Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. It is regrettable that, in an area of public policy as important as the environment, we should see today a piece of legislation—409 pages to the principal bill, a bill that was introduced in this place last Thursday morning and a bill that the government expects to proceed through both chambers of the parliament by November—that has caused so much controversy in the short time that the community and the parliament have had to look at the ramifications of it. It is quite extraordinary that, in a very hectic legislative period, as the world moves on, pieces of legislation and the debate can change so quickly. Often there are things that are happening, not necessarily in this chamber, that affect the way in which the debate flows.

Yesterday, while this bill was being discussed in this place, in the Senate the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills tabled one of its regular reports. I have to admit to my colleagues from the other place I am not necessarily the greatest student of what goes on in the Senate, but it is instructive. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has a look at every piece of legislation that comes before the Senate and has clear terms of reference under Senate standing order 24. Yesterday’s report commented on 10 groups of legislation. The whole report runs for 27 pages, 12 of which are devoted to the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006.

I want to remind the House of one aspect of the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler on behalf of the opposition, and this is only one aspect. It states:

Having declined to give the second reading, the House expresses strong concern that:

(5)

many of the proposed changes in the bill will reduce Ministerial accountability and opportunities for genuine public consultation …

Littered through the comments of the scrutiny of bills committee we see comments about various clauses and aspects of the bill, saying they:

… may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee’s terms of reference.

Principle 1(a)(i) simply says that the committee needs to look at whether the bill will trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. At 1(a)(iv) there is a comment about inappropriately delegating legislative powers. Littered through the report are more comments about clauses that impinge on personal rights and liberties: powers to search without warrant and powers given—which the Senate committee believes should only be given to police officers—to various officials. The committee looks at schedule 2, part 2, subitem 42 and says:

... it may be considered to delegate legislative powers inappropriately, in breach of principle 1(a)(iv) ...

It is quite extraordinary that a bipartisan Senate committee should come to such conclusions on so many aspects of this bill—and this is not even the committee of the Senate that will be investigating the environment and heritage matters in the bill. So when that committee finally reports in November, goodness knows what comments are going to be made. It is just not good enough when you have a government senator concluding, in his contribution to the report by the scrutiny of bills committee, that this legislation should go back to the drawing board.

I am not aware of the arcane factional arrangements of the Liberal Party. I do not know whether Senator Johnston has got it in for Senator Ian Campbell or whatever. It is hard enough to keep up with the factional arrangements of my own party! The point is that when you get a comment like that there should be alarm bells ringing. There should be alarm bells ringing when a governing party, on so many fronts, has members of its own backbench querying the motives and reasons for pieces of legislation. Senator Johnston went on to say:

It discloses no motivation, no reasoning and no justification for some of the most draconian powers that this parliament can conceivably and possibly enact ...

See this speech in context