Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am disappointed the government could not make even one small concession to the concerns raised. I know they have absolute power, but a bit of respect for the parliamentary process would not go astray on occasions. And, if you are going to tell people you are listening, generally people regard that somehow, on occasions, one might change one’s behaviour if one is genuinely listening. But to be listening and never change one’s behaviour is not in accordance with my understanding of listening. As I said, we try to be constructive about this bill, as with all others, and we have tried to assist its implementation. I do not think it would hurt the government to occasionally listen to those concerns and to actually act rather than just reassure us they are listening.

I did want to say that I do not know what the minister’s point was when he said that the Labor senators did not support this. It was not explicitly a point made in the report if that is what he is trying to say, but I can assure him that Labor senators do support the amendment. But, as you know, in a short inquiry with a complex bill, Labor senators did not attempt—nor did government senators attempt—to deal with every issue in the bill. The overall recommendation of the committee was to monitor the new regime, and it also made known a number of other concerns in its report.

Anyway, it is clear that the government are not going to provide that reassurance. I am not sure that the minister’s broad reassurance regarding the amendment will be that widely circulated in Indigenous corporations. I think they will have enough trouble dealing with the 600 pages of legislation without adding to their reading. But I think it is an important amendment. I do press the point that it does make procedural fairness explicit. It seems to me that, if the government say that it happens anyway, it is not too much to ask that they actually provide that assurance in the legislation. I am disappointed that listening does not impact on behaviour.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 5096 together:

(3)    Clause 658-1, page 523 (after line 33), after paragraph (1)(i), insert:

                 (ia)   to inform the Minister about any issues affecting the independence of the office.

(4)    Clause 658-5, page 524 (line 28), at the end of clause 658-5, add:

         ; and (f)   to maintain the independence and integrity of the office in the exercise of his or her functions.

                 (ia)   to inform the Minister about any issues affecting the independence of the office.

Labor is moving to stipulate the independence of the registrar and the registrar’s office. Labor notes that the bill increases the independence of the registrar by transforming the position into a principle executive officer as opposed to a public servant, and that means that the remuneration and terms of conditions will be set by the Remuneration Tribunal, not by the minister. That is a small improvement in the sense of independence of the office. Labor also notes the structural reforms that have happened within the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and that there are new reporting requirements for the registrar in terms of reporting to the corporate section of the department rather than directly to the OIPC. But these things changed quickly, and they may change back quickly. The one thing we know about Indigenous policy is that it is constantly changing.

More fundamentally, the registrar is still appointed by the minister and there is still scope for ministerial interference in the decision making of the registrar. There is serious unease on this side of the chamber about the Mutitjulu intervention. Although I do not want to go to the specifics of the case, I think we are all aware that there are court proceedings occurring in relation to that. I am not going to the circumstances of what is occurring in Mutitjulu, but there is concern about whether the registrar’s office has enough independence, particularly given this sort of activist minister with a hands-on approach, if I can put it in its kindest form. Labor are seeking to enunciate and clarify the independence of the registrar in the bill. We are seeking to include within the aims of the registrar a clause that says:

... to maintain the independence and integrity of the office in the exercise of his or her functions.

We are also seeking to include within the list of functions of the registrar a clause that says:

... to inform the Minister about any issues affecting the independence of the office.

This statutory function is identical to that of the Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs). The independence of that office is central to its integrity, so I think it is a useful point of reference. The Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs) is another part of the checks and balances within this area of policy. As I said, it is the statutory function that governs the operations of that office. We think it would be useful to have that same protection included in this bill. As I said in my speech on the second reading, this is not a reflection on the current registrar or previous registrars, but Labor want to make sure that the office’s independence is protected.