Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will reflect firstly on Senator Ronaldson's references to Senator Wright's involvement in this matter. I have a slightly different perspective. I do not think it is incumbent upon Senator Wright to enter into widespread consultation with key groups; I think the primary responsibility for that rests with the government. That is what I think is fair. I acknowledge Senator Wright's hard work on this and I acknowledge the spirit in which she undertook those negotiations. From my perspective, it is fair to say that it is the government's obligation to consult with the key stakeholders, not necessarily that of Senator Wright or the Greens. So I have a slightly different perspective on that.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with Senator Ronaldson, who has become my spokesperson on this particular issue—maybe more broadly; we will wait and see—that it is unwise and unsafe to proceed further in the absence of hearing from the RSL, from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, from Legacy and from other key stake­holders who participated fully in the Senate inquiry and who have a longstanding interest in this. I understand, however, that it is the will of the chamber to proceed to deal with these matters now. It is therefore incumbent upon me to ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Feeney, a number of specific questions relating to the explanatory memorandum.

I note that the explanatory memorandum starts off by saying that the proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions. My first question is: to what extent will these amendments change current arrangements at all if they do not change the compensation offsetting provisions? Is it the case that, whilst they will not strictly change the current compensation offsetting pro­visions, they may change the way in which matters are dealt with in terms of compensation offsetting? It is a technical question but, given that so much of this will turn on technical issues, it is only the first of a number of such questions I have with respect to the explanatory memorandum.