey the law but generally take care to observe, report and minimise biosecurity risks, requiring all biosecurity participants to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent and minimise biosecurity risk. This will help achieve shared responsibility. This type of obligation was included in Queensland's Biosecurity Act 2014 and was proposed by the New South Wales government in its Biosecurity Bill 2014.

We believe that it is important that this general obligation is in place, to ensure that we require all participants in the process to a favourable and to make sure that they do take particular care. This whole bill is about our recognition that biosecurity is so important to our environment and to industry. This amendment will enforce that process. I ask the government why it will not support this amendment, particularly as the subject matter has already been included in the modernising of state and territory biosecurity legislation.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:57): The government, as Senator Siewert knows, does not support this proposed amendment. A broad, general obligation on the community with potentially higher penalty levels is problematic to administer. In relation to an additional provision on biosecurity industry participants, an offence on biosecurity industry participants—clause 428 of the bill—makes it an offence for a biosecurity industry participant to fail to carry out biosecurity activities in accordance with their approved arrangement. The primary outcome of these agreements is to manage biosecurity risk, so the government believes that the amendment is not necessary. The bill, through division 8 of part 1 of chapter 3 and clause 431, also imposes obligations on persons in charge of goods and biosecurity industry participants to report biosecurity incidents, with penalties for non-compliance.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:59): by leave—I move Greens amendments (36) and (37) on sheet 7676:

(36) Page 395 (after line 24), at the end of Part 2, add:

411A Publication of approved arrangement

(1) The relevant Director must publish, on the relevant Department's website, a proposed arrangement that is approved under this Part as soon as practicable.

(2) An approval that is published under subsection (1) must include:

   (a) any conditions to which the approved arrangement is subject; and

   (b) the period for which the approved arrangement is to be in force.

(3) The published approval must not include any protected information.

(37) Page 398 (after line 25), at the end of Part 3, add:

416A Publication of variation to approved arrangement

(1) The relevant Director must publish, on the relevant Department's website, the following as soon as practicable:

   (a) any variations to the conditions of an approved arrangement under this Division;

   (b) any variations to approved arrangements.

(2) The published variations must not include any protected information.

I indicate that these will be the last amendments that I will be moving. These amendments relate to the public release of approved arrangements to be published on the departmental website. The problem that a lot of community members are having—and there has been a long history of this—is that biosecurity is in fact characterised by a lack of transparency. We believe that publishing of approved arrangements would allow greater oversight. These amendments have the support of a wide variety of stakeholders. We believe it is important that these arrangements are released. I understand that some arrangements may be commercial-in-confidence. I understand that process, but we think that this should not stop some form of the release of these approved arrangements.

I understand that the government are going to say no to these amendments—they have telegraphed that fairly clearly—but I ask the government what they are prepared to do to increase transparency on this issue. I think it would help a lot in terms of people understanding how they come to decisions and the broader community's understanding of biosecurity.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:01): On this matter at this time, we will need to agree to disagree. The government does not support proposed amendments (36) and (37). As approved arrangements are voluntary agreements between private entities and the government, the information is protected information and may represent confidential, commercial or sensitive information which is not appropriate to publish. Having said that, over the implementation period the government is happy to examine ways of progressing further transparency, but being ever mindful of the importance of commercial confidentiality.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:02): I must say that that was the answer that I was expecting. I am still disappointed. Can I seek a commitment from government that they will look at this issue of transparency, that there is a recognition that there is a lack of transparency in understanding these arrangements, and that they will seek to consult? I would like to be included in that process.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:02): The government will consult on these issues. I note Senator Siewert's desire to be consulted. In response, I would say that obviously there is no show without Punch.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:02): I thank the minister for that. I ask whether that means that they do understand the issues around transparency and the need for greater understanding by the community, particularly key stakeholders, in respect of some of the decisions and arrangements that are made.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:03): Yes, the government does obviously appreciate the desire for maximum transparency, but that has to be balanced with other considerations of commercial confidentiality. That is always the balance. We are aware of the tension and the issues, and we will consult.

Question negatived.

Biosecurity Bill 2014, as amended, agreed to; Biosecurity (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2014 agreed to.

Biosecurity Bill 2014 reported with amendments; Biosecurity (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2014, Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2014 reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:05): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:06): Labor senators oppose the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 because it is very bad policy and very bad legislation. A Bureau of Meteorology report from 2013 showed that, between the years 2050 and 2100, the effects of El Nino are set to intensify, causing lower than average rainfall, or even drought, on Australia's eastern seaboard. To help combat the effects of El Nino, in 2012 the former Labor government extended the Howard government's National Water Commission. The National Water Commission provided an ongoing robust and transparent oversight of all Australian governments' water reform commitments, in particular the important National Water Initiative. Labor believed the National Water Commission was the best means of providing independent assurance on the progress of all governments, particularly for the National Water Initiative and Murray-Darling Basin reforms. Those reforms are very important in my home state of South Australia, where we are disproportionately affected by droughts caused by El Nino.

Ongoing oversight of national water reforms is crucial to Australia's work towards effective and efficient water management and use—particularly in times when the threat of El Nino is heightened. The importance of water in securing Australia's economic and environmental future demands no less—yet today the Senate is faced with the repeal of the National Water Commission. As a South Australian, I cannot see any merit or benefit whatsoever in abolishing this very important independent authority. This bill effectively abolishes an independent expert agency with important functions for both urban water services and the Murray-Darling Basin—important functions that are still required today.

Some of those important functions include auditing the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing agreed milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; playing a role in the assessment of Carbon Farming Initiative proposals; and publishing water market reports and national performance reports for metropolitan, regional and rural water agencies. These functions are fundamental to the management of water resources in this country, and even more so for South Australia, where of course water resources are very limited. The NWC also has a key role in providing water sector knowledge leadership, investing in studies or research where knowledge gaps were identified, and developing tools to assist the delivery of technical tasks and generating discussion amongst stakeholders. In many respects this role is critical to non-government stakeholders because it provides the only forum to remain informed and abreast of the issues, to access essential information and to participate in public discussion of the issues.

When it comes to positive environmental reforms, the coalition government has not, unfortunately, had a good track record so far, and this was highlighted in last night's budget. In the 2015 federal budget, climate change and environmental reform got barely a mention. It is a very disturbing budget from the point of view of anybody in this country who is concerned about environmental reforms and the protection of our environment for the future. Last year, we saw the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, humiliated by world leaders as he was forced to acknowledge that climate change was a priority. Also, embarrassingly, he had to backflip on his initial refusal to contribute to the Green Climate Fund—an international fund to support environmental reform. He was pressured by comparable countries to us to make a contribution to that fund. Just last month, the government released a so-called energy white paper which made no link whatsoever between energy and climate change. Of course, we know the reason for that, and that is that the federal government is hostage to people who do not believe in climate change, despite repeated influential reports from independent authorities about the devastating effects of rapidly increasing climate change caused by global carbon emissions.

A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation on the Murray-Darling Basin shows that the basin is still not protected and that much more needs to be done to support the important Murray-Darling river system. Of the 20 indicators mentioned in that report, seven are red lights while only two are tracking well. The report states that the government has made 'limited progress' on establishing Indigenous water rights, despite 'significant discussion and research'. It also notes that the coalition's cap on water buybacks is 'likely to drive up the cost and reduce the availability of water for the environment'.

The bill that we are discussing here today is yet another step in the wrong direction for the Abbott government's environmental credentials. We have already seen the government slash funding for the Landcare and Caring for Our Country projects that were assisting in returning health to the Murray-Darling system. In trying to abolish the National Water Commission, the coalition is putting a water system of national environmental significance, the Murray-Darling, at risk.

In last night's budget, sadly but not unexpectedly, there was, as I said, very little for the environment and climate change. Unfortunately, the cuts to funding for the Natural Heritage Trust component of the Landcare program of $12.3 million over five years will have severe and lasting effects. Furthermore, the cuts of $22.7 million over two years for water buybacks in the basin could potentially jeopardise full implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Murray-Darling is a lifeline for my home state of South Australia. There are thousands of people and hundreds of communities, flora, fauna, ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on the river. The successful rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is crucial to the future of all of those communities and all of those environmental considerations in South Australia. While the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is still in a relatively early stage of its implementation, the National Water Commission's a role in auditing its implementation and associated water resource plans was and is especially important. Any changes to the NWC will risk the plan and subsequently risk a vital resource for South Australia. According to the South Australian Labor government, which has campaigned very hard to protect and enhance the environmental security of the Murray-Darling, any changes to the NWC will also risk a loss of knowledge, leadership and expertise as well as effective support for, and scrutiny of, water reform efforts. The South Australian Labor government believes there is a strong argument for retaining the National Water Commission to ensure effective delivery of the Basin Plan.

There are many surprising things about the legislation but what surprises me in particular is the support it is receiving from South Australian members of the coalition in this chamber, in particular. So, although a 2011 COAG review stated that the National Water Commission 'has become a credible specialist organisation in water reform', South Australian senators on the other side of the chamber are still backing the abolition of the National Water Commission. I note that in his former capacity in the environment portfolio, Senator Birmingham promoted the proud record of achievement of the National Water Commission, and that is recorded in Hansard numerous times. Senator Birmingham previously went on record as saying that the National Water Commission is integral to getting water reform right in this country. He was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year as saying—about the National Water Commission—'Nowadays it is nothing more than a government-funded commentary organisation.' Well, what a turnaround in the opinion of that coalition senator—to disparage the National Water Commission, an independent expert authority, in such a way. But of course, we know the coalition government has no truck with independent advice from respectable organisations, and it has persistently tried to abolish or demolish, or underfund or de-fund, numerous independent expert advice organisations, including the Climate Commission. Senator Birmingham also stood in this place in February 2012 and reiterated that one of the first issues he addressed in parliament was the future of the River Murray. He said:

It was partly out of my own personal concerns for better management of the Murray, it was partly as a result of it being the top issue confronting people in my home state of South Australia and it was partly a result of the groundbreaking announcement made by then Prime Minister John Howard in his Australia Day speech of 2007 committing to deliver national management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

But now we see that Senator Birmingham and other coalition senators have changed their tune. Once they were passionate to save the Murray-Darling Basin, and had the plan implemented; but today they are going to support the abolition of the National Water Commission which was set up to do exactly that—to assist in the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to secure the future of the Murray-Darling Basin.

