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

The Greens oppose item 2 in schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 17 (line 4) to page 18 (line 6), paragraphs 6 (5)(d) to (f) of schedule 3, TO BE OPPOSED.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that paragraphs 6(5)(d) to (f) of schedule 2 stand as printed.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (3) to (7), and (10) on sheet 8502 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 15 (lines 6 to 17), omit the definition of high-demand holiday period in clause 2 of Schedule 3.

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 18 (lines 16 to 20), omit subclause 6(5B) of Schedule 3.

(4) Schedule 2, item 3, page 18 (line 21), omit "paragraphs (5) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)", substitute "paragraphs (5) (b) and (c)".

(5) Schedule 2, item 5, page 19 (lines 23 to 32), omit subclauses 8A(3) and (4) of Schedule 3.

(6) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 15) to page 21 (line 2), omit clauses 8B and 8C of Schedule 3.

(7) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 13), omit ", (d), (e), (f)".

(10) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 28), omit ", (d), (e), (f)".

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1), (3) to (7), and (10) on sheet 8502, moved by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [19:12]

(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ketter)

The division was unavailable at time of publishing.

Question negatived.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.