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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1202:

(1) Schedule 1, items 9 to 13, page 4 (line 27) to page 5 (line 6), omit the items, substitute:

9 Subsection 383(4) (note)

Repeal the note.

10 Subsection 385(3) (note)

Repeal the note.

11 Section 386

Repeal the section.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, we are not going to support the amendment, because it would deny the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment its legal basis to ensure tariff quotas were not overallocated. The intention of the bill that's before us is to provide greater clarity under the Export Control Act, and the inclusion of tariff rate certificates in addition to tariff rate entitlements reflects the fact that some of the trading partners use different terms. It's also important to note that the measure is already in the Export Control Act 2020, and the proposed government bill seeks to avoid confusion for exporters.

The amendment that you've put forward would, as I've said, deny the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment the legal basis to ensure that quotas aren't overallocated. The bill and the retrospective measures also make clear that exporters will be unable to seek a formal review of the quota allocated to them, where the full quota has been allocated. Quota arrangements are negotiated as part of bilateral arrangements, regional and multilateral trade agreements, and it would be inappropriate for the department and the government to be put in a position where it is exceeding its agreed quotas and allocations. That is the reason why we will not be supporting your amendment, Senator Steele-John.

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

As noted by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, there is a question as to whether this bill, as it currently stands, may trespass on an individual's or an entity's right to a fair hearing, because of the amendments that it makes to the relevant legislation relating to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I said in my first contribution to this debate, when combined with the so-called Henry VIII clause within this bill, these two aspects of this legislation take something which would otherwise be seen as purely administrative and they put up some pretty significant red flags. I'm speaking particularly to the ALP when I'm thinking here that there have been a few times during the course of my time here when I've been genuinely moved and motivated by a speech made by a member of this place. One of those times, however, was the speech made by Senator Carr in the previous sitting in relation to the absolutely urgent need that this house of review, this chamber of review, reassert its prerogative to review actions and decisions made by the government, under legislation, and that it in no way volunteer the opportunity for that power to be taken away unless there's a good reason made for it.

It's our view in the Greens that a good enough reason has not been made for the inclusion of the so-called Henry VIII clause here. And, additionally, there has been nowhere near the compelling case made to remove relevant decisions from the purview of the AAT. The amendment offered by the Greens this evening addresses these flaws in the legislation, and I commend it to the Senate on that basis.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, the methodology for allocating quotas differs across different markets. The way that it's been designed allows new entrants and small exporters to be able to access those quotas as well. So it is just simply a means of us being able to provide all exporters with an opportunity to be able to participate in our export markets. Whilst I've heard your concerns, we do not believe that the amendment that you are putting forward will improve the bill. We believe it will be detrimental to the bill. Therefore, we won't be supporting it.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question before the chair is on the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John.