Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

This really goes back to what I said when the committee stage commenced: it is a case where there is a due diligence process in place. This framework legislation will provide for the due diligence, it will provide for how that will operate, and then it will provide for the auditing and the compliance framework within the legislation. That is the framework legislation. Much of the detail around how that will be made operational will be a matter for the department. The powers are clearly within the framework. The powers are quite extensive for the regulator to ensure that they have sufficient powers to aid in the compliance. It will ensure that they can obtain the necessary evidence and prosecute cases which are brought to their attention or which they discover.

In addition to that, the compliance framework is also, as you would outline, one that, in terms of what information would be available, would be subject to commercial constraints and commercial sensitivities. I would expect—and this would be part of the ongoing development of the regulations—that things like the audit reports and that type of information which would be valuable to stakeholders other than commercial stakeholders who might be interested in commercial advantage. As to the broad information about how the department operates, my preference has always been—you can check my record on this—to err on the side of making whatever is available public on the web or in a format that is suitable for people to view.

However, I cannot commit to that at this point of time. It is a matter that should be properly developed with the stakeholders, with the regulator and then promulgated in the regulations. We then land in a place where the commercial-in-confidence matters are not disclosed but information should always be made available around the nature of the compliance framework and the nature of the audits for that information that helps stakeholders understand the process. Why do I fall on that side? Clearly, the strength of FOI legislation would also press me to that, but that is where I stand generally: open disclosure is far better than getting found out after the event.

More broadly, the government does hold information on behalf of the public and therefore the public should have access to it and it should be accessible in a reasonable way. But, in this instance, it is a matter on which we will need to have a conversation with the department on to put it in operation it through the regulations. We will also have a longer conversation with the stakeholders about the nature of the disclosures to ensure that the compliance framework works effectively.

Going back to the earlier issue, when the stakeholders, the NGOs, want to be able to provide information to the regulator about suspected breaches of the legislation, then in an easy way they can bring it to the attention of the regulator to undertake proper investigations of the importer and the due diligence statements that they have provided. With all of that, I again fall on the point of saying I understand the sentiments that you have expressed. I agree more broadly that open scrutiny is the way to go; however, at this juncture I cannot agree with your prescriptive amendment, but I do commit to ensuring that in the development of the regulations much of what you discussed will in fact be reflected in it.