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

I move amendment (12) on sheet 5307:

(12)  Schedule 5, page 29 (after line 1), after item 54, insert:

54A After subsection 60(1)

Insert:

     (1A)    If the Minister does not agree in writing in accordance with subsection (1), the Minister must provide a written statement of particulars and reasons specifying the ground or grounds on which agreement was not given.

      (1B)    A copy of the Minister’s decision in relation to consent, and the written statement of particulars and reasons, if applicable, must be supplied to:

             (a)    the Chairperson of the Commission; and

             (b)    the person who made the application to export wheat under section 57.

      (1C)    The Minister must cause a copy of his decision in relation to consent given in accordance with subsection (1) and a statement of particulars and reasons in accordance with subsection (1A), if applicable, to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the Minister makes a decision in relation to consent.

This provision places limits on and requires accountability for the minister’s use of the temporary veto power. This amendment requires the minister to provide a written statement of reasons if he or she chooses to use the temporary veto power conferred by section 62(2). A copy of the written statement of reasons must be supplied to the chairperson of the regulator, the person who made the application and both houses of parliament within five days of the notice.

This move would be strongly welcomed by many growers and their organisations. It is necessary to ensure that the minister is held publicly accountable for the decisions he takes in this very powerful position that the parliament confers upon him in relation to export wheat applications and to guard against cavalier decisions—particularly to guard against conflict of interest, but certainly on the basis of transparency. We do not see why the minister should not provide that information to the parliament. The minister might say, ‘Well, people may choose to supply it,’ but I would respond by saying: ‘Why should the parliament be dependent on other people to inform it about how the powers conferred upon the minister by the parliament are used? Why shouldn’t the minister advise the parliament?’ We do not think this is an onerous provision. We think it ought to be supported.