Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 13th report of 2006 of the Selection of Bills Committee and move:

That the report be adopted.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee report by 30 November 2006”.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had an amendment circulated in regard to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 and foreshadow that I will be moving that amendment. But I guess we all know what the issue is, in any case. It is becoming a bit of a case of ‘here we go again’ every time a Selection of Bills Committee report is tabled. I indicate that, whilst I am a member of that committee, I was not able to attend yesterday’s meeting. The cloning legislation was in the committee stage at the time the meeting was held and I did not think I was in a position to step out from that debate to go to it, particularly given that we all know what happens these days in Selection of Bills Committee meetings—we just get the legislation served up and the government insists on ridiculously unrealistic time frames.

The proposal here, if I heard the minister correctly, was 30 November for the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill. The Democrats believe that is far too short a time frame for what we believe is significant legislation which is of interest to the community and on which the parliament would benefit from having access to the expertise and views in the community.

I should emphasise that, with Senate committee processes, as a party and as senators we would like more time to be able to consider things—30 November is three weeks away. Whilst we have two non-sitting weeks in front of that, I do not know about the rest of us, but mine are pretty much wall-to-wall committees and inquiries already, given all of the other legislation and issues that we have jam-packed in and on which we have to report by the end of year.

It is not just about giving ourselves more time or making life more convenient, although I do think, frankly, it is appropriate, given the significance of the role that is entrusted to us, that we show respect in doing at least some semblance of a reasonable job. It is also part of the public education and public debate process. The Senate committee processes are not just for the convenience of senators; they actually play an important part in enabling the information to get out into the public arena. The people in the press gallery endeavour, of course, to forensically follow every piece of legislation that comes through here and ensure they give comprehensive coverage on all of the detail on significant matters. Also, of course, for people in the wider community—particularly these days, with more use of the internet, with submissions and Hansard being online and also often with committee inquiry hearings being streamed so that people are able to watch them—there is much more ability for those who are interested to be able to follow, react, respond and put the debate out quite quickly to interested sections of the community that may have nothing to do with the mainstream media.

I guess in that sense we can perhaps accept that we can be a little quicker than we were five years ago with some of these inquiries, but, once again, this is far too short a time frame—31 January is not stretching it out into the ether; it is still a fairly short time frame when you consider that Christmas will be intervening. A lot of people will obviously be focused on other things and having a bit of a break. To allow only three weeks in effect for such legislation, I believe, is really bringing the political process into disrepute.

This is not the first time; this is pretty much a weekly occurrence when we sit. Legislation is tabled, immediately bundled off to a committee, shunted to an extremely quick hearing with an extraordinarily short turnaround time for people to put in submissions, with absurdly short time frames for reports to be written and then bundled into the Senate and railroaded through before half of us even know what it is that we are looking at. It draws the Senate and the whole process into disrepute. Sometimes I wonder if it is not actually part of the government’s agenda to do that. Either way, we do not need to speculate on the agenda. The consequence is a very poor one. It is a poor process. We are not just debating points here; we are making laws and we should at least show the public the courtesy and respect of doing our job properly, given they have given us the responsibility of being in parliament.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bartlett, I am advised by the Clerk—I do not have the two amendments before me—that your amendment is in effect an amendment to the amendment and it should be moved that way.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to Senator Ellison’s amendment:

Omit “30 November 2006”, substitute “31 January 2007”.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator Bartlett’s amendment to the amendment of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The Greens also believe that the reporting date is absolutely ridiculous. The government’s proposed reporting date of November is ridiculous if they are truly trying to encourage a proper informed analysis of these legislative amendments. The proposed amendments are quite significant, and I believe members of the community will want to comment on them. To meaningfully analyse the import of these amendments takes a period of time. It takes time to get out and inform people that these changes are happening. As these changes have only come onto the agenda recently, people will not be aware of the extent of the changes. They need time to analyse them, to get their submissions in. Committee members need time to adequately consider the submissions and make meaningful comment. The time allowed is insufficient to give proper analysis of the amendments, so we are supporting the amendment to the amendment that Senator Bartlett just tabled.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is also supporting the amendment to the amendment. If you look at the Selection of Bills Committee report today, the committee resolved to recommend that this legislation be referred immediately to the committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date. There are two reasons provided in the statements for reasons for referral about the reporting. The real issue is that the government has proposed that the reasons for urgency are that the bill addresses concerns raised by the Northern Land Council in relation to nominating a site under the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. Fancy that! We know exactly what the Northern Land Council has been thinking in terms of the proposal to site radioactive waste in the Northern Territory. The government is suggesting that, if this is not addressed, the Northern Land Council may be unwilling to nominate a site should a community within its jurisdiction wish to volunteer its land. How likely to happen is that? Any nominated site needs to be included in the current Commonwealth radioactive waste management legislation site characterisation program as soon as possible to ensure that such a site is given adequate consideration. Glory be! We know exactly why the government wants to have this reported in such an absurd and obscene time frame by 30 November.