I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee examined the provisions of this bill last year. At that inquiry, senators would have heard—or will have subsequently read—first, the benefits of the National Water Commission that were outlined in the comments by Dr Stuart Khan of the University of New South Wales:

Throughout the last decade, the oversight of the National Water Commission ensured the implementations of advances in many of the objectives laid out in the NWI. Water trading capacity has improved agricultural productivity for many rural Australians. Formal allocation of water to the environment has revived the long-term survival prospects for wetlands and other ecosystems. Major urban water supplies have been bolstered, drastically reducing the likelihood of water restrictions being imposed for most Australians in the coming decades. Drought-plagued States of the USA, such as California, Colorado and Arizona, now point to Australia's NWI as a successful example of cooperation to achieve more sustainable water management.

That is a glowing accolade for Australia's water management under the National Water Commission and under the National Water Initiative. Senators taking part in that inquiry would also have heard the Environmental Farmers Network's submission, which stated:

An independent body with a professional approach and an untrammelled long term view is seen as invaluable in transcending the pressures of short term election cycles and in rationally assessing options and policy directions.

In fact, during the whole inquiry there was very little support for this bill from stakeholders. The urban water industry wants the National Water Commission retained. Environmental scientists want the National Water Commission retained. Traditional owners want the National Water Commission retained. Even groups that are not exercised by the idea that the NWC could be abolished, such as the National Farmers' Federation, admit that the Productivity Commission's own legislation would need to be amended to retain the important stakeholder engagement and expertise functions that are held within the National Water Commission. Nevertheless, despite all the objections from witnesses to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate environment committee, still the coalition are intending to pursue the abolition of the National Water Commission.

Handing over the functions of the commission to the Productivity Commission totally ignores the expertise, the independence and the experience of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission is not equipped to undertake the audit and assessment functions of the National Water Commission, and handing over the functions will leave our water resources worse off. Of course, that will be devastating to my home state of South Australia, where every drop of water is precious.

We know the government must step up and take the protection of our resources seriously, particularly in a situation when climate change is causing longer droughts, with greater impacts, in Australia. We all know also that the government's excuse that this bill will help in their so-called budget savings is a farce; you only have to look at last night's budget to see that reinforced. This is merely taking more money out of the environment to shore up the Prime Minister's job, going into a future election.

The government has given no indication so far that it will address the weaknesses in this bill, which include the weakness of giving this responsibility to the Productivity Commission, which as I said does not have the capacity, legislative or otherwise, to do the work of the National Water Commission has done. Perhaps the Australian Conservation Foundation said it best when they said:

To abolish the National Water Commission (NWC) and give responsibility of water management to the Productivity Commission would be a short-sighted and backward step, particularly in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the Productivity Commission. It would likely result in another wave of conflicts over water due to the absence of what all sides regard as a well-respected expert independent body.

'A well-respected expert independent body': that is why most of the submitters to the environment committee's inquiry into this bill supported the retention of the National Water Commission. Without an independent agency such as the commission, not only is there a risk of inefficient management and the prospect of increased water costs for stakeholders but there is also the risk of significant backsliding on environmental reform as it applies to water in particular. That will jeopardise the agreement between the states to pursue reform in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as well as the little bit of multiparty support in this place that there has been for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I oppose this bill. It is a disturbing piece of legislation—not surprising, of course, from a government that has absolutely no environmental credentials or credibility. I urge senators, particularly my South Australian coalition colleagues in this place, to think about what they are doing when they support the abolition of this very valuable National Water Commission.

Senator LAZARUS (Queensland) (10:23): I will not speak for a long time but I just want to make sure that everyone understands my attitude towards this piece of legislation, the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill I make it perfectly clear that I will be voting against the abolition of the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission is an independent statutory authority that was established to provide advice on national water issues to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, and the Australian government. The commission is responsible for providing independent assurance of government's progress on the management of water.

In my home state of Queensland, some 75 per cent of the state is in drought. In Western Queensland, farmers have not seen decent rain for years. The land is dried up to the point where nothing will grow, animals are dying through dehydration, farms and communities are closing, and farmers are killing themselves. The land has become an absolute dust bowl. In other parts of Queensland, CSG mining is affecting the underground watertable, drying up bores and wells and contaminating what water is left on the land.

You cannot tell me that this country does not need a national organisation dedicated to the management of water across this country. If the Romans could build aqueducts thousands of years ago and shift water across Europe, surely Australia can better manage its water today. If we can build piping across the country to shift gas, surely we can build infrastructure to shift water.

I cannot and I will not support the abolition of the National Water Commission. Funding needs to be returned to this organisation immediately. The organisation needs increased powers to manage water across the country and to work with all states to achieve the efficient and effective distribution of water to all key areas across this wide country. We are in crisis in this country because much of this country is in drought. Possibly the next war we fight will be over water. It is one of our most precious resources and it deserves the most comprehensive focus, resources and management possible.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) (10:26): I thank those people who have spoken in relation to this debate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Education and Training) (10:33): by leave—I move government amendments on sheet ZA379 as revised:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "1 January 2015", substitute "the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent".

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 1), insert:

Productivity Commission Act 1998

1A Section 25

   Before "The", insert "(1)".

1B At the end of section 25

   Add:

(2) Despite subsection (1), the Minister must appoint an Associate Commissioner for the purposes of an inquiry on the matter mentioned in subsection 87(1) or (2) or 88(1) or (2) of the Water Act 2007.

(3) An Associate Commissioner appointed under subsection (2) must have extensive skills and experience in water resource management.

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 17), at the end of the heading to subsection 87(3), add "etc.".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 26), after subsection 87(3), insert:

   (3A) Once the matter has been referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Chair of the Productivity Commission must establish a stakeholder working group in accordance with section 89.

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 23), at the end of the heading to subsection 88(3), add "etc.".

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 3), after subsection 88(3), insert:

   (3A) Once the matter has been referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Chair of the Productivity Commission must establish a stakeholder working group in accordance with section 89.

Regard to be had to objectives of National Water Initiative

   (3B) When conducting an inquiry, the Productivity Commission must have regard to the objectives provided for in clause 23 of the National Water Initiative.

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 14), at the end of Part 3, add:

89 Stakeholder working group

(1) A stakeholder working group is to be established for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry (a referred matter).

(2) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter:

   (a) is to exchange information and views on the referred matter or any issues relevant to it; and

   (b) may provide advice to the Productivity Commission on the referred matter or any issues relevant to it.

(3) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter is to consist of such persons as the Chair of the Productivity Commission thinks fit who are representative of any:

   (a) agricultural, environmental, industry, Indigenous or urban water body; or

   (b) other body with an interest in the referred matter.

(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), the Chair of the Productivity Commission may determine:

   (a) any allowances that are payable to a member of a stakeholder working group in relation to his or her contribution as a member of the stakeholder working group; and

   (b) any other matter relating to the functioning of a stakeholder working group.

(5) Despite the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, a member of a stakeholder working group is not to be paid any remuneration in relation to his or her contribution as a member of the stakeholder working group.

(6) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter must meet at least twice about the referred matter before the Productivity Commission submits its report on the matter to the Productivity Minister.

(7) To avoid doubt, a member of a stakeholder working group is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 6), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of final reporting period, substitute:

   (b) ending at the end of the day occurring before the transition time.

Also I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to these government amendments.

Senator Rhiannon: I am sorry, I did not see the amendments circulated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Lines ): The amendments have been circulated, Senator Rhiannon. We can get a copy to you.

Senator Rhiannon: Can the minister just outline them briefly—which he was probably going to do—so we have got some clarity?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Rhiannon. I call the minister.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Education and Training) (10:34): Senator Rhiannon and senators, of course, this debate has recommenced from earlier sessions, and these amendments were circulated in earlier sessions. So I appreciate they may not be the top of the pile of papers on your desks. But they certainly are available to all senators and have been circulated previously.

These amendments are a result of some constructive discussions with various crossbenchers, and I thank the various crossbenchers for their assistance and cooperation in the discussion on this legislation. It is important, given that a summing-up speech was not given by the government in relation to this legislation, to emphasise once again that the abolition of the National Water Commission is in no way changing or varying the government's commitment to water reform in Australia or the government's commitment to seeing the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. It is simply about ensuring the delivery of that plan and about ensuring that the application of water reform in Australia occurs in the most efficient way possible. It is the government's view that the expense and cost of having an additional, stand-alone statutory authority is unnecessary, that its key functions in terms of undertaking the assessments on the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the assessment on the implementation of the National Water Initiative can be done in alternative ways without having that stand-alone entity.

These amendments that are before the chamber strengthen some of the consultation provisions and some of the arrangements for the conduct of those inquiries. To take the Senate through them, as Senator Rhiannon has requested, we have some additional requirements to the legislation that require the appointment of an Associate Commissioner for the purposes particularly of the Water Act and that that commissioner must have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. That is ensuring that when the triennial assessment against the National Water Initiative is undertaken we actually have in place appropriate arrangements whereby there is an expert as part of that assessment process in the Productivity Commission. There are some further changes that ensure that a stakeholder reference group is established within the Productivity Commission to, again, add expertise and make sure that the Productivity Commission is well placed to undertake a full, thorough and proper assessment of the application of the National Water Initiative.

There are some further and similar amendments, most of which are more procedural in their matters, about the establishment of the state border reference group and what its composition will be, ensuring of course that people from agriculture, industry, the environment, Indigenous communities, urban water and other interested parties will form part of that stakeholder reference group. So, really, these amendments are simply strengthening the provisions in the bill to ensure that we have proper ongoing consideration of assessments around the National Water Initiatives and make sure that the Productivity Commission is well placed to do so. I am sure and I hope and trust that all senators, regardless of their views in relation to the overall legislation, would see these as being sensible amendments that strengthen the provisions in the bill.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:39): I indicate that I did not get an opportunity—and I bear responsibility for this—to speak on the second reading stages of the bill. I can indicate that I voted against this bill because I think when it comes to issues of water it is worth having a specialist body, such as the National Water Commission, to focus solely on these issues, rather than having them wrapped in with the Productivity Commission. Even though I have a lot of regard for the Productivity Commission, I think that having a specialist body with that level of knowledge is absolutely desirable and preferable to having this being rolled into the Productivity Commission. It raises issues of whether there will be sufficient time, in Senate estimates for instance, for the Productivity Commission's proposed new role to be adequately ventilated and be subjected to adequate questioning.

The National Water Commission did perform a lot of valuable work, and it still performs that work even though it has been effectively gutted through its funding being taken away. But it played a role in terms of water savings, re-use strategies and technology. Stormwater harvesting is another issue that I feel very passionately about. I know that Senator Rhiannon has a particular interest in that. I think it is important to have a body that is robustly independent and can fearlessly say to any government of any persuasion that you are going down the wrong path in relation to a water strategy. I cannot see that the Productivity Commission, as good and as capable as they are, will see itself as having the role of being a robust advocate for policy concerns in the water sphere. I remember that when I was elected to this place South Australia was in the middle of one of its worst droughts, as was much the of the nation. The Murray was little more than a creek and river banks were collapsing on themselves. It was an absolute crisis. I know that Senator Birmingham, the minister back then, was also a passionate advocate for a solution for the River Murray. I saw the National Water Commission as playing an integral role—being a watchdog in a sense. I think we will lose that with respect to this particular bill. We need a national independent body to monitor and oversee water use, a body that takes the issue out of the hands of the states and treats our national resource as just that: a national resource.

