Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on Sheet ZB203:

(Government)

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 25), after subsection 29(2A), insert:

(2B) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, the disclosure is not prevented from being a public interest disclosure only because:

(a) the disclosure includes other information; and

(b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct.

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (after line 4), after subsection 43(4), insert:

(4A) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, there might be a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered to be an internal disclosure even if:

(a) the disclosure includes other information; and

(b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct.

Note: A disclosure may include information relating to a number of instances of conduct, some of which may be considered disclosable conduct, and some of which may not (for example, because that conduct is personal work-related conduct). Paragraph (4)(a) does not apply if one or more of those instances provide a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be an internal disclosure under section 26.

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (after line 33), at the end of paragraph 44A(3)(a), add:

(iii) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply—any courses of action that might be available to the discloser under another law or power; and

I also table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to this bill and I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

The amendments on Sheet ZB203 would clarify the operation of the personal work related conduct provisions and insert a notification obligation on authorised officers where they decide not to allocate a disclosure because there is no reasonable basis upon which it could be considered an internal disclosure.

I will briefly outline amendments on sheet ZB203. Amendments (1) and (2) relate to personal work related conduct. The government is proposing two amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 to clarify the operation of the personal work related conduct provisions. Disclosures of integrity related wrongdoing are often accompanied by allegations of other personal workplace related conduct. The first two amendments would insert an avoidance of doubt provision to clarify how the framework will operate where a person makes a mixed disclosure that contains elements of both personal work related conduct such as an allegation of bullying, harassment or undue performance management, and integrity related wrongdoing such as fraud, corruption or maladministration.

The first amendment will make clear for whistleblowers and agencies that mixed disclosures are not prevented from being a public interest disclosure, only because the disclosure includes information that tends to show personal work related conduct. The second amendment will provide greater clarity for authorised officers in agencies about how to handle mixed disclosures. The amendments will make clear for both whistleblowers and agencies that disclosures of integrity related wrongdoing will not be excluded from the Public Interest Disclosures Act framework only because they also contain a disclosure about personal work related conduct. The existing measures in the bill already have this effect. However, these amendments will put beyond doubt that the personal work related conduct provisions contained in the bill would operate to exclude only personal work related conduct from the PID Act. Importantly, the protections under the PID Act would continue to apply to public interest disclosures which include one or more instances of disclosable conduct, even if the disclosure also includes personal work related conduct.

Amendment 3 concerns notification obligations where an authorised officer decides not to allocate a disclosure because there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure. The government is proposing an amendment that would apply in circumstances where an authorised officer decides not to allocate the disclosure for investigation under the PID Act because the authorised officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is no reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered an internal disclosure within the meaning of the act. The amendment would require the authorised officer to notify a discloser of any other course of action that might be available to them under another law or power, such as under the Public Service Act 1999. The amendment would ensure that the authorised officer is required to provide information to a discloser about how else they may take forward their disclosure of wrongdoing, when the authorised officer has decided that there is no reasonable basis on which it could be considered an internal disclosure, and so it cannot be dealt with under the PID Act.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will be supporting these amendments. Items 1 and 2 are avoidance of doubt provisions. These provisions will make clear that disclosable conduct is not excluded from the PID scheme if a complaint also includes information that is personal work related conduct. The legislative note to item 2 helpfully confirms that a single disclosure which relates to multiple instances of conduct is not excluded if one or more of the instances is disclosable conduct. This is consistent with the coalition government's response to recommendation 5 of the Moss review. Similarly, item 3 would require the decision-maker to tell the discloser what options they may have outside the PID Act, even if it is not immediately clear that the matter should be dealt with under another law or power. We believe that these are sensible amendments, and the coalition, as I said, will be supporting them.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens, too, will support these amendments, but we have some questions we'll be asking of the minister about the intent behind the amendments and how they'll actually operate in practice. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General and his department have engaged with the issue and the submissions that came into the inquiry that made it very clear that pretty much no key stakeholder was satisfied that the bill, as initially drafted, actually implemented recommendation 5 of the Moss review and that the carve-out was likely to create significant concerns. One of the concerns that was raised in the committee that hasn't been addressed by the government—and I might put my first question to the minister in this regard—is that the Ombudsman's office made it very clear that having these multiple tests in 29(2A) and 43(4), where disclosure tends to show or may tend to show disclosable conduct, was likely to be contested by whistleblowers, particularly if there was an adverse conclusion from the decision-maker. It was likely to be tested by whistleblowers and then referred to the Ombudsman, seeking the Ombudsman's review of those decisions. Now we have two separate points where that decision could be made. My first question to the minister is: has the department engaged with the Ombudsman's office to try and address the concerns that the Ombudsman's office raised in the inquiry on these points?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. I understand that the government has engaged with the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office about this matter and that guidance will be provided to whistleblowers to address those issues.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. My memory of the Ombudsman's evidence was that they expected something like that to occur in relation to the bill as originally drafted. Their concern was that, even with the guidance, there is likely to be a substantial uplift in the work that the Ombudsman's office is required to do. I note that the current budget provides no additional funding for the Ombudsman to do this work. Did the government consider this, and did the government get a resource request from the Ombudsman? That's what they said to the committee. They said very clearly to the committee: 'We're already strapped. We don't have enough resources to do our existing work. This is going to put a whole lot of additional burden on us, with some highly agitated individuals who tend to be quite resource needy because they've got concerns about whistleblowing and it can be complex.' My question is two parts: did the Ombudsman make a resource request and has the government addressed it?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. Certainly, the resourcing issues for the Ombudsman are something the government is considering, and we will continue to engage with the Ombudsman about any resourcing needs they have in relation to this piece of work.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that those answers don't address the concerns that were raised by the Ombudsman's office. It highlights the concerns the Greens have with the form of this amendment because the proposal that was being put forward by a number of stakeholders was that we adopt the wording in the Moss Review, which is that matters that are solely personal, work-related matters are excluded from the PID act, but you limit the carve-out to just that. It's an easy test. You can see the test readily applied. But the government now has, effectively, a first-stage test under subclauses 29(2A) and 43(4) where it says:

