Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me respond to some of the comments that Senator Edwards made in his contribution to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013. First is the issue of consultation by the previous government on the issues that are raised by the bill before the chair.

It is fair to say, and it is on the record, that there was extensive consultation undertaken during the review process and that the legislation before the chair today implements the recommendations put forward in the review. Submissions were received in that consultation process from interested stakeholders, including the resources industry, a range of Indigenous groups, pastoralists and environmental groups. That consultation process included the release of an information paper on the proposed legislative framework for the Woomera Prohibited Area and that paper provided a general overview of the proposed policy framework for the implementation of the then proposed legislative package.

An exposure draft was released in May 2013 with a request for stakeholder feedback and the South Australian government hosted a consultation workshop in Adelaide in May 2013, chaired by the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office, to discuss the then proposed bill. And again in late May the South Australian government hosted discussions between Defence officials and the traditional owners of the lands affected by the then proposed bill. So one cannot conclude other than that there was anything else but extensive and detailed consultation over an extended period of time with a range of the interest groups who were and continue to be affected by the proposed legislation.

As we go forward, I understand that this bill will be referred to a Senate committee. The government intends to bring forward its own bill. That will again be referred to a Senate committee and then the government's bill will be brought into the chamber. What that means, of course, is that there are going to be deliberate and extensive delays in the passage of either this bill or the government's bill—because they are identical in substance—and that is a shame. Really, I wonder why that is occurring. In some sense it reminds me quite eerily of the process that occurred in the Defence Trade Controls Bill, brought in over the last two years, where there was continuing delay because some of the consultation engaged in by the relevant department was found to be inadequate—