Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

for bringing it to the attention of the chamber. The problem with amendments—I do accept your interjection, Senator Farrell—is that you cannot really fix a bad bill. Unfortunately, this bill is wrong in many respects and I know the Minister for Defence outlined that in his speech, because you made the same interjection to him—'move some amendments'. But we do not want to be beholden to the policy positions of either the Greens or the Labor Party. We want to put forward something that is sensible and measured and in the interests of South Australia.

As Senator Fifield said, our amended version will address a number of points of particular concern to the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. I know, Senator Farrell, that you are not that worried about the concerns of the current South Australian government—because they betrayed you so callously and so publicly those few weeks ago by preventing you from pursuing your rightful place in the South Australian parliament. Nonetheless, we do think that dealing with the concerns of the South Australian and Northern Territory governments is important. The bill needs to include clarification of existing users, which includes the pastoralists, the railways and local Indigenous groups. They are typically groups that those on the other side of the chamber ignore. But we do not. We take consultation seriously.

We do not sit on planes cobbling together plans on the back of an envelope. We do not just make stuff up and give the department two days to implement something like the pink batts scheme, because the implications and ramifications of doing so can be catastrophic. They can be financially catastrophic, as in the case of the NBN, where upwards of $90 billion of taxpayers' money was committed on the whim of Mr Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, and his fine pal Senator Stephen Conroy. Alternatively, the results can be catastrophic not only financially but at a personal level, as we saw in the case of the implementation of the pink batts scheme. I am sure, Madam Acting Deputy President, that you, along with everyone else in this chamber, would be horrified to think that a $4 billion or $5 billion spend was cooked up in two days on the instructions of the Prime Minister. There was no accounting for anything that happened and no consultation at all. So when we say that we want to consult with stakeholders, it is about a better framework and better governance. I think the Australian public are desperately looking for that and for more accountability for taxpayers' funds.

It is also worthwhile pointing out that a waiver of the regulatory impact statement requirement was granted for the previous government's Woomera bill. That bill's terms were substantially similar to the private senator's bill we are currently debating. A regulatory impact statement on proposed changes to Defence's administration of the Woomera Prohibited Area has now been finalised. This statement will inform any legislative or regulatory changes the government intends to make to the administration of the Woomera Prohibited Area.