Senate debates

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

Bills

Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014; In Committee

11:32 am

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

I understand where the numbers are on this. Both the government and the opposition do not support the amendment, but—as a matter of completeness—I should formally move the amendment standing in my name on sheet 7469 revised, which seeks to oppose the fit and proper person test in the form that it has been put.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (line 16) to page 5 (line 31), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (lines 5 to 8), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 9 to 13), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 24 to 28), to be opposed.

I would be grateful if Senator Birmingham could give an undertaking to provide details of the current not a fit and proper person test applications that have been made by the department. What was the average time of resolution, how have they been resolved and were they appealed against or what actually became of those. I get the feeling that a lot of export consultants will think, 'We cannot afford this, so we may as well do something else for a living,' even if that creates a stain on their reputation. In order to clear their reputation, they are going to have to mortgage their homes in many cases.

I wonder why the government did not consider some form of independent adjudicator? This is not a criticism of the CEO of Austrade in any way, but why would Austrade not have not independent adjudicator to look at these matters, rather than having to be a judge, jury and executioner on these sorts of things? I just wanted to raise these issues so that we can wrap this up.

The concerns that have been expressed to me are that the time frame for assessment of the fit and proper person test can be measured in years; that applicants have complained to ministers in the past about their treatment at the hands of Austrade; that there are unrealistic demands for information under section 72, in terms of those provisions; and that there is no right of review in relation to section 72, so that if the CEO of Austrade asks the applicant for further information which they cannot reasonably obtain because it is not within their purview, within their knowledge or within their power to obtain that then that could prejudice that person. These are some of the issues that have been raised.

I understand that my amendment will not be successful. I am grateful for the broad support of Senator Whish-Wilson of the Australian Greens. I know that Senator John Madigan from the DLP has also expressed concerns about these provisions. They are the issues that I raise. I do it genuinely, with a real concern that this may have a number of unintended consequences. My concern is that if a demand for information under section 72—in the context of a not a fit and proper person test matter—is made, it is not subject to any appeal. If you cannot provide that information for whatever reason, even though you may have a good reason, you are pretty well stuffed—to put it colloquially. The applicant may be unable to provide or the consultant may not be able to provide information because they simply cannot access that information. It is not within their purview to do so. So they are the broad concerns; I think I have raised them sufficiently.

I advise the government that I will continue to advocate on behalf of these people, who I think want to do the right thing but are concerned that they could be tied up in administrative actions which could destroy their livelihood unfairly and that there are not sufficient safeguards in the regulations, as they exist. That is why I am seeking to strike out this test in its current form in this bill.

Comments

No comments