I am concerned about these changes. I met with the parliamentary secretary, Mr Baldwin, two nights ago, and I do acknowledge that the government has attempted to deal with some of these concerns. I appreciate the time and the effort Mr Baldwin and the minister have made on this, but I still think it is a second-best solution to having a strong and robust National Water Commission in the scheme of managing this nation's water policy.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (10:42): The opposition does not support these amendments, just as we do not support the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014, in its entirety, because as we have outlined it is lazy and short-sighted and I think these amendments are a cynical last-minute attempt to gain support for a dud policy. They do not go anywhere near far enough to ensure that the Productivity Commission can retain the value of the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission, as has been outlined by my Senate colleagues on this side of the chamber, particularly just recently by Senator McEwen, is an independent, expert authority whose work has not been completed, because water reform in this country has not been completed. But the government seems to be bent on getting rid of independent, expert authorities, be it the Climate Commission and now the National Water Commission. It is incredibly short-sighted.

Appointing an associate commissioner in this amendment, with expertise in water management, would of course add value to its work in water, should the National Water Commission be abolished. We acknowledge that. Also, binding the Productivity Commission to convening a stakeholder working group would also lend greater credibility to its work on water management. But these amendments really are just window dressing. They are a last-minute attempt to gain some support for this policy, which is just so incredibly short-sighted, when water reform in this country has not been completed.

We know that this commission was an initiative established by John Howard to deliver the National Water Initiative. The coalition government are now walking away from that initiative that was set up by the then Liberal coalition government. It is a little hypocritical, it threatens all of the progress that the National Water Initiative has gained and it betrays stakeholders who depend on effective national water reform in this country. For all of those reasons, the opposition will not be supporting these amendments.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (10:45): The Greens do not support the amendments in the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014. The amendments do not improve the situation. We need to remember that this legislation is about removing the National Water Commission and that once the legislation has gone through that body is gone. The amendments that we now have before us to the Productivity Commission are not a saviour in any way at all, and that is what we need to be focusing on in this aspect of the debate. We are about to lose a body that has great expertise, that brings the independence that is so critically needed to something that is so fundamental to this country and to this continent—a very dry continent. We have heard many speakers in the second reading debate refer to the challenges with el Nino that are possibly coming on. Individual farmers are experiencing drought. Some of the National Party members are speaking about these issues regularly, and here we have a situation where National Party members will be voting with the Liberal Party to ditch this most important body that is not favouring any side of politics—but it is needed for our economy, our environment, our livelihood, for the very way our rural areas work and for how we protect the environment. It is right across so many areas.

That is why it is worth reminding ourselves of what will be lost—like the Murray-Darling Basin plan, which is not completed yet, and which is critical to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia. That work will continue, but it is a reminder of why we need the National Water Commission in so many areas—particularly in New South Wales, which I obviously know well, as I come from there, but increasingly in other states. Conflicts between mining, development, farming, local environment protection are very challenging issues for our governments to work out. For us as lawmakers, this is where this body is so urgently needed. What possessed the government to come up with this legislation? Let us remember where it comes from. It comes out of the very ugly 2014 budget—a budget that will go down in the history of budgets. When else have we had a budget that people talked about for a whole year? The moves by the government to get rid of the National Water Commission is again an attempt to save money, which is one of the key aspects of this legislation. That is where this bill has come from.

On the second day after the 2015 budget came down, surely this government should have come to its senses. They remembered a few things in the budget that were bad news for the people of Australia and shifted away from them to some extent. Surely this should be one item that is put into the basket of 'we will just rescue that from the 2014 budget, and we will not pursue it', because the National Water Commission is our only independent body that oversees water policies in this country. That is what we are about to lose. Again, I would remind you that these amendments add nothing. They do not retrieve the situation at all. It is an enormous setback. It is a setback for our country and it is obviously a setback for wise water policies. But I would say it is particularly a setback for people in rural communities. That is where lack of water hits first, and hits hard.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Education and Training) (10:49): I want to comment in relation to a few points made by the previous contributors. Firstly, I think it is quite irrational of the Labor Party and the Greens to oppose these amendments. As I said in moving them, I respect the right of those other senators who wish to oppose the bill to oppose the bill. But these amendments, should this bill be passed, will strengthen arrangements in the future, which I would have thought would have been welcomed by all senators. In fact Senator Singh, in her contribution, said that the establishment of an associate commissioner for the purposes of undertaking the inquiries 'would add value'. Senator Singh said that the establishment of the stakeholder working group proposed by these amendments 'would lend greater credibility'. If they are going to add value and lend greater credibility, why would you vote against the amendments? You can still maintain your position of opposition to the overall package, but these amendments will strengthen the package if it goes through. Frankly, I think it is irresponsible of Labor and the Greens to be opposing amendments that clearly make sense and clearly will ensure that, should this bill pass, there will be better arrangements in the future. In effect, by voting against these amendments they are saying: 'Should the bill pass, we want weaker arrangements in the future.' That is a very foolish position to take in terms of being constructive in the development of legislation in this chamber.

More generally, Senator Singh noted that the National Water Commission was established under the Howard government. That is correct. It was also established with a sunset clause and a provision at the time; it was never envisaged that it would be an entity there forever. It was always recognised that as an entity it had some particular roles to be undertaken and that in time, as the skills and establishment of water architecture and policy at the Commonwealth level further developed through the water reform process, there may be better and more efficient ways to have the jobs of the National Water Commission undertaken. I think it is important to remind senators that we do have an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority that will continue to do its jobs, one of which is managing the overall operations of the Murray-Darling river system. The other job it does is the development and management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It still does those two jobs, quite clearly, and will continue to do so under these reforms.

In relation to some broader water policy issues, we have an independent expert scientific committee that provides advice to government on water issues in relation to matters like coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. It is an independent body providing advice to government and it will continue its operation.

The Department of Environment continues their work, particularly in the recovery of water, in relation to meeting the objects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is important for all senators and those listening to this debate to understand that the National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and does not recover the water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. All it does in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is undertake a five-early assessment of compliance against it. The government's assessment is that that work, along with the work in relation to the three-yearly assessment of the National Water Initiative, can be undertaken more efficiently by having the Productivity Commission do it, instead of having a separate body, with all of the overheads and costs in place. We think the Productivity Commission is well placed to do so. They have done previous reports in relation to water policy, including during the life of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission, as it currently stands, even without the amendments proposed, has a very strong expertise in relation to water policy.

Mr Harris, the chairman of the Productivity Commission, has noted in correspondence with some of the crossbenchers that both he and Daryl Quinlivan, the head of office at the commission, were previous commissioners of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and have a strong interest in water policy as a result of that work. Other members of the commission's executive have also worked on water policy in the past, and are therefore well placed to approach these tasks with a good knowledge base and a strong professional interest.

But we have acknowledged that we can strengthen the Productivity Commission's capacity to do this. We are, of course, funding them to do this work in the future. The amendments before us strengthen their capacity to do this work by providing for the appointment of the associate commissioner, who will have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. Complementing that work of the associate commissioner and the Productivity Commission in general, we require the establishment of a stakeholder reference working group, which will provide for a raft of other skills and experience to come in. Frankly, it will probably lead to a more independent, more robust and more consultative arrangement, as these reviews are undertaken, than we have through the existing framework.

I commend the amendments to the Senate. I am confident that what we will see is a robust and independent framework in future, that will ensure that we get on with the job of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, and that we ultimately have in place arrangements that provide for strong and robust critiquing of water policy around Australia, as we currently have, in the same time frames as we currently have, just in a more efficient manner.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (10:55): I will put a question to Senator Birmingham, but firstly I cannot let that go. He is trying to justify these amendments by saying that the opposition is somehow weakening the government's own bill through not supporting these amendments. It is, in fact, the government that is weakening water reform in this country by having this bill pass in this place. It is certainly not the opposition who want to weaken water reform; in fact, we want to continue to strengthen water reform and we support the National Water Initiative through the continuation of the National Water Commission, because we know the work of the National Water Initiative—carried out by this independent expert body—has not been completed.

It was in fact former prime minister John Howard who saw the need to establish this National Water Commission to fulfil this task of water reform. So it is not, in any way whatsoever, the opposition that is weakening the water initiatives in this country; the government is weakening them by putting forward an abolition bill which gets rid of the National Water Commission.

I ask the minister, in light of the fact that the National Water Initiative has the task of water reform—and the National Water Commission is intrinsic in carrying out that role—and in light of the fact that that is not completed, what is the justification, other than this word of 'efficiency'? This would mean a saving of only .0001 per cent of its expenditure in the forward estimates.

How can you justify abolishing this independent expert body? Without it the future of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be continued to be threatened and our water resources will be left worse off. How can you justify its abolition, when your former prime minister John Howard saw the need to set it up to ensure that water initiatives and water reforms were carried out in this country?

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Education and Training) (10:58): Firstly, in relation to Senator Singh's preamble, I will let others form a judgement on the basis of Senator Singh's trying to justify why it is that she and the Labor Party are voting against amendments that she says, in her own words, would add value and lend greater credibility. They were her words. She says the amendments would add value and lend greater credibility but she is going to vote against those amendments. It is a nonsensical position but others can form their own judgements; I will not re-litigate the arguments, there.

In relation to Senator Singh's overall question, 'Why do this?' as a government we believe that if you can get things done more efficiently it is worth doing so. The budget savings from this measure amount to around $20 million. I am sorry that Senator Singh does not think that $20 million of taxpayers' money is worth saving if you can save it. We on this side of the house do believe it is worth saving if you can save it. We do not believe that $20 million is inconsequential. It may only be a small fraction of the enormous scale of government expenditure that occurs each year, but it is still $20 million. It is still $20 million that taxpayers are paying for or that we have to borrow, sadly, in our current deficit situation. So we believe it is well worth saving. But we are doing so in a manner that we think is completely responsible.

We are not saving all of the costs associated with the National Water Commission; we are, instead, directing funding from National Water Commission appropriations to the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and the Productivity Commission so that the various important functions that we value in the National Water Commission can be continued into the future

The funding required to undertake the work has been redirected to other agencies to ensure that work is undertaken whilst getting the savings that we can without jeopardising the quality of the work in place.