(2B) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, the disclosure is not prevented from being a public interest disclosure …

That's likely to be a highly contested definition in circumstances. If it gets through that gateway, there is a separate test that may apply to the same complaint under section 43(4), that says:

(4A) To avoid doubt, if a disclosure includes information that tends to show (or that may tend to show) disclosable conduct, there might be a reasonable basis on which the disclosure could be considered to be an internal disclosure even if:

(a) the disclosure includes other information; and

(b) the other information tends to show (or may tend to show) personal work-related conduct.

Each of those steps, the Ombudsman told us, is likely to be contested by a whistleblower or someone who purports to be a whistleblower and has an adverse conclusion against them by the decision-maker. Minister, who is going to be making the decision under 29(2A)? The second part of my question flows from that, which is: who will be making the decision under 43(4)?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it will be the authorised officer under the PID scheme for both matters you are referring to.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand from your earlier answer, Minister, that there will be some guidance given. Is it intended that the Ombudsman's office will draft that guidance for the authorised officers, or is it intended that that will come from the Attorney-General's Department? Again, I come back to the point that all of the concerns raised by the Ombudsman's office now seems to be highlighted by these amendments. I'm not speaking against adopting the amendments—the amendments make it better. They actually narrow the carve-out and allow for mixed matters to still be considered as a PID complaint, and that's a step forward. But the way in which this is drafted highlights the resource concerns within the department from the authorised officer and the process the authorised officer would have to go through, and then the resource concerns that will almost inevitably flow to the Ombudsman in seeking a review of those decisions. Obviously, whether a matter is accepted as a PID or not fundamentally changes the protections that are offered to a public servant or somebody working in an agency. If their complaint is accepted as a PID they have a whole lot of protections. If it is not accepted as a PID then the response that can be taken against them is pretty much at large. So, who is going to be drafting the guidelines, and what, if any, assurances can you give that the Ombudsman's evidence won't come true?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office will be drafting the guidelines, and that will be undertaken in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that clarification. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that when the bill was first presented, many months ago, real agitation came from the Attorney-General's office about any suggestion that we have an inquiry. It was a 'How dare we have an inquiry' kind of response that came back from the AG's office. Of course, the inquiry has been essential, because it's highlighted the concerns that have led to these amendments, which I think will go a significant way to improving an identified problem in the bill. But in the course of that communication with the Attorney-General's office the suggestion was made that if we hadn't passed this in March then the Public Service and the public sector wouldn't be ready to implement it by the time the NACC opened its doors. Well, for some reason inexplicable to us in the Greens, the Attorney failed to bring this on in the last session. It was ready to go. The amendments were all drafted. The committee report had been provided. It was all ready to go last month. But for reasons that have never been publicly explained, the government chose not to bring it on.

