Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—The opposition oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (lines 17 and 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 30 and 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (lines 4 and 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 56, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), TO BE OPPOSED.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 58, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 5 and 6), TO BE OPPOSED.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 7 and 8), TO BE OPPOSED.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (lines 27 and 28), TO BE OPPOSED.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 10 and 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 95, page 17 (lines 15 and 16), TO BE OPPOSED.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 100, page 18 (lines 1 and 2), TO BE OPPOSED.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 103, page 18 (lines 14 and 15), TO BE OPPOSED.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 112, page 19 (lines 19 and 20), TO BE OPPOSED.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (lines 17 and 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (lines 30 and 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 136, page 23 (lines 4 and 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 141, page 23 (lines 16 and 17), TO BE OPPOSED.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 147, page 24 (lines 12 and 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

I move opposition amendments (2), (4), (8), (12), (14), (22), (26) and (28) on sheet 5237:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (line 23), omit “as a business day”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 59, page 11 (line 27), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line 4), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 16 (line 4), omit “as a business day”.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 101, page 18 (line 8), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(26)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (line 24), omit “as a business day”.

Our position in relation to those items can be put fairly succinctly: the opposition is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines. That is the essence of that array of amendments to various aspects of the bill.

Earlier this year, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Vaile, said, ‘I have received a number of representations from government MPs and senators asking me to extend the 45-day working period for consultation to 60 working days.’ If there was historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, the revised time lines, which would have brought the planning regime into line with state and territory planning processes, may well have been acceptable. But the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines on our part is a manifestation of our distrust of this government in the implementation of the process.

Following consultations with the shadow minister, Labor members and senators expressed equal concern about the matter—and, for that matter, so do their constituencies. It is a fact that the government’s record on airport development, with the brickworks in Perth and the retail developments in Adelaide and Essendon, for example, demonstrates the reasons we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reduction in consultation or approval times. These processes are very important and the Commonwealth discharges a very significant and onerous responsibility in dealing with them. We believe that it is an appropriate responsibility for the Commonwealth, but we do not believe that at the present time the Commonwealth is demonstrating the necessary level of respect for the views of the community in the way that it is handling this process. In our opinion, our agreeing to these propositions would almost be a decision to accept the government’s bona fides in that regard.

We propose that there be no change to consultation or approval time lines. That will have some effect on the period of time available for proper consultation and the proper consideration of matters. We think that that is appropriate. We think that there is no reason the government could not live with such a proposition and we believe that the industry sector would have no significant problems living with this particular series of amendments. We know that the government is seeking to do otherwise. We cannot support the government’s view, hence we press these amendments.