Senator Singh can claim time and time again that, somehow, the loss of the National Water Commission will endanger delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I am yet to hear any evidence that demonstrates how that could be the case. Ultimately, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, approved by this parliament, and delivered through the work, largely, of the Department of the Environment working with the states. It is the Department of the Environment that undertakes all of the water-recovery activities associated with delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It does not do work in implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Its role is to undertake a five-yearly assessment of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That five-yearly assessment will still be undertaken every five years by the Productivity Commission instead.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Sterle ): The question is that amendments (1) to (8) on revised sheet ZA379 moved by the minister now be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Education and Training) (11:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:12): I rise to indicate that the opposition supports the second reading of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The government has circulated amendments that the opposition has had very little time to consider. However, I am able to indicate that, subject to satisfactory considerations of the amendments in the committee stage, the opposition will be in a position to support an amended bill.

In December last year, the Federal Court made a determination that the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 not only covers registered ships trading interstate or overseas but also extends to cover all employees on all registered ships if they are owned by an Australian trading corporation, an Australian financial corporation or a foreign corporation. The decision applies no matter whether they are trading in Australia or what the business of the ship may be, and that includes ships engaged in intrastate work.

Labor acknowledges that the Federal Court's decision has created uncertainty in the sector and consequently we have engaged with the industry to find a solution. This is also why we worked cooperatively with the government to expedite a Senate committee process to investigate the government's original bill. What the Senate committee process evidenced was that the original government bill was not the solution. The government had clearly not conducted a proper consultative process in the drafting of the original legislation. Key employer bodies and unions were not adequately consulted.

Acknowledging that the Federal Court's decision had created uncertainty, and after engaging with stakeholders, the opposition asked the government to urgently convene industry talks to find a workable solution. I am pleased that the government heeded the advice of the opposition and convened those talks with the Australian Shipowners Association, the Maritime Union of Australia and other interested parties. Through those consultations, the industry has been able to arrive at a solution to address the immediate impact of the Federal Court decision, which is the amended bill.

This amended bill will provide certainty. However, it is incumbent upon the government to sit down once again with the industry stakeholders, including employers and unions, to work on a longer term solution. I also note that the government has given an undertaking to monitor the impact of this legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the industry stakeholders, including the Australian Shipowners Association and the Maritime Union of Australia, for their genuine and constructive efforts.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (11:15): As Chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I too rise to speak to the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The Federal Court's decision in Sampson Maritime Pty Ltd and Aucote—know as the Aucote decision—has resulted in a profound shift in workers compensation and work health and safety arrangements in the Australian maritime industry under the Seacare workers compensation scheme. This bill protects the viability of the Commonwealth Seacare scheme by restoring certainty about the historical coverage of the scheme for all participants, including seafarers and their representatives, employers, insurers and regulators. Importantly, this bill seeks to ensure that all previous claims lodged under the scheme between 1993 and now continue to be valid. These claims are currently at risk as a result of the court decision.

Successive governments at both Commonwealth and state and territory levels, maritime regulators, employers and seafarers have operated on the basis that the Seacare scheme generally applies to ships and units engaged in interstate and international trade or commerce. It was also widely understood that state and territory workers compensation and work health and safety laws apply to employees on ships engaged in intrastate voyages. The court's decision has effectively expanded coverage of the Seacare scheme to intrastate voyages. Before the Aucote decision, the Seacare scheme was understood to apply to around 330 ships. Following the decision, the Seacare scheme could cover as many as 11,000 ships and maybe more, with potentially retrospective effect going back to 1993. Whereas the Commonwealth was responsible for regulating workers compensation and work health and safety for a small proportion of the maritime industry before the decision, it now has the responsibility for the vast majority of the industry. This responsibility cannot be supported from existing resources as the scheme and its funding were never designed to accommodate such costs. It represents a massive cost shift from the states to the Commonwealth and could require the recouping of insurance fees and moneys from formerly injured workers going back to 1993.

For historical purposes, the bill seeks to clarify the distinction between Commonwealth and state coverage of workers compensation and work health and safety for seafarers that was understood to exist since the commencement of the Seacare scheme. To effectively achieve this, the bill applies retrospectively to any injury, loss or damage suffered by any employee on or after the commencement of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in 1993. Critically, this will ensure that past claims will not be distributed. This approach ensures that there is certainty as to what a seafarer's appropriate workers compensation rights are and have been. This bill does not seek to change pre-existing workers compensation entitlements and work health and safety protection for seafarers. This bill is about providing certainty regarding past actions for maritime industry employers and employees.

This bill will amend the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to address a recent Federal Court decision and expand the scope of the act from what it was understood to be, which could have had impact on historical claims under the scheme. To put this into perspective, as I mentioned, the scheme was never actually designed to cover the number of ships that this court decision obliges it to do, potentially expanding it to 11,000 ships. We do not have those resources. The states are very quick and comfortable to cost shift towards the Commonwealth, and it has been quite productive, I think, for both the opposition and the government to come to a position where we put the Commonwealth's future and the Commonwealth's perspective first. I congratulate all involved in coming up with that outcome. I also want to thank the unions, the employer groups and the Seacare authority for working with the government to reach a consensus approach on this bill. As you know, amendments to the bill are being circulated in the chamber.

The Seacare scheme is, effectively, relatively confined in scope, only applying to employers and employees in the defined part of the broader maritime industry. The Seacare scheme has been commonly understood to apply to ships and units engaged in interstate or international trade. Ships and units engaged in intrastate trade—that is, those operating solely or primarily within the coastal waters of a single state—were understood to be covered by state workers compensation and work health and safety laws. This approach to coverage was consistent with the coverage of the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911, which established Australia's first national workers compensation scheme for seafarers. Based on this understanding, the Seacare scheme applied to approximately 33 employers and 7,516 employees, or 4,721 full-time equivalent employees, in 2013-14—about 20 per cent of the Australian maritime industry. Submissions were received to the review of the Seacare scheme, and that review was undertaken by Mr Robin Stewart-Crompton and published in 2013. The submissions that were received provided evidence that industry participants had a narrow view of the coverage of the scheme.

I want to turn briefly to the decision which precipitated the construction of this bill. In the Aucote decision an alternative broad interpretation of the coverage provision of the Seacare scheme was upheld. The Full Court of the Federal Court held that the Seacare scheme applies to all seafarers employed by a trading, financial or foreign corporation on a prescribed ship and to operators of prescribed ships that are trading financial or foreign corporations.

The majority of employers and operators within the maritime industry are either trading or foreign corporations and, as such, the practical consequence of this broad interpretation is that the Seacare scheme extends to most of the Australian maritime industry, including ships and units that primarily operate within a single state. It was understood that these ships and units were covered by state workers' compensation and work health and safety laws. It is estimated that the Aucote decision's broad view of coverage could mean that the Seacare scheme would apply to 11,000 vessels and approximately 20,000 employees. As a short-term measure, the Seacare Authority has granted a broad exemption, under section 20A of the Seafarers Act, aimed at addressing the expanded coverage of the Seacare scheme resulting from the Aucote decision.

As stated by the Seacare Authority on its website, this exemption is intended as a transitional measure that aims to provide certainty to industry participants on their workers' compensation arrangements while the parliament considers the bill. Exemptions granted under section 20A have only a prospective application and there is no ability for the Seacare Authority to exempt ships from coverage of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act. We have also issued declarations under the Seafarers Act and Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act.

The government acknowledges that there are longstanding issues regarding the coverage of the Seacare scheme; however, these issues concern the application of the Navigation Act 1912 as it relates to the coverage under the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act and not to the coverage matter dealt with by the Federal Court. The bill does not seek to address all issues with the coverage of the Seacare scheme. It only seeks to address issues raised by the Aucote decision.

It is important to consider the impact on employers and operators. Approximately 12,000 seafarers who were previously understood to have been covered by state workers' compensation and work health and safety laws are, in light of the Aucote decision, covered by the Seacare scheme. Under the Seafarers Act, employers are required to maintain an insurance policy to cover their liabilities under the act. Failure to comply with this obligation is a criminal offence of strict liability. Employers of seafarers on interstate voyages would have been acting in good faith on the basis that they were only covered by state workers' compensation laws and were fulfilling obligations under those laws.

As a consequence, they would have been—and most likely still are—maintaining insurance policies, whether private or from a relevant state-government authority under state schemes. In addition to expenses incurred in relation to moving between workers' compensation schemes, employers will also incur regulatory costs adjusting to rights and responsibilities under the OHS (MI) Act. We have expanded the coverage of the Seacare scheme's impact on the regulation of safety. Comcare and the AMSA are not funded or resourced to immediately take on the role of administering a substantially larger Seacare scheme—from approximately 4½ thousand seafarers to potentially 20,000. The resources simply are not there.

The government supports the bill—once amendments are circulated. It is important to note, for historical purposes, the bill restores the coverage of the Seacare scheme to how it is understood to have been prior to the Aucote decision. Having conducted an inquiry on the papers and having brought that before the chamber, I congratulate the unions, employers, employees and the opposition for coming to a suitable outcome that will ensure the Commonwealth is not overly exposed in this area. I commend the bill.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Seafearers Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill concerns the compensation scheme for seafarers and the maritime sector, Seacare. It arises because of a full-court decision of the Federal Court. It said that someone was eligible for this scheme, upholding a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when, according to the government, players in the industry had assumed that such a person would not be eligible. In other words, the full-court decision said there are people covered by this scheme who, up until now, did not think they had been covered by it.

There are two things you can do if you are a government caught on the hop by a full Federal Court decision. One would be the sensible one, to say to everyone in the industry: 'No one unexpected this, so let's all sit down around the table and sort it out.' You could take the time and sort out what it would mean, for the various standards of compensation and care around the country, if the ruling were upheld. Doing it in this way and getting it right is critical, because compensation and care are not just theoretical concepts. It is people's lives we are legislating for. The compensation and care that people get are likely to determine their quality of life for the rest of their lives.

The alternative to spending the time sitting down and working it out sensibly, with all the stakeholders involved, is to do things on the hop so that people are scrambling to determine what the impacts of legislation are. When this bill was introduced in the other place we were highly critical of the process being followed to introduce it, because this is exactly what the government did. The government said: 'Here's a bill we want you to deal with—very quickly—that's going to introduce a uniform set of national standards; then attempt to get it through the parliament as quickly as possible without talking to the stakeholders.' Not surprisingly, the stakeholders were a bit concerned about this. We were concerned about it. The Labor Party was concerned about it.