So, my question I suppose is in two parts. The first part is: why was it not brought on, given the purported urgency that had come out of the Attorney's office? Secondly, what preparatory steps are being taken to ensure that it's going to be able to be operationalised by 1 July when the NACC opens its doors?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously a number of different items have been big priorities for this government. This has certainly been a priority, but there's been an awful lot to do across a whole range of portfolios. But we have brought this on as early as we possibly can, while making sure it's done thoroughly. If you believe that this is something we should deal with urgently, then how about we try to get it passed before we reach that marker at 12.15?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not clear to me from that answer whether the Attorney is satisfied that the preparatory steps are being put in place for this to commence operating from 1 July, and I think that's a concern, because we were told it was essential for the NACC to be in place and for whistleblowers to have that protection. It's unfortunate, when the direct question has been asked of the minister—is this actually going to be ready and what satisfaction can you give us that this is going to be up and running in the public sector by 1 July? It's an important matter. I agree with the Attorney that it is important that it be in place, and I agree that whistleblowers need protection from 1 July. But my concern, from that answer from the minister, is that there's no commitment to actually have the public sector ready to go on 1 July when the NACC opens its doors. Anyone from the public sector who is hearing that answer from the minister would be troubled that this core issue of preparation hasn't been addressed/

I particularly note that the AG was hot under the collar and the office was hot under the collar months ago that you wouldn't have time to get this ready. Is that really the best response you can give about putting this in place, Minister?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

TT (—) (): Senator Shoebridge, I can give you an assurance that if we can get this legislation passed then the government will have this system up and running before the commencement of the NACC on 1 July. The only thing that's actually holding us up from getting this underway is passing this legislation. I know there are some people in this chamber who want to do everything possible to prevent this chamber from getting to a vote on setting up a fund that will build 30,000 social and affordable homes. But I would encourage you to get this legislation passed, because it would seem that you think it's quite urgent. So, how about we get that done?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The utter effrontery of the minister in making that contribution, having sat and warmed this bill under the backside of the government for a month or more—to make that contribution today. It's a wonder a bolt of lightning didn't come through the skylight and provide the deity's response to that extraordinary proposition from the minister. He literally sat, cooling, doing nothing. We moved heaven and earth to get the inquiry done. We delivered the inquiry in record time. We limited the hearings in the inquiry. We cooperated to get the report done. We delivered it all in March. We got our amendments in in March. We were ready to go in March. And here we are, in mid-May, and the government is saying, 'How dare you ask questions about it?' And the 25 minutes of delay, or the half hour of delay, that we're going to have by asking questions about the bill is the reason for the delay in getting this forward—the effrontery of that. Maybe it was under instructions. Maybe is was from some speaking notes the minister was given. But you shouldn't have done it, because it was unworthy. It was deeply unworthy of the minister to make that contribution.

One of the other great concerns the stakeholders have had with this bill is the fact that, under the protections that have been put with the NACC bill and the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act that's now in place, unlike the Public Interest Disclosure Act amendments that are in place, there are no remedies for whistleblowers if the protections in the NACC that mirror the PID Act are breached. So, if adverse action is taken against a whistleblower and the whistleblower's only statutory protections are in the provisions under the NACC Act, a criminal prosecution might be taken for the adverse action. The whistleblower may have been terminated or may have been demoted. A criminal prosecution might be able to be taken under the NACC provisions, but there's nothing the whistleblower can rely upon to get redress. They can't get compensation and they can't get reinstatement. Is that an accurate reading of this bill—that it doesn't put in place those remedies? If that is the case, is the government committed to providing those remedies for whistleblowers who have the purported protection under the protections under the NACC Act but actually nothing to help them, nothing to get them their job back or compensation or any kind of redress if adverse action has been taken against them?

