Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate the Greens will be supporting these amendments. I would like to address this issue specifically, because this is the issue that has come up during the Senate inquiry and the committee inquiry and, most recently, Senator Nash was addressing it. I think it is important that we set the record straight, because coalition senator after coalition senator has said that they are not supporting the bill because the Senate committee said that we should not be supporting it.

The Senate committee made a number of recommendations, and I think it is really important that the community understands this. The reason we send legislation to committees—so that those listening understand it—is so that they can examine a bill, identify its strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations, which is exactly what the Community Affairs Legislation Committee did. Recommendation 2 of the report states:

The committee recommends that a legislative scheme for low aromatic fuel not be confined to reliance upon the corporations power.

This is what this amendment addresses. It broadens that. In my minority report on the inquiry I stated that I was nervous about expanding those powers. I have been very clear about that. So I undertook to consult further—and I also articulated this in my other comments and when I was circulating amendments. The consultation has come back to me from organisations that work in this field, particularly Aboriginal organisations, saying that they do support the amendments to broaden the base of this particular piece of legislation. They thought it would address the issues in the report.

The other recommendations that the committee made about amendments have been picked up by either the Greens' or the government's amendments. So we are keeping faith with the Community Affairs Legislative Committee report to address the concerns with this legislation.

I was concerned about this and I am glad that the government has picked up on these recommendations and has sought other constitutional powers to shore up this bill or to make the powers of this bill clear. I am glad that the bill now specifically references Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as affected communities, so the bill can operate as a special measure to close the gap.

Strengthening the bill to the use of this particular measure was an approach that was suggested by submitters to the Senate inquiry and in evidence to the committee. CAYLUS's and Gilbert + Tobin's submissions during the committee inquiry process also recommended this proposal. It is very clear that special measures are not inherently bad measures, but they are not our first preference if there are other powers that can be appropriately applied. However, as I have said, I subsequently consulted those people who participated in the Senate inquiry, and those who will be affected, and I feel that there is sufficient community support for this particular amendment. Those who have responded have told me that they can accept it, especially if the approach is what is required to ensure the bill passes, because there is such strong support in the community for this particular bill, and that practical steps can be taken to help complete the low-aromatic fuel rollout that has been so successful to date. But as we have articulated in this place through this debate, and as did others on numerous occasions, it is not enough.

I want to draw a distinction between these measures and the alcohol measures that have been applied in the Northern Territory, for example. Apart from anything else petrol sniffing is not an accepted practice anywhere in Australia, unlike for example the consumption of alcohol. This bill does not make rules that are different for Aboriginal people, compared to other people in the region, and that is plain from the amendments the government has circulated. This improves the bill. I acknowledge that and I take on board what the Community Affairs Committee said. We always need to consult and make sure that we get these measures right. If it takes re-consultation and re-consultation, that is exactly what we did in this specific instance. So I am confident that we do have community support. In fact I have an email here from a number of organisations that have articulated their support for these particular measures.