Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet GT144 together.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 3), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Constitutional coverage", substitute "Initial constitutional coverage".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 20), omit "subitem (2)", substitute "subitems (2) and (3)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:

(3) The amendments made by this Part do not apply in relation to an injury, or in relation to loss or damage, if:

  (a) notice of the injury, or of the accident that resulted in the loss or damage, was given under section 62 of that Act before the day the Bill that became this Act was introduced into the House of Representatives; and

  (b) the notice was intended to be a notice for the purposes of that section; and

  (c) no claim or application for State compensation (within the meaning of section 139 of that Act) has been made, or purportedly made, in relation to the injury, loss or damage.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed.

(7) Page 6 (after line 11), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A—Constitutional coverage from the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent

Part 1—Seafarers rehabilitation and compensation

Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992

1 At the end of section 19

  Add:

(2) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(3) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(4) This Act also has the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an employer were limited to a reference to a foreign corporation; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee employed by a foreign corporation.

(5) Subsection (3) does not have the effect of applying this Act with respect to:

  (a) State banking that does not extend beyond the limits of the State concerned; or

  (b) State insurance that does not so extend.

2 Section 19A

  Repeal the section.

3 Application of amendments

  The amendments of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 made by this Part apply in relation to any injury, loss or damage suffered by an employee on or after the commencement of this item.

Part 2—Occupational health and safety

Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993

4 At the end of section 6

  Add:

(5) Without prejudice to its effect apart from this subsection, this Act also has effect as provided by subsections (6), (7) and (8).

(6) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (d) a reference to a manufacturer were limited to a reference to a manufacturer that is a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (e) a reference to a supplier were limited to a reference to a supplier that is a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (f) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(7) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and

  (d) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a financial corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

(8) This Act has, by force of this subsection, the effect it would have if:

  (a) a reference to an operator were limited to a reference to a foreign corporation; and

  (b) a reference to an employee were limited to a reference to an employee of a foreign corporation; and

  (c) a reference to a contractor were limited to a reference to a contractor working for a foreign corporation; and

  (d) a reference to a manufacturer were limited to a reference to a manufacturer that is a foreign corporation; and

  (e) a reference to a supplier were limited to a reference to a supplier that is a foreign corporation; and

  (f) a reference to a person in sections 22, 23 and 24 were limited to a reference to a person working for a foreign corporation.

(9) This Act does not apply with respect to:

  (a) State banking that does not extend beyond the limits of the State concerned; or

  (b) State insurance that does not so extend.

5 Application of amendments

  The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to anything done on or after the commencement of this item.

The amendments that are being sought to be moved by the government are designed to ensure that we get this legislation absolutely right. There was some comment by the Greens' senator in her contribution to the second reading debate about how quickly we had brought in the legislation. We did think we were on the right track with that and would get some support, but there were hiccups and, as a result, matters were delayed until now. We have been able to sort out those hiccups through a variety of mechanisms which now allow, as we believe it, for business to continue as normal. It would be fair to say that the coverage from 330 ships to 11,000 was a fairly dramatic increase in anybody's language, especially when nobody genuinely expected that to be the case. The scheme had been operating until some enterprising individual had a look and thought the law might actually say something different to that which had been understood. Right, wrong or indifferent, the Federal Court made its determination, and here we are today trying to deal with the legislation to make sure that it says what was intended.

Given all that, the government has moved this raft of amendments. I thank the Senate for giving leave for me to move them all together—albeit I would alert honourable senators to the fact that there will need to be two separate questions, first to support some of our amendments, and then to remove aspects there will be a separate question. I am sure the chair will most adequately handle that; we can rely on the good Senator Marshall for guidance.

In moving the government's raft of amendments, I can simply say that in response to concerns among some industry participants the bill is being amended to limit the application of the bill to the past coverage of the scheme. The amendments will provide that the coverage provisions are amended—they will date back to the commencement of the scheme and have effect until the day the bill receives royal assent. From the day after the bill receives royal assent, the repeal of subsections 19(2) to 19(5) inclusive of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is reversed, and those subsections are re-enacted with effect from the day after the bill receives royal assent. Similarly, the repeal of subsections 6(5) to 6(9) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act is reversed, and those subsections are re-enacted with effect from the day after the bill receives royal assent.

The bill contains amendments so that a ship must be directly and substantially engaged in interstate or international trade or commerce to be covered. After further consultations with scheme participants, the government opposes these amendments to coverage. The bill will also be amended to ensure that it does not affect people who had provided notice of injury but had not yet made a claim before the bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives, so long as the notice was provided with the intention to make a claim for compensation under the seafarers act and the person has not made a claim for compensation under state legislation for the same injury.