It seems to be very much at the last minute that the government has come to its senses. It has sat down and had that round table, talking to all the stakeholders. They have agreed to a set of amendments to this legislation that properly address the issues, particularly the serious concerns that were raised in the Senate inquiry into this bill. At the last minute, we now do have some legislation that is going to properly address the issues that were raised and the quandary that we were put in with the result of that Full Court decision. I am pleased to say that the Greens are going to be able to support this legislation, subject to the passing of those amendments.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:30): I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. This bill protects the viability of the Commonwealth's Seacare scheme by restoring certainty about the historical coverage of the scheme for all participants, including seafarers and their representatives, employers, insurers and regulators. Successive governments, both at Commonwealth, state and territory level, irrespective of political colour, maritime regulators, employers and seafarers have operated on the basis that the Seacare scheme generally applies to ships and units engaged in interstate and international trade or commerce, while state and territory workers compensation and work, health and safety laws apply to employees on ships engaged in intrastate voyages.

This jurisdictional boundary was established by the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 and has been broadly understood to apply since, including from the commencement of the Seacare scheme in 1992. The Federal Court's decision in Samson Maritime Pty Ltd and Aucote puts this understanding in doubt from the commencement of the Seacare scheme in 1992. It represents a profound shift in workers compensation and work, health and safety regulation of the Australian maritime industry. Before the Aucote decision, the Seacare scheme was understood to apply to around 330 ships. Following the decision, the Seacare scheme could cover as many as 11,000 ships. Whereas the Commonwealth regulated workers compensation and work, health and safety for a small proportion of the maritime industry before the Aucote decision, the decision shifts responsibility for regulating the vast majority of the industry to the Commonwealth. The Aucote decision also puts in doubt the validity of workers compensation claims made by seafarers and work, health and safety enforcement actions taken against employers under state legislation. The bill seeks to restore certainty regarding past actions taken under the Seafarers' Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act. It does not change what was believed to be the workers compensation entitlements and work, health and safety protection of seafarers.

The bill does not interfere with the ability for seafarers to make a workers compensation claim or to receive workers compensation entitlements. The bill expressly provides that it does not disturb claims made before it was introduced or potential claims from people who gave notice of injury to make a compensation claim under the seafarers act before the bill was introduced but had not made a claim by that time. With the passage of this bill, maritime industry regulators, employers and seafarers will have greater certainty that past actions undertaken in good faith, based on the prevailing understanding of Commonwealth, state and territory regulation of workers compensation and work, health and safety regulation, are valid.

The bill, as amended, is supported by Seacare scheme participants, including maritime industry employer associations and unions. I would like to thank all those participants for their willingness to work with the government to reach agreement on this bill, enabling it to be passed expediently. Finally, while I am confident that this bill will fully achieve its aims without any unintended consequences, I will be writing to the Seacare Authority, which is responsible for the oversight of the Seacare scheme, to ask that it monitor the impact of this bill and inform me of any unintended consequences so that the government can take action to address them. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:35): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet GT144 together.

Leave granted.

Senator ABETZ: I thank the Senate. I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 3), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Constitutional coverage", substitute "Initial constitutional coverage".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 20), omit "subitem (2)", substitute "subitems (2) and (3)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:

(3) The amendments made by this Part do not apply in relation to an injury, or in relation to loss or damage, if:

   (a) notice of the injury, or of the accident that resulted in the loss or damage, was given under section 62 of that Act before the day the Bill that became this Act was introduced into the House of Representatives; and

   (b) the notice was intended to be a notice for the purposes of that section; and

   (c) no claim or application for State compensation (within the meaning of section 139 of that Act) has been made, or purportedly made, in relation to the injury, loss or damage.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed.

(7) Page 6 (after line 11), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A—Constitutional coverage from the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent

Part 1—Seafarers rehabilitation and compensation

Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992

1 At the end of section 19

   Add:

(2) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(3) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(4) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a foreign corporation; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a foreign corporation.

(5) Subsection (3) does not have the effect of applying this Act with respect to:

   (a) State banking that does not extend beyond the limits of the State concerned; or

   (b) State insurance that does not so extend.

2 Section 19A

   Repeal the section.

3 Application of amendments

   The amendments of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 made by this Part apply in relation to any injury, loss or damage suffered by an employee on or after the commencement of this item.

Part 2—Occupational health and safety

Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993

4 At the end of section 6

   Add:

(5) Without prejudice to its effect apart from this subsection, this Act also has effect as provided by subsections (6), (7) and (8).

(6) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (d) a reference to a manufacturer were limited to a reference to a manufacturer that is a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (e) a reference to a supplier were limited to a reference to a supplier that is a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (f) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(7) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

   (d) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(8) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

   (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a foreign corporation; and

   (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a foreign corporation; and

   (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a foreign corporation; and

   (d) a reference to a manufacturer were limited to a reference to a manufacturer that is a foreign corporation; and

   (e) a reference to a supplier were limited to a reference to a supplier that is a foreign corporation; and

   (f) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a foreign corporation.

(9) This Act does not apply with respect to:

   (a) State banking that does not extend beyond the limits of the State concerned; or

   (b) State insurance that does not so extend.

5 Application of amendments

   The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to anything done on or after the commencement of this item.

The amendments that are being sought to be moved by the government are designed to ensure that we get this legislation absolutely right. There was some comment by the Greens' senator in her contribution to the second reading debate about how quickly we had brought in the legislation. We did think we were on the right track with that and would get some support, but there were hiccups and, as a result, matters were delayed until now. We have been able to sort out those hiccups through a variety of mechanisms which now allow, as we believe it, for business to continue as normal. It would be fair to say that the coverage from 330 ships to 11,000 was a fairly dramatic increase in anybody's language, especially when nobody genuinely expected that to be the case. The scheme had been operating until some enterprising individual had a look and thought the law might actually say something different to that which had been understood. Right, wrong or indifferent, the Federal Court made its determination, and here we are today trying to deal with the legislation to make sure that it says what was intended.

Given all that, the government has moved this raft of amendments. I thank the Senate for giving leave for me to move them all together—albeit I would alert honourable senators to the fact that there will need to be two separate questions, first to support some of our amendments, and then to remove aspects there will be a separate question. I am sure the chair will most adequately handle that; we can rely on the good Senator Marshall for guidance.

In moving the government's raft of amendments, I can simply say that in response to concerns among some industry participants the bill is being amended to limit the application of the bill to the past coverage of the scheme. The amendments will provide that the coverage provisions are amended—they will date back to the commencement of the scheme and have effect until the day the bill receives royal assent. From the day after the bill receives royal assent, the repeal of subsections 19(2) to 19(5) inclusive of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is reversed, and those subsections are re-enacted with effect from the day after the bill receives royal assent. Similarly, the repeal of subsections 6(5) to 6(9) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act is reversed, and those subsections are re-enacted with effect from the day after the bill receives royal assent.

The bill contains amendments so that a ship must be directly and substantially engaged in interstate or international trade or commerce to be covered. After further consultations with scheme participants, the government opposes these amendments to coverage. The bill will also be amended to ensure that it does not affect people who had provided notice of injury but had not yet made a claim before the bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives, so long as the notice was provided with the intention to make a claim for compensation under the seafarers act and the person has not made a claim for compensation under state legislation for the same injury.

The bill, as amended, still achieves the policy objective of providing certainty regarding past actions taken under the Seacare scheme. It will also assist with providing certainty over past actions taken under relevant state and territory legislation. The long-term future coverage of the Seacare scheme will be the subject of consultations with industry participants and will be comprehensively addressed in a bill for broader reform of the Seacare scheme to be introduced hopefully later this year. I have indicated that I will be writing to the Seacare Authority to invite them to monitor the impact of this bill and advise of any unintended consequences.

With these amendments, I am confident there is a unanimity of view amongst all of the stakeholders that have an interest in this particular bill. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:41): Minister, you indicated in your contribution that Seacare will monitor the scheme, and you have argued that this will restore certainty for past actions. Is it your view that the consultations that you have outlined will deal with prospective claims?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:41): The bill will not be dealing with prospective claims.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:42): Thanks for that. So the bill, in reality, is a stop-gap measure to deal with the Federal Court decision?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:42): The Federal Court decision has left a situation where potentially a lot of payments that had previously been made under the equivalent state workers compensation legislation could have been questioned. Also, action taken against employers under the state legislation could have been questioned as potentially being without jurisdiction. So the purpose of this particular legislation is to leave the law as it was believed to be by everybody. As indicated, I will ask for the authority to keep monitoring the situation to ensure that we do not have any unintended consequences for workers, employers or any other stakeholder.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:43): As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, the opposition are inclined to support these amendments. However, we are really concerned to ensure that the longer term issues associated with this Federal Court decision are dealt with. You have indicated that hopefully later this year another bill may come to the Senate. Is that bill based on the Seacare monitoring of the scheme?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:44): The bill we are hoping to introduce will be a comprehensive bill which will undertake a full review of the legislative scheme. Part of my uncertainty, I suppose, as to an exact timetable is because extensive consultations will continue to take place to ensure that there is full ventilation of all the views and issues before we bring a piece of legislation into this place.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:44): Can you advise the Senate of the consultation process you intend to undertake? I accept that you have said you cannot give dates, but given that this leaves some uncertainty arising from the Federal Court decision, what are the details of the consultation?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:45): In relation to other workplace relations type of legislation, there is the COIL process—the Committee on Industrial Legislation—where you have all the stakeholders. My approach in relation to workplace relations matters has, I believe, been a consultative one, and nothing will change in relation to that. As a result, employer and employee organisations et cetera will be fully consulted. We are hopeful that within the next few weeks there will be a round table with all the stakeholders to discuss the issues generally that they are concerned about. And then when we have a draft bill we will be circulating that to the stakeholders as well for them to undertake their assessment—a bit like the COIL process—so that any unintended consequences can be advised to us. And, if I might say, the COIL process on industrial legislation has been very helpful where technical issues—unintended consequences—have been highlighted by both employer and employee organisations, which is very helpful for government and also very helpful for good robust legislation. In an area such as this, I believe that that sort of certainty will be of great benefit, and that is why the government is anxious to ensure that full consultation takes place in, if you like, a preliminary or scoping manner. And then further consultation will be had in relation to the draft legislation so that by the time the legislation hits the parliament there will be at least a good understanding of the consequences and the issues that the bill seeks to address.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:47): Thanks, Minister. I am just trying—and I am not doing this on a partisan basis—to get an understanding of the process that led to where we are now with the legislation. You indicate that the COIL process has worked effectively. Was this issue dealt with through COIL before the legislation was drafted and came to the Senate?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:48): This particular bill and the bill I have been talking about technically does not go through COIL, but it will be a similar mechanism. I can indicate that in relation to this bill and the court case that precipitated the bill there was a consultation with, for example, a major stakeholder here, the Maritime Union of Australia. We exchanged letters, and phone calls were had with my office, and I also believe the department. Without divulging anything, I will say that all the discussions were in absolute good faith. At one stage we did think there may have been agreement, but we fully understood that the agreement we thought we may have had did not come about, and I do not seek to blame anybody in relation to that or assert that anybody engaged without good faith. As a result, here we are now with this bill, with the government's amendments, taking into account some of the hesitation that came up a bit later in the discussions. But you can be assured, Senator Cameron—and indeed the Senate can be assured—that there was quite extensive consultation, albeit in an informal manner by way of conversations and email exchanges, and indeed formal letters.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:49): I am not for one minute arguing that anything has been done in anything other than good faith. I am just trying to establish some of the areas the opposition has to consider with these amendments before us. You indicated that Seacare will monitor. Is that a formal monitoring process? If so, who within Seacare will monitor, and what resources will they have to monitor this amended bill if it passes today?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:50): The Seacare Authority is a formal body, as I understand it, established by legislation. I trust that they would not need any extra resources to monitor the legislation and its outworkings, because that is part and parcel of their normal task. To report to me at an early stage of any unintended consequences is something I would alert them to. I—and, I would imagine, every legislator in this place—would wish to know if there were any signs on the horizon that might indicate that there are unintended consequences. And of course if that is the case then we may need to come back here for the appropriate changes to be made. I do not think it will necessarily be resource intensive for the authority, but it is something that I will be inviting them to keep a close eye on and will inform my office to ensure that we can deal with any further unintended consequences, of which of course we hope there will be none. But having been in this place for as long as I have, I have seen very well-intentioned legislation have unforeseen consequences. And of course the very fact that we are here is an example of unforeseen consequences.

