Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that you have received written reasons to the effect of establishing—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

We can negotiate reasonable things. I will just speak briefly to those reasons. Obviously, these amendments are proposed in the context of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill. That bill delivers, or will deliver, savings to business in the vicinity of $1.43 million, as well as administrative savings. The amendments are in two broad parts. I will first consider the amendments which, at least on their face, are attempting to be constructive but which we reject for a variety of reasons which are specific to those amendments. The second amendments relate to submarine contracts and I will deal with those last.

The first amendments are Senate amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4). They are moved by Senator Waters. Essentially, those amendments propose retaining the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee. They would also seek to disallow alternative public consultation processes that would apply with respect to the grant and variation of approvals.

By way of short explanation, a statutory process is simply not required to facilitate the necessary engagement. I would also note that in MYEFO, it was noted that the Department of the Environment would save itself internally $76,000 over six years by disbanding these groups, councils and committees, which are no longer required. That is a saving that can be pushed back into further and better work to protect the environment by the department, and that is the central reason for rejecting those Senate amendments Nos (1), (2), (3) and (4).

Senate amendment Nos (5) and (6) would seek to maintain a requirement to publish certain notices under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 and the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The alternative proposal which appears in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill is essentially that those notices, which are obviously of some importance, be published on the website rather than in the government Gazette. Senator Waters has taken a view that they should remain published in the Gazette. The government takes a very strong alternative view that the Gazette, in matters of this type, is essentially the quill-and-parchment option, that actually offering people the ability to know what is occurring at this level of government to make proper comment is far better achieved in 2015 on a website than it is on the government Gazette.

These amendments (5) and (6) would also disallow a number of measures to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. They are variously amendments that would seek to disallow what the government proposes which is the removal of the requirement to specify particulars of an application in the regulations before a permanent decision can be made. These amendments would seek to disallow the clarification of matters to be included in Basel import and export permits. They would seek to disallow the clarification of the period of appointment for members of the Hazardous Waste Technical Group. They would seek to disallow a proposal that the government has in this bill to enable the Minister for the Environment to delegate his or her functions and powers under the hazardous waste act 1989 to an APS employee who holds or is acting in an executive level 2 or equivalent position. Each of those should be uncontroversial; nevertheless they are the subject of amendments.

Again, publication requirements are not being done away with; it is simply a shift of the publication requirements to a more suitable forum, which is the website rather than the government Gazette. The requirement that a person holds an Australia OECD transit permit is purely duplicatory. The Minister for the Environment would still need to be satisfied under what we propose that the transit does not pose a significant risk of injury or damage to human beings or the environment in order to exempt any person from the requirement to hold the duplicate Australia OECD transport permit.

Further, we are looking to sensibly reduce the level of detail in Basel import and export permits so that individual companies would not have to reapply if, for instance, some minor matter such as the port of entry changed on the application permit. Again, all of those things could be considered to go into the relevant document if the minister considered them to be important.

The Hazardous Waste Technical Group is being retained but, to make sure that the expertise is relevant, for a three-year period, which is entirely reasonable. The delegations we suggest are also entirely reasonable and conducive and consistent with other delegations.

With respect to what we say is the unreasonable amendment with respect to submarines, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill has nothing to do with submarines. It has nothing to do with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. However—

Mr Butler interjecting—

The Senate says many things and not all of them are correct. What we say is that there was a six-year delay in the process of obtaining our most strategic military asset. The best advice is that the insertion of this proposed amendment into the PGPA Act would allow for a further five-year delay, and we are saving Labor from themselves by rejecting this amendment. The idea that we would put a further five-year delay in five-minutes debate on a bill which has nothing to do with submarines is patently absurd.

See this speech in context