The bill, as amended, still achieves the policy objective of providing certainty regarding past actions taken under the Seacare scheme. It will also assist with providing certainty over past actions taken under relevant state and territory legislation. The long-term future coverage of the Seacare scheme will be the subject of consultations with industry participants and will be comprehensively addressed in a bill for broader reform of the Seacare scheme to be introduced hopefully later this year. I have indicated that I will be writing to the Seacare Authority to invite them to monitor the impact of this bill and advise of any unintended consequences.

With these amendments, I am confident there is a unanimity of view amongst all of the stakeholders that have an interest in this particular bill. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you indicated in your contribution that Seacare will monitor the scheme, and you have argued that this will restore certainty for past actions. Is it your view that the consultations that you have outlined will deal with prospective claims?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill will not be dealing with prospective claims.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for that. So the bill, in reality, is a stop-gap measure to deal with the Federal Court decision?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Federal Court decision has left a situation where potentially a lot of payments that had previously been made under the equivalent state workers compensation legislation could have been questioned. Also, action taken against employers under the state legislation could have been questioned as potentially being without jurisdiction. So the purpose of this particular legislation is to leave the law as it was believed to be by everybody. As indicated, I will ask for the authority to keep monitoring the situation to ensure that we do not have any unintended consequences for workers, employers or any other stakeholder.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, the opposition are inclined to support these amendments. However, we are really concerned to ensure that the longer term issues associated with this Federal Court decision are dealt with. You have indicated that hopefully later this year another bill may come to the Senate. Is that bill based on the Seacare monitoring of the scheme?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill we are hoping to introduce will be a comprehensive bill which will undertake a full review of the legislative scheme. Part of my uncertainty, I suppose, as to an exact timetable is because extensive consultations will continue to take place to ensure that there is full ventilation of all the views and issues before we bring a piece of legislation into this place.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you advise the Senate of the consultation process you intend to undertake? I accept that you have said you cannot give dates, but given that this leaves some uncertainty arising from the Federal Court decision, what are the details of the consultation?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to other workplace relations type of legislation, there is the COIL process—the Committee on Industrial Legislation—where you have all the stakeholders. My approach in relation to workplace relations matters has, I believe, been a consultative one, and nothing will change in relation to that. As a result, employer and employee organisations et cetera will be fully consulted. We are hopeful that within the next few weeks there will be a round table with all the stakeholders to discuss the issues generally that they are concerned about. And then when we have a draft bill we will be circulating that to the stakeholders as well for them to undertake their assessment—a bit like the COIL process—so that any unintended consequences can be advised to us. And, if I might say, the COIL process on industrial legislation has been very helpful where technical issues—unintended consequences—have been highlighted by both employer and employee organisations, which is very helpful for government and also very helpful for good robust legislation. In an area such as this, I believe that that sort of certainty will be of great benefit, and that is why the government is anxious to ensure that full consultation takes place in, if you like, a preliminary or scoping manner. And then further consultation will be had in relation to the draft legislation so that by the time the legislation hits the parliament there will be at least a good understanding of the consequences and the issues that the bill seeks to address.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. I am just trying—and I am not doing this on a partisan basis—to get an understanding of the process that led to where we are now with the legislation. You indicate that the COIL process has worked effectively. Was this issue dealt with through COIL before the legislation was drafted and came to the Senate?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This particular bill and the bill I have been talking about technically does not go through COIL, but it will be a similar mechanism. I can indicate that in relation to this bill and the court case that precipitated the bill there was a consultation with, for example, a major stakeholder here, the Maritime Union of Australia. We exchanged letters, and phone calls were had with my office, and I also believe the department. Without divulging anything, I will say that all the discussions were in absolute good faith. At one stage we did think there may have been agreement, but we fully understood that the agreement we thought we may have had did not come about, and I do not seek to blame anybody in relation to that or assert that anybody engaged without good faith. As a result, here we are now with this bill, with the government's amendments, taking into account some of the hesitation that came up a bit later in the discussions. But you can be assured, Senator Cameron—and indeed the Senate can be assured—that there was quite extensive consultation, albeit in an informal manner by way of conversations and email exchanges, and indeed formal letters.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not for one minute arguing that anything has been done in anything other than good faith. I am just trying to establish some of the areas the opposition has to consider with these amendments before us. You indicated that Seacare will monitor. Is that a formal monitoring process? If so, who within Seacare will monitor, and what resources will they have to monitor this amended bill if it passes today?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Seacare Authority is a formal body, as I understand it, established by legislation. I trust that they would not need any extra resources to monitor the legislation and its outworkings, because that is part and parcel of their normal task. To report to me at an early stage of any unintended consequences is something I would alert them to. I—and, I would imagine, every legislator in this place—would wish to know if there were any signs on the horizon that might indicate that there are unintended consequences. And of course if that is the case then we may need to come back here for the appropriate changes to be made. I do not think it will necessarily be resource intensive for the authority, but it is something that I will be inviting them to keep a close eye on and will inform my office to ensure that we can deal with any further unintended consequences, of which of course we hope there will be none. But having been in this place for as long as I have, I have seen very well-intentioned legislation have unforeseen consequences. And of course the very fact that we are here is an example of unforeseen consequences.

