Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

There has been some discussion as to whether these matters could be dealt with tomorrow and be back here by tomorrow afternoon. I think there has been some advice from the clerks, but there have been further discussions between the Manager of Opposition Business and the Manager of Government Business in relation to these matters. From recollection, we were discussing earlier government amendments (4) and (9) and whether the opposition’s amendments were of greater strength than the government’s. I prosecuted the case and pleaded that they were. We were discussing the voluntary disclosure aspects of this legislation.

Opposition amendment (9), which is probably best to refer to, comprehensively deals with voluntary disclosure information, a process that if followed correctly would have made this piece of legislation redundant. The amendment deals with the ‘effect, application and sanction for the use and tight control of sensitive corporate information voluntarily given by carriers to the government’. Our amendment (9) also ensures the even-handed treatment of both voluntary and non-voluntary information. The opposition opposes government amendment (4) because it does not go far enough. But, in the spirit of a constructive practice, we do offer, with goodwill, our amendment (9), which we believe goes significantly further.

Government amendment (9) is not accepted because the opposition believe that it actually removes natural justice outcomes for public officials, carriers and trusted officials, which may follow if they are required to make an adverse decision. It looks as though this provision is designed to shut down any recourse, and that is simply not acceptable. There must be an appeal mechanism or, at the very least, an explanation as to the decision, particularly when the decision could adversely affect their bid. We do not believe that there is an appropriate level of natural justice associated with the provisions of this bill. We do not think it is fair, particularly for public officials and others. Sometimes they will be required to make adverse decisions and we think in that regard this amendment should be agreed to.

As I said earlier on, the opposition oppose government amendment (4) because we believe that our amendment (9) is far superior. It comprehensively deals with the protected carrier information that is handed to the government on a voluntary basis. Our amendment effectively deals with the use and application of this information, and sanctions for the misuse of this information, whereas the government’s amendment is, at best, flowery and does not address sanctions. We believe that the government’s amendment, born of a committee process that we insisted upon, has not adopted the recommendation as desired.

The opposition are opposing both of the government’s amendments on that basis. As I said earlier this afternoon, I think they are good amendments that could reasonably be accepted by the government to make this legislation better. I had hoped that our contribution in the committee, in the other place and in here today would have been viewed as constructive to make this a better piece of legislation and to assist the government in addressing its imperatives with this process. As I said before, we accept that it was an election commitment. But we believe that, even though it was an election commitment, it does not mean that it should go without an unfettered review by either the appropriate committee or the parliament itself. That is why we are suggesting that these two amendments be opposed and that the government should effectively substitute our amendment.

Obviously, on many occasions there is the requirement for opposition, government and minor parties to agree to matters that will make legislation better. The Leader of the Democrats approached me earlier on in relation to some suggested amendments to, I think, from recollection, opposition amendment (16). They were sensible contributions to making this process better. That is why, despite what we might read and what we might sometimes hear, the process works and these chambers work. There are contributions from everyone involved in the process that will make it better. What concerns me is that there is a level of stubbornness in relation to this matter. The government clearly want this legislation through. We accept that they have gone down a path—we do not believe it was a path they were required to take; we believe they could have gone down the deed path or the voluntary information path and achieved the very outcome that they wanted. They did not need to go down this legislative path. This could have been done quite easily. Senator Conroy, I presume you have finished your phone call. I am talking while you get an opportunity to do other things, but I will continue to get to the 15 minutes.