Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (8) and (9) on sheet 8502, together:

(8) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 16), after "restored", insert ", to the satisfaction of the owner of the land,".

(9) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 25), after "restored", insert ", to the satisfaction of the owner of the land,".

In relation to these amendments put forward this evening by the Australian Greens, I would like to make it clear to the chamber that, although the legislation as currently drafted does, in fact, contain provisions for post-remediation removal of responsibilities, it has been noted, very vocally in fact, by the Western Australian Local Government Association, in their submission to the inquiry into this bill, that there is substantial evidence that telecommunication carriers have a poor track record on satisfactorily remediating land and structures after installations have been completed. As such, these amendments seek to strengthen the remediation provisions with the addition of 'to the satisfaction of the land owner' to its condition before the installation began.

These are simple amendments which seek to do nothing more than ensure that the proprietors of these installations are required to clean up the mess they make. It's not a radical suggestion. It's not something which I would imagine anybody in this chamber with common sense could have a strong objection to. It therefore strikes me as particularly strange that I suspect this amendment does not enjoy the support of this chamber, particularly the support of the ALP. Over the last year I have had the pleasure of working alongside many senators from the opposition. Many of them I do not agree with on certain policy points, but they are good, honourable, quick-thinking people. I'm thinking particularly of Senator McCarthy and Senator Moore when I make those comments. I feel that a party containing such folks should be able to easily apply itself to such a simple suggestion as is contained within the amendments I put forward this evening. Therefore, I find myself quite puzzlingly disappointed by the fact that I suspect the ALP will not be getting on board with this amendment. As to the government's opposition to the proposed wording of this amendment, it doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately. This is a piece of legislative work which, according to the wording that has been given to us, apparently seeks to remove unnecessary burdens from information carriers. I don't think it's an unnecessary burden to have to clean up the mess you make if you install one of these towers. I grant that some of that is laid out within the legislation, but what is the harm in making this language clear and removing ambiguity? I can't see any at all. That's why we've put it forward in the amendment in the way that we have. I commend it to the chamber and thank the chamber for its time.

Question negatived.

Progress reported.