That legislation was passed in 1992, and, irrespective of whether you were in the Maritime Union of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia, everybody believed that the legislation acted in a certain way—and there was unanimity about that. Yet we had a situation of the Federal Court of Australia coming to a different determination, as the courts should do. They have to interpret the law as it is written, not necessarily how it may have been intended by legislators. That is what we are confronted with, so unintended consequences unfortunately can arise, albeit in this case—and I will try and do my maths—about 20-plus years later. But you can be assured that, in asking the authority to monitor the situation, I do not think we are overly burdening them.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for that response. I indicate that the opposition have had limited time to have a look at these amendments—I myself have not seen the amended explanatory memorandum—so we are taking you on a bit of good faith on this issue. That is why I want to try and work through some of these issues with you. When the Seacare Authority monitors, do they then advise you? You indicated that you are going to write to them, and they will advise you. Will there be concurrent advice to the opposition of any unintended consequences?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all,

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I thought that might get the reaction that it did. More seriously, in fairness, it would be a response by the Seacare Authority to me as minister, and, with respect, not to the opposition. But this space has been, as I understand it, relatively uncontroversial and bipartisan, and I do not think there would be any big political gains to be achieved one way or the other. There has been a degree of unity, which I welcome with this legislation, but in fairness I think the authority's responsibility would be to report to me as opposed to the opposition. Be assured, if there are issues that are brought to my attention, it makes good sense, if I might say as we did with this legislation, to engage in discussion and correspond with the opposition, the Greens and the crossbenchers to see if we can resolve these matters. Of course, I hope they will never arise, but, if certain matters were to arise, we would resolve them quickly.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would still like a clear commitment that, if you do receive advice of unintended consequences, you would expedite the communications with the opposition and the crossbenchers on this issue.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose I could say yes to that, and then we can argue about what the term 'expedite' means.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can give you the definition.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure Senator Cameron would give me a definition. Can I indicate that in this particular area I think it does make good sense for the government and the opposition to cooperate as much as possible. Without tying myself to any commitment, I would invite Senator Cameron to accept the goodwill of the government in relation to this matter and take us at face value here—as he can always do, of course, at all times, but especially on this occasion. That has got another smile! It is a pity Hansard does not record those smiles. Be assured that we will cooperate with the opposition and advise them as expeditiously as possible.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The expediting of consultation and communication with the opposition and the crossbenchers, as you indicated earlier, is one thing. Are you aware of what role the Seacare Authority would play in this monitoring with the other parties—the Maritime Union and the employers in the industry? What is the process there?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just confirming that the union and the employers have representatives on the Seacare Authority, so in their representative roles they should, chances are, be aware before I am as to any unintended consequences.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to move to the review process. Have you come to any view on how the review process would be undertaken?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I confess I have not. I have left it to the professional capacity of the department to undertake the initial round table and review and to see what issues the various participants want to float, and then we can move further from there. But, at this stage, I personally have not involved myself in that process.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are waiting for advice from the department in terms of how long the review might need to take. Have you had any advice on what the review terms of reference would cover?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron may be aware of the Stewart-Crompton review that my friend Senator McKenzie referred to in her second reading speech. That was a review, in fact, commissioned by the former minister, Mr Shorten, whilst he was the Minister for Workplace Relations, and it is that review that is basically the subject of and its recommendations that are the subject of the further discussions that will take place. So that is, if you like, not officially the terms of reference, but it is the issues arising out of that report commissioned by Mr Shorten that will be discussed.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it is not really a review; it is an analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review. Is that what it is?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a fair analysis. I do not want to play word games with Senator Cameron, and I do not think he does either. But I think that is a fair assessment. However, we will be open to other things, so I do not want people to be of the view that that is the only topic that is able to be discussed. But the Stewart-Crompton review is the base of the discussions that will take place.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say that other issues can be injected into this. Do you have a firm view on any issue that should be injected in from the government's point of view?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just confirming that I had not overegged it when I said other issues could be raised. They can be raised. The department has not put any limitations in relation to the discussions that will take place, and from the government point of view we have not placed anything on the table other than the review undertaken by Mr Stewart-Crompton, which, of course, was commissioned by my predecessor, Mr Shorten.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You indicated earlier that the COIL process was the process for the engagement. Do you see the COIL process being used for this analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I said it was the COIL process, what I meant to say was that a COIL-like process will be adopted. COIL is an established mechanism for workplace relations laws. This particular bill does not necessarily fit into that category. But we, as a government, and I think successive governments, have found the COIL process informative and helpful, and so a similar process, albeit on an informal basis, will be taking place to ensure that the formulation of the draft legislation and then the draft legislation is ventilated and workshopped by the various stakeholders to ensure that they have input and they, of course, have access to good legal advice. Also, people with good practical experience can then ask questions as to how the draft legislation, which might be very well intentioned, might actually work out in practice with real-life experience. With no disrespect to the drafters of the legislation, having people read it who have real-life experience can sometimes shed light onto the well-intentioned drafting to ensure that it can, in fact, be of practical application as well.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must indicate that the process still seems to me to be a bit fuzzy. I am not sure: it was a review, it is now an analysis of the Stewart-Crompton review. The Stewart-Crompton review would have had formal submissions and a process to deal with the issues properly. If we are now going to talk about a significant change to the legislation that is in place and probably another substantial bill, would it not be better if there were some clarity on how this review would work and how people can make submissions to the review?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is possibly a fair analysis to say at this stage it is a bit fuzzy as to how it will all progress, because the first workshop will be designed to nail some of those things down amongst the participants as to the way forward. I and the government have not, in any way, been prescriptive as to how this should be conducted. We are relying on the professionalism of the department who, if I might say, as shown by the process in the development of this bill, have a good relationship with the stakeholders and work cooperatively with them to achieve the outcome that, hopefully, will pass sometime today. So I would say to the senator that I think we can have faith in the professional competence of the department to work with the stakeholders. There will be a first workshop very shortly where some of the details and parameters will undoubtedly be sorted out by consensus between the parties.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not asking what advice the department has given you, but has the department advised you about any issues that need to be dealt with in relation to this review?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just been reminded that the only issue has been of future coverage, which we have already touched upon in relation to this bill.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A range of amendments are before the chamber. As I have indicated, we have not had a lot of time to analyse the amendments. As I understand it, you want to put them forward in two batches. Is that correct? Could you just explain how you want to—