And when addressing that, Minister, perhaps you could address the other core problem with those protections under the NACC Bill, which is that, as the Greens understand them, the protections only provide the capacity for criminal prosecutions for adverse action. We know from the evidence before the committee and from our understanding of practice in the public sector that, despite the PID Act having been in place with very similar provisions for a decade, there has not been a single successful criminal prosecution. So Minister, given how ineffectual the provisions in the PID Act have proven over the last 10 years when it comes to adverse conduct without a successful prosecution—given that a criminal prosecution is basically the only kind of remedy that's being proposed under the NACC Act—is it true that this bill doesn't fix that? And what's the government's intent to fix it?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of the remedy will be the subject of the consultation process that is going to happen after we—hopefully—pass this bill and get things started.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the consultation process before the second tranche of changes, are you able to provide an outline of how that will be staged—what the time line will be—particularly the consultation over a proposed whistleblower commissioner?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's intention is to have a discussion paper released for consultation on those and other matters over the next 12 months, obviously moving as quickly as possible, but that consultation process is expected to get underway in the next 12 months.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think consultation is important, but obviously, of course, landing this and getting the protections in place are of greater importance. Given there are so many gaps in whistleblower protection, and I reference in particular the contribution that Senator Scarr made in terms of the absence of a whistleblower commission and the absence of any kind of substantive agency with the resources and the capacity to help whistleblowers in what are these otherwise David-and-Goliath battles, if the consultation starts within 12 months, is there a commitment from the government to land the consultation within 12 months and to bring those statutory reforms before the parliament within 12 months so that this time next year whistleblowers will actually have world-class protection? Or is it just a commitment to start the consultation sometime within the next 12 months with an indefinite conclusion? I think Senator Cash's point about trying to rush through complex legislation like this, that has important public interest outcomes, trying to ram through that legislation in the dying days of a parliament, in the last few weeks or months of a parliament, has proven in the case of the PID Act to produce legislation that has problems and doesn't have the kind of thoroughness that's needed. So, is the commitment to land the consultation and bring the amendments within 12 months, or are we going to be repeating history and rushing to try to strap stuff up as this parliament comes to a conclusion? What's the commitment, Minister?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to be pre-empting the consultation process by going into any of that.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think telling us when the consultation will conclude is pre-empting the consultation process. To suggest so is either a misunderstanding of consultation, either you already have a predetermined outcome and the consultation is a farce and therefore telling us when it's going to end will also determine the outcome, which would be unfortunate in a relatively new government, or it just misunderstands the question I was asking, which is: when will the process come to an end, and when will you be bringing substantive amendments to the House? Telling us when it ends doesn't pre-empt the outcome. Giving us the time frame within which the consultation is intended to operate doesn't predetermine the outcome, and, again, Minister, I'd ask for a good-faith engagement with this, because it's important to many in the public sector and it's important to many key stakeholders. They would like to know what the commitment is for the government to actually fix this and when it's going to happen.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That decision hasn't been made at this point. What has been made is the decision to get this legislation passed to begin this process. I am surprised that you wish to extend the debate on this to the degree that you are, which is clearly all about filibustering. I think we all know what is going on here—neither the Greens nor the coalition want to have a debate or a vote on legislation to build 30,000 social and affordable homes. I think what we're going to see, whether it be this bill or any other bill or any other debate, is it's going to be dragged out as long as possible. I don't know how many questions you have on your list, but I know you will keep adding more, so let's just keep going. And I know we won't get this done by 12.15, because you don't want a debate on housing. It's a shame, because this is an important matter. You say that you care about this, but we actually could have had this passed by 12.15. But that's, of course, not your writing instructions from Mr Chandler-Mather or whoever else is dictating your strategy. It's disappointing that you don't want to have legislation passed for whistleblowers, and it's disappointing that you don't want to have legislation passed for housing.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To give some guidance to the minister, could I suggest the best way of bringing this to a prompt conclusion is to answer the questions—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and to provide some actual information in response to the questions, because that would give us the opportunity to say: 'Thank you, Minister. That was very helpful and answered the question.' Unfortunately, in the exchanges we've had to date I haven't been able to say that, because you've made a series of febrile political points rather than address the questions that have been asked of you. That might be your writing instructions, but it's unfortunate because there are stakeholders watching this deeply concerned about whistleblower protections and these are quite legitimate questions that you could provide, if you were adequately briefed or had the interest, adequate responses to. Instead, we're getting those febrile political points—highly agitated and not directed to the questions that have been asked. It's an unfortunate exercise and an unfortunate breach of faith with the many stakeholders concerned about these amendments watching this.

I indicate, in relation to a number of the Greens amendments, that the intent was to implement the Moss report as best we could, and to also address the concerns that were raised with us in the course of the inquiry. One organisation that raised concerns was the CPSU. The Labor Party normally listens to the CPSU and genuinely takes its concerns on board, and we too listen and take on board the CPSU's concerns. The CPSU raised concerns, as did other organisations that made submissions, that the bill as presented exempts members of parliament staff, or MOP staff, from having access to the PID Act.

