Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate on behalf of the Australian Greens—and this may come as some surprise to the government and probably some relief to Senator Johnston, by the sounds of things and the rather peculiar mixed messages that he is sending—that we will be supporting this amendment. We were also persuaded. This might have come down as a bit of a lineball. I recognise that the opposition is basically creating an incentive, encouraging efficiency and encouraging some quick decision making for deciding on permits promptly and I do have some sympathy with the opposition in those intentions—for reasons that I guess I have made reasonably abundantly clear during the day.

But we recognise that making that cut-off period for decision making automatic may have unintended consequences. I would tend to agree with Senator Feeney when he identifies that the ones that are lagging and are taking the longest are likely the examples that are the most sensitive that involve dual-use technology and might involve materials or pieces of equipment that could be used for producing weapons of mass destruction and it is unlikely that trivial things are going to be held up behind the statutory time frames that Senator Johnston is proposing here that would then call for an automatic presumption that the permit was granted.

If there were real consultation between multi agencies, probably with international authorities or perhaps with groups like the IAEA—and you could imagine a couple of different scenarios—and the answers were not provided within time, my reading of this amendment is that the permit would automatically be granted. I suspect that sets up a degree of inflexibility that, in the wrong circumstances, could be quite dangerous. We believe that there must be some potential for contingency. The time frames put by the opposition, I guess, make sense, but not necessarily the part 3B that states that the permit is approved automatically. So we will not be supporting the amendment. I suspect, as Senator Johnston has indicated, there will not be a division called.

I cannot help but wonder what the fate of this amendment would be if the Greens had chosen to support it. Senator Johnston has dropped about a dozen hints in the last hour or two that he is desperate to drop the other amendment that the Senate just passed. I wonder what kinds of incentives exactly are being offered to the government here.

Senator Feeney was not able to persuade Senator Johnston to drop this amendment now. I encourage the coalition: stick by your guns on this one—bad pun, actually, under the circumstances. Stick with the arguments that you have put. That was well argued. I hope your arguments are sustained by your colleagues in the other place so that we pass this substantive amendment to this bill. Between us, the amendments that the government has made, that the Greens have made and that the coalition have put forward that we have supported, we will be able to say we have made substantive improvements to this bill. So I do not know what the dark hints about withdrawing the amendment are all about. I cannot support this one, opposition amendment (2), but I understand the thinking behind it.

Question negatived.