That legislation was passed in 1992, and, irrespective of whether you were in the Maritime Union of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia, everybody believed that the legislation acted in a certain way—and there was unanimity about that. Yet we had a situation of the Federal Court of Australia coming to a different determination, as the courts should do. They have to interpret the law as it is written, not necessarily how it may have been intended by legislators. That is what we are confronted with, so unintended consequences unfortunately can arise, albeit in this case—and I will try and do my maths—about 20-plus years later. But you can be assured that, in asking the authority to monitor the situation, I do not think we are overly burdening them.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:53): Minister, thank you for that response. I indicate that the opposition have had limited time to have a look at these amendments—I myself have not seen the amended explanatory memorandum—so we are taking you on a bit of good faith on this issue. That is why I want to try and work through some of these issues with you. When the Seacare Authority monitors, do they then advise you? You indicated that you are going to write to them, and they will advise you. Will there be concurrent advice to the opposition of any unintended consequences?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:54): First of all, I can assure you, Senator Cameron. I am from the government. You can trust me.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:54): I thought that might get the reaction that it did. More seriously, in fairness, it would be a response by the Seacare Authority to me as minister, and, with respect, not to the opposition. But this space has been, as I understand it, relatively uncontroversial and bipartisan, and I do not think there would be any big political gains to be achieved one way or the other. There has been a degree of unity, which I welcome with this legislation, but in fairness I think the authority's responsibility would be to report to me as opposed to the opposition. Be assured, if there are issues that are brought to my attention, it makes good sense, if I might say as we did with this legislation, to engage in discussion and correspond with the opposition, the Greens and the crossbenchers to see if we can resolve these matters. Of course, I hope they will never arise, but, if certain matters were to arise, we would resolve them quickly.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:55): I would still like a clear commitment that, if you do receive advice of unintended consequences, you would expedite the communications with the opposition and the crossbenchers on this issue.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:55): I suppose I could say yes to that, and then we can argue about what the term 'expedite' means.

Senator Cameron: I can give you the definition.

Senator ABETZ: I am sure Senator Cameron would give me a definition. Can I indicate that in this particular area I think it does make good sense for the government and the opposition to cooperate as much as possible. Without tying myself to any commitment, I would invite Senator Cameron to accept the goodwill of the government in relation to this matter and take us at face value here—as he can always do, of course, at all times, but especially on this occasion. That has got another smile! It is a pity Hansard does not record those smiles. Be assured that we will cooperate with the opposition and advise them as expeditiously as possible.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:57): The expediting of consultation and communication with the opposition and the crossbenchers, as you indicated earlier, is one thing. Are you aware of what role the Seacare Authority would play in this monitoring with the other parties—the Maritime Union and the employers in the industry? What is the process there?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:57): I was just confirming that the union and the employers have representatives on the Seacare Authority, so in their representative roles they should, chances are, be aware before I am as to any unintended consequences.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:58): I would like to move to the review process. Have you come to any view on how the review process would be undertaken?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:58): I confess I have not. I have left it to the professional capacity of the department to undertake the initial round table and review and to see what issues the various participants want to float, and then we can move further from there. But, at this stage, I personally have not involved myself in that process.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:58): You are waiting for advice from the department in terms of how long the review might need to take. Have you had any advice on what the review terms of reference would cover?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (11:59): Senator Cameron may be aware of the Stewart-Crompton review that my friend Senator McKenzie referred to in her second reading speech. That was a review, in fact, commissioned by the former minister, Mr Shorten, whilst he was the Minister for Workplace Relations, and it is that review that is basically the subject of and its recommendations that are the subject of the further discussions that will take place. So that is, if you like, not officially the terms of reference, but it is the issues arising out of that report commissioned by Mr Shorten that will be discussed.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:00): So it is not really a review; it is an analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review. Is that what it is?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:00): I think that is a fair analysis. I do not want to play word games with Senator Cameron, and I do not think he does either. But I think that is a fair assessment. However, we will be open to other things, so I do not want people to be of the view that that is the only topic that is able to be discussed. But the Stewart-Crompton review is the base of the discussions that will take place.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:01): You say that other issues can be injected into this. Do you have a firm view on any issue that should be injected in from the government's point of view?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:01): I was just confirming that I had not overegged it when I said other issues could be raised. They can be raised. The department has not put any limitations in relation to the discussions that will take place, and from the government point of view we have not placed anything on the table other than the review undertaken by Mr Stewart-Crompton, which, of course, was commissioned by my predecessor, Mr Shorten.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:02): You indicated earlier that the COIL process was the process for the engagement. Do you see the COIL process being used for this analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:02): If I said it was the COIL process, what I meant to say was that a COIL-like process will be adopted. COIL is an established mechanism for workplace relations laws. This particular bill does not necessarily fit into that category. But we, as a government, and I think successive governments, have found the COIL process informative and helpful, and so a similar process, albeit on an informal basis, will be taking place to ensure that the formulation of the draft legislation and then the draft legislation is ventilated and workshopped by the various stakeholders to ensure that they have input and they, of course, have access to good legal advice. Also, people with good practical experience can then ask questions as to how the draft legislation, which might be very well intentioned, might actually work out in practice with real-life experience. With no disrespect to the drafters of the legislation, having people read it who have real-life experience can sometimes shed light onto the well-intentioned drafting to ensure that it can, in fact, be of practical application as well.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:03): I must indicate that the process still seems to me to be a bit fuzzy. I am not sure: it was a review, it is now an analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review. The Stewart-Crompton review would have had formal submissions and a process to deal with the issues properly. If we are now going to talk about a significant change to the legislation that is in place and probably another substantial bill, would it not be better if there were some clarity on how this review would work and how people can make submissions to the review?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:04): I think it is possibly a fair analysis to say at this stage it is a bit fuzzy as to how it will all progress, because the first workshop will be designed to nail some of those things down amongst the participants as to the way forward. I and the government have not, in any way, been prescriptive as to how this should be conducted. We are relying on the professionalism of the department who, if I might say, as shown by the process in the development of this bill, have a good relationship with the stakeholders and work cooperatively with them to achieve the outcome that, hopefully, will pass sometime today. So I would say to the senator that I think we can have faith in the professional competence of the department to work with the stakeholders. There will be a first workshop very shortly where some of the details and parameters will undoubtedly be sorted out by consensus between the parties.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:05): I am not asking what advice the department has given you, but has the department advised you about any issues that need to be dealt with in relation to this review?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:06): I have just been reminded that the only issue has been of future coverage, which we have already touched upon in relation to this bill.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:06): A range of amendments are before the chamber. As I have indicated, we have not had a lot of time to analyse the amendments. As I understand it, you want to put them forward in two batches. Is that correct? Could you just explain how you want to—

The CHAIRMAN: The amendments before the chair at present are government amendments (1) to (7), which have been moved by leave together. But it necessitates two separate questions to deliver those seven amendments, so I will be putting those questions when we get to that point. But all of the government amendments are before the chair at the moment.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:07): As I indicated earlier, the opposition is mindful of the issues that have been raised, and the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the Federal Court decision. I am sure the government, like the opposition, is keen to have some certainty in terms of how the act will work. We support that. We are inclined to support the amendments that are before the chair. We just would like this issue not to drag on indefinitely, because we are very concerned that the prospective claims are still uncertain, and the prospective claims are the ones that will be important to people in the future. This industry is quite a dangerous one. It is one that has had more than its fair share of deaths, so we are inclined to be supportive. But can you give us today any idea as to a time frame for the analysis of the review. Do you have any idea of the time frames within which you want to deal with it?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:09): I would hate to commit myself to something that is not necessarily deliverable, but, to confirm, the workshop will be held within the next few weeks. As we have indicated, we do hope to have legislation into this place by the end of the year. I fully agree with and endorse Senator Cameron's comments about the importance of not having uncertainty in any area. I agree that in this area it is just as important, if not more important, than in some other areas of our legislative endeavours. So you can be assured it is front of mind and we have people in the department working efficiently to try to get an outcome as quickly as possible. But, given the vagaries of this great place, and the legislative timetable in this place is not necessarily up to the government to determine—sometimes bills take longer and sometimes less time is taken—I simply indicate we will use our best endeavours to ensure that this legislation still can be dealt with this calendar year.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:11): Thank you for that, Minister. Given the explanations you have given on the monitoring and the review, we would be minded to support the amendments that are before the chamber today. I thank you for your responses.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:11): Can I just quickly respond to thank the opposition, the Greens and other senators, and indeed all stakeholders, for their co-operation in this, which was a legislative exercise that we had not anticipated would be required, but our friends in the Federal Court made a determination that did need a response, in our view. The fact that we have been able to come to a landing, as we have, with unanimity breaking out around the chamber, is once again an excellent reflection on the way that this chamber in fact can and does do business. As a result, you can be assured it will not be reported in the media that we were all in heated agreement in this place, because all they like to do in the media is report the conflicts when sometimes we let ourselves down. But this is one example where the parliament has done itself and the people a great service by being able to come to a resolution. I thank all honourable senators for their contribution and assistance in allowing us to resolve this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: The amendments before the chair are government amendments (1) to (7). That will require two questions. The first question is that amendments (1), (2), (4), (5) and (7) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that items 2 and 7 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:15): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (12:15): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Comcare scheme provides all scheme employers with an integrated safety, rehabilitation and compensation system, no matter what Australian state or territory an employer operates in or where its employees are located.