We've seen how staff working for members of parliament need more protections, not less. That's been apparent in case after case after case. This workplace can be very tough, particularly for the staff of members of parliament. There seems to me to be a pretty powerful reason to implement the recommendation that first came from the House of Representatives committee in 2009, that MOP staff should have the same kinds of protections and be able to raise a disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosures Act. It was also a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, that also said that parliamentary staff employed under the MOP(S) Act should be included as public officials in section 69 of the PID Act and be permitted to make public interest disclosures. Likewise, it was a recommendation made in the Moss review. So we had the House of Representatives committee in 2009 saying it should happen, the Set the standard report saying it should happen and we had the Moss review saying it should happen: that MOP staff should have these protections.

I'm grateful that my party, the Greens, has looked at that material and thinks it's important that we put those protections in place. So we will be moving that amendment in committee to try and put those protections in place, because we've read the 2009 report from the House of Representatives committee, we've read the Set the standard report and we've read the Moss report, and they all say to do this. So, Minister, my question is: given that, will you support the Greens amendment, and, if not, why not?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, the fact that you are simply filibustering debate in order to stop a vote on this bill, in order to stop the commencement of debate on the housing bill, can be made no more plain than the fact that you're not actually talking about the amendments that are currently before the chamber. You've obviously run out of questions to ask about our amendments and you're moving on to amendments that haven't even been put yet, being yours. We will, of course, have the debate about your amendments when we get to them. Clearly, you don't want to talk about our amendments because you don't want to have a vote on anything. And it's a shame, because I agree that there are a lot of people out there who are very concerned about having better whistleblower protections, and that's exactly what this bill is designed to do. We could have had that legislation passed this morning, if you had chosen to.

You made a reference to some of my comments being agitated. I am agitated about getting whistleblower protections in place, and I am agitated about building more social and affordable homes, and I'm agitated about the fact that the Greens are in league with the coalition to prevent a debate on housing being built in this country. I am pretty agitated about that because there are a lot of people out there who need homes. And there are two parties in this chamber who are stopping us from even having a debate about that, because they're dragging out the debate on this bill, which is also important. I'm more than happy to address the Greens amendments when we get to them, but how about we pass now these amendments that the government has moved, rather than continue filibustering until we reach the clock at 12.15?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, spending a minute and a half only complaining and not addressing the things doesn't get us closer to bringing it to a vote. Answering the question gets us closer to bringing it to a vote.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. You'll just have another one and another one and another one and another one. We know what you're doing.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll get your chance, Minister. I know you don't like questions, and I can see you don't like these questions—that's very apparent—and you don't like giving the answers. I can see you're agitated. It's unfortunate, but, if you were less agitated and more directed to answering the questions, this would go quicker. I invite the House to consider government amendments (1) to (3). I've said before that we don't oppose those amendments. We think they go some way to addressing the Moss review. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1889:

AMENDMENT TO GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS [SHEET ZB203]

(1) Amendment (2), note to subsection 43(4A), after "because that conduct is", insert "solely".

This is an amendment to government amendment (2). This amendment seeks to implement recommendation 5 of the Moss review. It does a pretty simple thing. It inserts the word 'solely' into the government amendments to reflect the submissions we received in the inquiry that clarified the language to ensure that only matters that were solely in relation to personal work related conduct should be excluded from the operation of the PID scheme. It will in fact make the amended explanatory memorandum, which references the word 'solely' in the Moss review, actually apply to the bill, which would be nice, wouldn't it? The amended explanatory memorandum can actually relate to the bill. Of course, it's worth confirming that it actually implements recommendation 5 of the Moss review, which expressly recommended that any personal work related conduct carve-out be limited in this way. I commend the amendment to the House. I'm curious on what basis the government would oppose it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well done, Senator Shoebridge; you've nearly run down the clock. The government does not support this amendment. The addition of 'solely' as proposed would not change the operation of this provision. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the current drafting of the government amendments achieve the same outcome in a more appropriate and effective manner.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, I have amendments (1) to (14) on Sheet 1870 that I wish to have addressed, but I'm more than comfortable, if the House wants, to now consider government amendments (1) to (3) and my amendment on Sheet 1889 separately if that suits.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment to government amendment (2), moved by Senator Shoebridge and listed at sheet 1889, be agreed to.