The CHAIRMAN: The amendments before the chair at present are government amendments (1) to (7), which have been moved by leave together. But it necessitates two separate questions to deliver those seven amendments, so I will be putting those questions when we get to that point. But all of the government amendments are before the chair at the moment.

As I indicated earlier, the opposition is mindful of the issues that have been raised, and the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the Federal Court decision. I am sure the government, like the opposition, is keen to have some certainty in terms of how the act will work. We support that. We are inclined to support the amendments that are before the chair. We just would like this issue not to drag on indefinitely, because we are very concerned that the prospective claims are still uncertain, and the prospective claims are the ones that will be important to people in the future. This industry is quite a dangerous one. It is one that has had more than its fair share of deaths, so we are inclined to be supportive. But can you give us today any idea as to a time frame for the analysis of the review. Do you have any idea of the time frames within which you want to deal with it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would hate to commit myself to something that is not necessarily deliverable, but, to confirm, the workshop will be held within the next few weeks. As we have indicated, we do hope to have legislation into this place by the end of the year. I fully agree with and endorse Senator Cameron's comments about the importance of not having uncertainty in any area. I agree that in this area it is just as important, if not more important, than in some other areas of our legislative endeavours. So you can be assured it is front of mind and we have people in the department working efficiently to try to get an outcome as quickly as possible. But, given the vagaries of this great place, and the legislative timetable in this place is not necessarily up to the government to determine—sometimes bills take longer and sometimes less time is taken—I simply indicate we will use our best endeavours to ensure that this legislation still can be dealt with this calendar year.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Minister. Given the explanations you have given on the monitoring and the review, we would be minded to support the amendments that are before the chamber today. I thank you for your responses.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just quickly respond to thank the opposition, the Greens and other senators, and indeed all stakeholders, for their co-operation in this, which was a legislative exercise that we had not anticipated would be required, but our friends in the Federal Court made a determination that did need a response, in our view. The fact that we have been able to come to a landing, as we have, with unanimity breaking out around the chamber, is once again an excellent reflection on the way that this chamber in fact can and does do business. As a result, you can be assured it will not be reported in the media that we were all in heated agreement in this place, because all they like to do in the media is report the conflicts when sometimes we let ourselves down. But this is one example where the parliament has done itself and the people a great service by being able to come to a resolution. I thank all honourable senators for their contribution and assistance in allowing us to resolve this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: The amendments before the chair are government amendments (1) to (7). That will require two questions. The first question is that amendments (1), (2), (4), (5) and (7) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that items 2 and 7 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.