Comcare works in partnership with employers and their employees to prevent workplace injuries and appropriately uses regulatory sanctions if there has been any demonstrable failure of the employer's duty of care. Over the five years to 30 June 2013, the Comcare scheme experienced a 23 per cent reduction in the incidence of accepted claims.

The scheme empowers premium payers to work with their employees to maintain an injured employee at work to achieve an early, safe and long lasting return to work. Injured employees covered by the Comcare scheme benefit from a high standard of income support as well as medical and other assistance where necessary.

The Comcare workers' compensation scheme's outstanding claims liabilities exceed the funds available to meet these liabilities. Since 2013-14, Comcare has been progressively restoring the funding position of the scheme. The bill will support current measures that Comcare has put in place to restore funds to adequate levels.

The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework to manage the exit of Commonwealth authorities and to ensure that Comcare's liabilities under the scheme are fully funded by premiums. The proposed framework also enables Comcare to determine and collect ongoing regulatory contributions from exited employers or successor bodies.

This bill ensures that employers exiting the scheme cover the costs of the claims liability for their employees and former employees who have work-related injuries or illnesses. Where this liability exceeds the amount of scheme available funds that are attributable to the premium payer, Comcare will be able to recover the shortfall from the employer up to a period of seven years after the employer has exited the scheme.

Comcare applies regulatory contribution charges on all entities in the scheme to cover the costs of regulating the entities' obligations under the SRC Act. When an employer exits the Comcare scheme, some regulatory costs may remain and are ongoing. The Bill will enable Comcare to determine and collect these ongoing regulatory contributions from premium payers exiting the scheme.

Through these amendments the Bill will ensure that employers remaining in the scheme are not penalised with higher costs to meet the liabilities attributed to exited employers and that the scheme can offer employers sustainable premium rates.

The SRC Act provides for the rehabilitation of injured employees by providing for rehabilitation programmes, alteration of residences or workplaces, and a duty to provide suitable employment.

There are currently no provisions in the SRC Actrequiring exiting premium payers to meet rehabilitation responsibilities to their injured employees.

While the majority of former Commonwealth employers which have ceased to exist have been absorbed into other agencies, there have been cases of injured former employees where there is lack of clarity about the rehabilitation authority, thereby resulting in minimal rehabilitation activities.

The bill provides that premium payers that exit the Comcare scheme would continue to perform the role of rehabilitation authority for employees whose work-related injury or illness occurred while the premium payer was in the Comcare scheme. Having the current employer as the rehabilitation authority leads to better return to work outcomes for injured workers because employers are well placed to rehabilitate them to work readiness and providing suitable work.

This bill includes minor amendments to the appointment process and composition of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

Conclusion

In summary, this bill will ensure that unfunded liabilities and ongoing regulatory contribution charges of a premium payer exiting the Comcare scheme are met by that premium payer; it will ensure that Comcare is able to set sustainable premiums, and that injured employees of exiting premium-payer entities will continue to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment facilitating their early return to work.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:15): I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. The purpose of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 is to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. That bill provides for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority to exit the Comcare scheme, clarifies that premiums should be calculated so that current and prospective liabilities are fully funded, changes the appointment process and membership of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and makes consequential and technical amendments.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 provides for the rehabilitation and compensation of injured employees of the Commonwealth and its agencies and statutory authorities, and of eligible corporations. To do this it establishes the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. This commission makes policy and oversees the operation of Comcare. It also establishes Comcare, which operates the scheme. Most of the Commonwealth agencies and statutory authorities pay premiums to Comcare and are referred to as 'premium payers', but some Commonwealth authorities have been granted self-insurance licences. Eligible corporations which join the scheme are also granted self-insurance licences. On 25 February this year the ACT government announced its intention to leave Comcare. It was also announced that the territory government would conduct a six-week consultation period before taking a decision about designing a new scheme. That consultation only ended on Friday, 8 May. Of course, the design of any new scheme will take a significant period of time, and the ACT government has made a commitment to work with stakeholders. So there is no need to rush this legislation, as the Abbott government seems to be doing.

Labor's first priority is to ensure that no workers will be worse off under the government's proposed bill. Unfortunately, what we have seen from this government ever since it has been in power is a shift of responsibility back to the states, a shift of responsibility back to local governments and a shift of responsibility back to individual citizens of this country. This is not about simply shifting responsibilities; this is about cost-shifting—cost-shifting from the Commonwealth government back to the states, back to local governments and back to individuals. This is all in the ideological approach from this Commonwealth government that the individuals should look after themselves.

When it comes to workers compensation, when it comes to the rights of individuals to be to properly compensated for an injury at work, Labor is uncompromising. Workers need to be looked after and workers need to have benefits to ensure that they can look after their families or their individual needs if and when a workplace accident takes place. We are not sure that the same concern for workers rights in this country is underpinning this government's approach—and this is workers rights that do not just go to industrial rights but also to their rights to be properly compensated if they are injured at work. As a former union official I have seen too many people's lives destroyed because of injuries, accidents or chemical exposure at work. We are very concerned that, if we have a system at the Commonwealth level, that system is a sustainable system, it is a system that looks after workers rights and it is a system that the Commonwealth employees and other corporations who are a party to it can understand will provide decent compensation for workers if and when they are injured at work.

We have to be certain that this bill will not provide an incentive for others to make workers worse off. We do not want this bill—this legislation, if it is passed—to be used as a cost-cutting exercise by some of the most profitable and biggest corporations in this country. That is an unacceptable proposition for us. The opposition wants to ensure that workers who are covered by the Comcare scheme are covered appropriately, and we want to ensure that if we then allow people to move out of the scheme they are not moving to inferior schemes simply based on cost-cutting or simply based on reducing workers rights to compensable claims. That is why we took the responsible decision to refer this bill to a Senate committee for a thorough investigation. That Senate committee will consider the bill.

The opposition is concerned that the government has not undertaken a proper consultation with all stakeholders in constructing this bill. I would have thought that the coalition would have learnt a lesson, over the last 18 months, about ensuring proper consultation on legislation that comes to this parliament. The fiasco of the last budget demonstrates that not consulting properly with the community and not consulting properly with people who have an interest in a range of issues, is a recipe for legislative failure.

And we have a government that has had more than its fair share, in such a short time, of legislative failure. The lack of consultation that we are worried about in terms of this bill has led, in other areas of the budget, to pensioners having 18 months of uncertainty in terms of how their pensions will fare in the future. They were simply advised in the first budget that they would be $80 a week worse off, over a 10-year period. Families on $65,000 a year were $6,000 a year worse off. And all this was done without proper consultation. All this was done with an arrogance from this government that beggars belief. That arrogance and lack of consultation, and the ideological focus of this government, came home to roost when they could not get their budget through this Senate.

So my message to the government is that if you are going to make changes you should make them after proper consultation, and you should not hide what you are about to do, as this government did. No-one knew this government's agenda until the first budget. The community was told that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no cuts to the ABC. And people voted on the basis of promises that were never real promises. That is why, when we are dealing with legislation by this government, we need to be absolutely certain that what they are saying and what they are proposing is what they really mean. They have, now, a reputation in the broader community, of not being trustworthy and not being in a position to—

Senator O'Sullivan: Fancy being lectured by you on that! Seriously!

Senator Cameron: Here comes Senator O'Sullivan. We are talking about processes of government. What would an ex Bjelke-Petersen Queensland copper know about processes of government? There were abuses of government processes for a lot of your working life.

Senator O'Sullivan: I rise on a point of order. By inference, I am going to take that as a personal reflection on me. I ask the senator to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sure Senator Cameron has heard you. I will only ask him to withdraw it if he has said unparliamentary words or made unparliamentary reflections. I do not think he has, but it is a matter for Senator Cameron. If he wants to withdraw it he has heard your request.

Senator CAMERON: I do not intend to withdraw. I am making some general comments about people's backgrounds. It was a general comment about the police force under the Bjelke-Petersen government. We know what they were like. We know what happened then. So, if people are a bit offended by that they should just go back and read history, and look at what happened in Queensland.

I am always happy for interjections from Senator O'Sullivan on any issue, because the Nationals should really stop being the doormat of the Liberal Party. We have seen in this budget—we are really talking here about legislation on safety—the Nationals again making false claims about being worried about what is going to happen. The reality is that the doormats called the Nationals will just roll over and concede, and do what they are told by the Liberal Party, as they always do.

On workers compensation and on people's rights to get decently compensated if they are hurt at work, we do not trust this government. Labor's mistrust of this government is exactly the same as the mistrust that the community has—that the whole population has—of a government that has lied to the community on more than one occasion. They have lied to the community on many occasions, so we want to be sure that when we are dealing with workers compensation, that any changes proposed in this bill that directly or indirectly risk workplace health and safety of Australian workers, are dealt with.

My big problem with this government—amongst many problems—is that they have this rhetoric about red tape. As a union official for many years, I understand the importance of having a proper legislative process to ensure that workers can go to work, work safely, and go home to their families that night. According to this government, this is red tape. There should not be red tape to make employers operate in a safe manner. Governments should just butt out and employers should be able to get on with the job, because it is a cost to the employer, it is red tape, and it is an intervention in the market.

All of the nonsense and ideology we hear from this government always leads us to be very concerned about any changes to legislation that this government proposes when it comes to health and safety, when it comes to workers compensation and when it comes to workers' rights. We know, the whole community knows, citizens of this country know, this government's form when it comes to workers' rights. We are worried that this legislation could remove the rights of workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a work-related illness or injury.

We strongly oppose the bill. In the bill the government has included provisions, in an effort to hollow out state workers compensation schemes, to open up the Comcare scheme to private sector companies. The government has sought to do this by applying a very liberal definition of what constitutes a national employer. Yet in this bill, if it is constructed incorrectly, there may be leverage for the federal government to force entities to stay in the Comcare scheme. Why is this particularly important? It is important because there is yet another Comcare bill that has recently been introduced by the Abbott government. That bill makes cuts to lump-sum compensation payable for permanent impairment to the vast majority of injured workers and removes the already modest pain and suffering payment. A modest payment would be removed. Changes to eligibility requirements will mean injured workers are locked out of the scheme altogether, incapacity payments are reduced and sanctions are expanded against workers, including removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment, plus more, all of which are totally opposed by the opposition.

The Abbott government is asking the parliament to make a determination on a matter when it has, very recently, introduced a substantial bill which potentially contains crucial information about future changes it proposes to make to the very same act. Given the introduction of the third substantive Comcare bill, Labor does not believe that the Senate committee inquiry into this bill was afforded a reasonable opportunity to thoroughly investigate the interaction of this bill with the third Comcare bill. As I referred to earlier, the ACT government has not made a determination on the make-up of any new scheme and, thus, to support this legislation before that has occurred is to put the cart before the horse.