Senator Bartlett is quite right: considering the workload that the environment committee has, it is quite extraordinary. The environment committee is where this should be going; the government has referred it to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education—that in itself is an intriguing event, but never mind. The Australian people who are most affected by this legislation are yet again going to be denied an opportunity to participate meaningfully in an inquiry. Yet again, they are going to be excluded from the process of consideration of the detail of a bill and, yet again, they are going to have their hands forced by this government which is determined to find a site in the Northern Territory for radioactive waste. We are very concerned that yet again due process is being superseded by this extraordinary measure and we support an extension of the time for discussion and investigation of this legislation to the date proposed by Senator Bartlett.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise the reason for the urgency at an early point to cut to the chase in relation to this whole business. The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 amends the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and provides for the failure to comply with the site nomination rules in section 3B, and does not affect the validity of the minister’s approval under section 3C of a nomination. It amends it to remove any entitlement of procedural fairness in relation to a nomination made under section 3A and provides, should a nominated site ultimately be chosen for the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility, for the Commonwealth to return the nominated site to its original owners when it is no longer required. The bill also amends the Administrative Decisions Act to exclude the application of the act to a site nomination under section 3A of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act to ensure consistency with existing provisions of the act relating to sections 3C and 7 of that act.

The bill is therefore a rather technical one but important nonetheless. It addresses concerns raised by the Northern Land Council in relation to nominating a site under the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act. If these concerns are not addressed, the Northern Land Council may be unwilling to nominate a site should a community within its jurisdiction wish to volunteer its land. Any nominated site needs to be included in the current site characterisation under the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act program as soon as possible to ensure that such a site is given adequate consideration within the current project schedule. So, if there is any nominated site, we need to deal with that as quickly as possible. If this reporting date is extended, as proposed by the Democrats, we will be taking this into early next year. We are able to deal with this act with sufficient Senate committee scrutiny and we can then deal with it in the final sitting fortnight, which is coming up. For those reasons, the government considers this to be urgent, and that is why I moved my amendment for an earlier date for reporting.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Bartlett be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Ellison be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 13 OF 2006

(1)

The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 4.21 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a)

the provisions of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 1 and 2 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(b)

the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2006 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(3)

The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment (Audit Inspection) Bill 2006
• Customs Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2006
• Migration Legislation Amendment (Appropriate Review) Bill 2006
• Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2006.

The committee recommends accordingly.

(4)

The committee deferred consideration of the following bill to its next meeting:

• Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 6) Bill 2006.

(Jeannie Ferris)

Chair

8 November 2006

Appendix 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To examine the provisions of the bill in relation to:

• Consequences of the Commonwealth indemnity against damage to the land;
• Removes entitlement to procedural fairness;
• Fare to comply with site nomination rules;
• Interaction with the Land Rights Act and other relevant legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

David Noonan, Australian Conservation Foundation

Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, Victoria

Aboriginal Land Councils

The Environment Centre NT

Environmental Defenders Office NT

Medical Association for Prevention of War

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARPANSA

ANSTO

Committee to which bill is referred:

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 31 January 2007

Appendix 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Statement of Reasons for Introduction and Passage in the 2006 Spring Sittings

Purpose of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 (CRWM Act) to:

• provide that failure to comply with the site nomination rules in section 3B does not affect the validity of the Minister’s approval under section 3C of a nomination;
• remove any entitlement to procedural fairness in relation to a nomination made under section 3A; and
• provide, should a nominated site ultimately be chosen for the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Facility (CRWMF), for the Commonwealth to return the nominated site to its original owners when it is no longer required.

The bill also amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to:

• exclude the application of the Act to a site nomination under section 3A of the CRWM Act to ensure consistency with existing provisions of the Act relating to sections 3C and 7 of the CRWM Act.

Reasons for Urgency

The bill addresses concerns raised by the Northern Land Council (NLC) in relation to nominating a site under the CRWM Act. If not addressed, the NLC may be unwilling to nominate a site should a community within its jurisdiction wish to volunteer its land.

Any nominated site needs to be included in the current CRWMF site characterisation programme as soon as possible to ensure that such a site is given adequate consideration within the current CRWMF project schedule.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education, Science and Training)

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 30 November 2007

Appendix 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Statement of Reasons for Introduction and Passage in the 2006 Spring Sittings

Purpose of the bills

This “first tranche” of legislation repeals and replaces much of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 and better implements parts of the revised (June 2003) Forty Recommendations of the OECD-based Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and several of FATF’s Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing. The remainder of the FATF Recommendations (except for those implemented by other legislation) will be implemented via a future “second tranche” of legislation.

Reasons, for Urgency

Passage of the bills is required in the 2006 Spring sittings to implement outstanding international obligations (arising out of Australia’s membership of FATF) to upgrade anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Justice and Customs)

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 28 November 2006