Labor has to be sure there is nothing questionable about this bill, and the best way to do that is to take the necessary time to further consult stakeholders. Labor's first priority is to ensure that no worker will be made worse off under this bill. We need to ensure that this bill will not create perverse incentives for employers to make their employees worse off. The opposition are not convinced that the government has taken all the steps it should to consult with all the stakeholders over this bill. There is a clear need to investigate the interaction between this bill and the other Comcare care bills introduced by the government, one of which will make changes to Comcare that will adversely affect workers.

For these reasons we do not support this bill. We do not trust what the government is really up to in relation to this bill. We want a further consultation process. We want to ensure that the workers who are covered by Comcare, or the workers who may move into another system, are not worse off and that their rights to fair compensation, if they are injured or suffer a very severe disease arising out of their work capacity, are looked after.

This is an important bill before the Senate. That is why we need to make sure that everything is done that can possibly be done to maximise the consultation that needs to take place. But the arrogance of this government, the arrogance that they know what is right, is driving this bill. Underpinning that arrogance is the ideology to cut costs in the Commonwealth area, to run an argument that it is red tape, to run an argument that they should simply shift the costs of a worker being hurt at work back onto the family that needs support, and that is a real problem.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Senator O'Sullivan, order!

Senator CAMERON: I just wish—as Senator O'Sullivan continues to interject in a very stupid manner, as is normally his way—that he actually does think about what this government is doing. Actually, as someone who has many people employed in many companies and with a myriad of trusts that he operates, he should think about workers now and again instead of his own back pocket, his own wallet. He should actually think about his workers and he should think about decent health and safety when it comes to workers instead of his profit. He should think about ensuring that workers can come to work and go home safely.

We do not trust this government. We certainly do not trust the doormats of the National Party to do anything to support the working people in this country or to support regional people. On that basis we oppose this bill. (Time expired)

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:36): I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. Taking this bill at face value, the measures in it may seem reasonable. According to the government summary of the bill, it amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to:    provide for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority to exit the Comcare scheme; clarify that premiums for current Commonwealth authorities and entities should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and prospective liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare-retained funds and so much of the consolidated revenue fund as would be available; change the appointment process and membership of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission; and make consequential and technical amendments.

However, this bill cannot be considered in isolation. It needs to be considered in the context of two other bills which are currently before the parliament and with which the government is seeking to attack workers' access to workers compensation. On an initial reading of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015, the bill is going to strip away compensation from Commonwealth workers. It seems we need to learn a lot more about this bill, but from what we know about it already the Australian Greens have some very deep concerns. The Australian Lawyers Alliance is reported to have described the proposed changes as harsh, unfair and an attack on the rights of injured workers. The ACT government, currently one of the biggest participants in Comcare, is intending to exit the scheme, affecting many workers. Concerns have been raised by unions, the Victorian government and others about how this bill is going to impact on workers, and in particular how it is going to interact with other legislation that the government has brought forward.

It is unacceptable that there are so many outstanding concerns and uncertainties, and given these concerns—and given that the Senate committee that inquired into this bill only finished its deliberations last week and was not able to deal with all these matters—it is the view of the Australian Greens that this bill should not proceed at this time. These uncertainties are unacceptable. It is not just a bit of theoretical legislation we are dealing with here—it is people's lives and it is people's wellbeing that we are legislating for; it is people's ability to have proper compensation if they suffer at work injuries which are likely to affect their wellbeing in the immediate future and often for the rest of their lives. These are serious matters. The parliament owes it to every individual that will potentially be affected by this bill to make sure that this legislation is right and is going to give people the opportunity to continue to live their lives with the care and the compensation that they require.

It is our view that the bill needs to be further examined before it proceeds to make sure that there are no unintended consequences, particularly as the legislation relates to other bills and issues. Given these factors, and given that we have a government that really does seem to have a clear intention to undermine workers compensation and to not give workers the rights that they deserve, the Australian Greens are not prepared to support this bill at this time. (Time expired)

Senator BACK (Western Australia) (12:41): When I first saw Senator Cameron get to his feet I thought, 'Gracious me, there is a time when he and I are going to be in agreement.' Indeed, I had a similar thought when Senator Rice rose to her feet. Let us be very clear on what this legislation is about—it is about protecting the rights of workers and employees in general who may be employed by the ACT government. That is what the bill is all about. Why we heard a rant from Senator Cameron for the length of time we did over issues so totally irrelevant to the matter before the chamber is beyond me. It makes me perhaps a little less wondering why the Scottish Nationalist Party did as well in Scotland as they did last Thursday, but it does cause me to question why Senator Cameron would have personally attacked Senator O'Sullivan in the way he did—what relevance does that have to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill?

This bill is all about making sure the interests of workers covered under ACT workers compensation legislation are protected should the ACT government decide to leave the protection of Comcare. I applaud Senator Rice because in her opening comments she completely focused on that point, and that is what the coalition is focusing on. Why does this matter need to be addressed now? Simply because of the timing of it. We know that on 26 February this year the ACT government announced that it was consulting its workforce on plans to leave the Comcare scheme, and that those consultations were completed on 8 May—only a week ago. If the ACT government were to leave the scheme, where are their current and past employees to be dealt with? We know that those people need to be protected—Senator Rice eloquently said this, as did Senator Cameron when he first kicked off, before he went off on a rant. The coalition believes these people need to be protected.

The question of whether the ACT government does leave the scheme is for another time. Imagine if we were not trying to deal with this issue now—Senator Cameron would be leaping up and carrying on a treat, saying that workers are not being protected and asking what the Commonwealth government is doing to fix it. In fact that is what we are doing with this bill

We are seeking to ensure that, in the event that the ACT government does leave the scheme, there are sufficient funds in the scheme so that the Commonwealth can ensure that those employees, present and past, are actually fully protected under this legislation. Had we failed to move on this, they would be screaming from the rafters on the other side.

Debate interrupted.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (15:37): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and for related purposes—Freedom of Information Amendment (Requests and Reasons) Bill 2015.

Question agreed to.

Senator LUDWIG: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (15:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Senator LUDWIG: I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Freedom of Information Amendment (Requests and Reasons) Bill 2015

Second Reading Speech

Senator Joseph Ludwig

I would like to thank the Senate for its consideration of my Private Senator's Bill.

In 2007 when the previous Labor Government was elected, we promised to put freedom of information at the core of our agenda to drive a shift to a pro-disclosure mode of governance. Labor went about changing the way in which freedom of information legislation was to be used in order to restore trust and integrity within government and enhance the public's right to know. Changes in the way that government and the public service operate can only be driven directly from the top. This creates a culture where we can advance governance in line with these goals. In government, I attempted to balance the Westminster convention, that governance requires some degree of confidentiality, and the very principles that underpin freedom of information. These two goals are not mutually exclusive; a strong FOI Act must seek to limit the release of certain information, to be balanced against a public interest threshold that favours disclosure. We did this when we were in Government and we will seek to further strengthen these principles in Opposition.

The Freedom of Information Amendment (Requests and Reasons) Bill 2015 seeks to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) to require government agencies and Ministers to publish the exact wording of freedom of information requests. It will also require government agencies and Ministers to publish a statement of reasons concerning their decision to allow, refuse or edit the release of requested documents.

A key objective of the FOI Act is to ensure that information about the "operations of departments and public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with departments and public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those rules and practices" is made available to the public.1

The amendments contained in this Bill seek to solidify and advance these core principles which are enshrined within the Act. It facilitates more practical use of freedom of information requests and enhances the principles of accountability and efficiency.

The Bill will achieve the purposes of:

ensuring transparency and accountability are included within the framework of government decisions concerning freedom of information requests;

allowing the public to view requests that have been made and the reasons why documents were or were not released;

allowing applicants seeking similar documents to build upon previous requests; and

reducing the duplication of requests.

These purposes will be achieved in the following ways:

1. By inserting a new definition of " working day " in the Act to eliminate confusion concerning time frames for publishing information where they include weekends and location-specific public holidays.

2. Where access to a document has been granted, by removing the option that an agency or Minister may publish on a website mere details of how the information may be obtained. The Bill ensures that information is available directly from an agency ' s or Minister ' s website, or a link on the website to another website where the information can be downloaded. This measure is designed to provide the public with easy access to documents released under the FOI Act.

3. Where an application is successful, by requiring an agency or Minister to publish the request and reasons for the decision before the end of 10 working days after the day the person is given access.

4. Where an application is successful, but documents are edited, by requiring an agency or Minister to publish the request and the notice under subsection 22(3) within 10 working days after the day the decision is made . Subsection 22(3) requires the agency or Minister to give the applicant notice in writing that an edited copy of the document has been prepared, the grounds for the deletions, and whether any matter has been deleted because it would cause the document to be exempt under the Act. If an applicant requests that a notice be given under section 22(4), the agency or Minister must publish the notice given in accordance with section 26 within 10 working days after the notice is given.

5. Where an application is unsuccessful, by requiring an agency or Minister to publish the request within 10 working days after the day the decision is made and the notice given in accordance with section 26 within 10 working days after the notice is given. A notice given in accordance with section 26 must, among other things, state findings on material questions of fact and the reasons for the decision, state the name and designation of the person giving the decision, and inform the applicant of their rights to review and complaint.

6. The Bill also requires the agency or Minister to publish the requests, reasons or notice on a website, without charge, by making them available for download, or publishing a on the website a link to another website where the information is available.

The Bill also seeks to protect the privacy of individuals by requiring that certain information be removed. Examples of information that may be removed include personal information, information about the business, commercial, financial or professional affairs of a person, or information that would be unreasonable to publish. Further, the Bill requires information to be removed if the Information Commissioner determines that it would be unreasonable to publish that information.

This Bill seeks to promote the core tenets of transparency and accountability within government decisions.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

______________

1 Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia (ALRC report 112).

Senator LUDWIG: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:38): I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2015:

(a) the extent of food certification schemes and certifiers in Australia including, but not limited to, schemes related to organic, kosher, halal and genetically modified food and general food safety certification schemes;

(b) current labelling requirements of food certification schemes;

(c) the need for labelling on products produced by companies that pay certification fees;

(d) whether current schemes provide enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions;

(e) details regarding certification fees paid by food producers and/or manufacturers, and the potential for these to impact on prices for consumers;

(f) the importance of food certification schemes in relation to export market access and returns to producers;

(g) the extent and adequacy of information available to the public about certifiers including, but not limited to, certification processes, fees and financial records; and

(h) any related matters.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.