Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I stated in my second reading debate contribution on this bill last night, the coalition, three weeks ago now, had actually requested the government send this to the appropriate committee for scrutiny. While the government is selling it to the Australian people as merely modernisation, in my speech, and even in the speech that Senator Roberts has just given, I have assured the Australian people it is absolutely not that.

Unfortunately, this is a transfer of power directly from the parliament, where you have transparency, all the way over to the executive, where you have none. I would have thought for a government that likes to stand up and tell the Australian people just how committed to transparency it is, it would have actually agreed to this bill being subject to a committee inquiry. It didn't. Ironically, three weeks later, we are now here. And because we were unable to have a committee inquiry, I will now have to pursue it through the committee process.

In the first instance, Minister, is it correct that under the bill the responsible minister may issue written performance standards to certain statutory office holders, and that those standards may then form the basis for a finding of unsatisfactory performance leading to termination?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. I understand you have a series of questions about the bill. You were offered a briefing on the bill in February. You decided not to take that up, so we are happy to answer your questions here in the committee process. It is a bill that deals with four agencies and makes changes to ensure that the standards that Australians expect in their workplaces are aligned with some of the workplaces here in the Commonwealth.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it correct that those performance standards that you have just confirmed in relation to my first question are expressly excluded from the definition of a legislative instrument?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is correct.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it correct that, because those standards are not legislative instruments, they are not subject to disallowance by the parliament?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. If the standard is not a legislative instrument, it will not be disallowable by the parliament. I can seek some more advice about the process of making those standards public for you.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill that we currently have before us contains no requirement for the standards that I've just referred to, and the fact that they are not legislative instruments means they are unable to be disallowed by the parliament. Is it correct that the bill contains no requirement for those standards to be tabled in either the House or the Senate?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. There is nothing in this bill in particular that requires the standards to be tabled. As I said in my contribution and in my previous responses to you, these standards in this bill are about modernising the appointments framework to reflect community and workplace expectations for Commonwealth officials. We want to make sure that, if there is any unacceptable conduct, those officials are held to account.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, Minister, it's one thing to say a bill is all about modernisation and expectations; it's another thing to hide those expectations from the Australian public, who deserve to know exactly what those standards are, particularly given the nature of the agencies that we are referring to. So far, we have established that the minister can issue performance standards to certain statutory office holders and that those performance standards may then form the basis for a finding of unsatisfactory performance leading to termination. It sounds very simple, but what we have also now established is that this bill deliberately excludes those performance standards from the definition of a legislative instrument. That therefore means that, if they are not legislative instruments, the parliament doesn't see them and doesn't have an opportunity to therefore disallow them. We also now know that the minister writes these performance standards, and they don't go anywhere near the two houses of parliament. There's no requirement for that. Minister, I now also ask: is it also correct that the bill contains no requirement for these standards to be published?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Cash. I was seeking to understand—that's a different question than the previous one in terms of tabling in parliament. There's nothing in the bill that requires them to be published. I can seek advice for you. Of course, the parliament, particularly the Senate, has a number of scrutiny mechanisms available to it to seek information and to put information on the public record.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hate to disappoint you, but the first scrutiny available to the chamber was actually the committee process which was denied to us. I've just asked you a series of questions, and, in relation to each one of those questions, the answer was that there is absolutely no transparency whatsoever in relation to these performance standards, but, seeing as you have just advised the committee that apparently there is a way that we can get hold of the information, can you please take the committee through how we can actually get hold of the information as per your last answer?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, I referred to the Senate's usual processes in requesting information. You are fully aware of those. You've been here for a long time. I'm not going to elaborate on those. As I've said, this bill is about making sure that the community expectation of public officials to perform their duties with the highest integrity, particularly those who operate at the highest level in heading up statutory authorities—that they are held to that highest level of account. This bill ensures that arrangements for statutory office holders set in the legislation underpinning these entities, which has not been updated in many years and so have limited provisions of an accountability where conduct or performance is unacceptable—it ensures that those measures are updated.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one disputes what you are saying. What we are interrogating is why the government is yet again indulging in a culture of secrecy. Let's now see what we have established. In relation to your last response, Minister, with all due respect, if you are referring to the Senate process of an order for the production of documents, I suggest that, perhaps, you look at the government's record in relation to providing the Senate with the information that it requires for the benefit of the Australian public. I can assure you right now that we'll put in the order for the production of documents, and do you know what we'll get back? A blank sheet of paper. That is hardly transparency.

In summary, in relation to the performance standards in this bill, we have a combined effect of these provisions that a minister may set secret non-disallowable performance benchmarks, assess an officeholder's performance against those benchmarks and terminate the officeholder on that basis, and the bad news for the Australian parliament and ultimately the Australian people is that the parliament will never ever see those standards or, alternatively, have a mechanism to review them.

Minister, can you advise the committee why the government has chosen a culture of secrecy and a handing of the ability of the parliament—normally, these are set out in legislation. In other departments, the parliament and the Australian public, and, indeed, the person affected can clearly see in legislation what those performance standards are. This bill is a fundamental deviation from that. It is indulging in a culture of secrecy—not just to the parliament, but also to the Australian people. They have no idea what is going on. On what basis did the government decide to ensure that there was a culture of secrecy in relation to these standards—not make them a legislative instrument, not make them disallowable and not make them publishable in either house of parliament?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject that categorisation. I may well ask why the opposition is choosing a culture of opposition for opposition's sake—opposition to sensible reforms that seek to ensure there is integrity, honesty and accountability in core Commonwealth government entities, and, in doing so, ensure that, as in the APS Code of Conduct, things like discrimination, bullying and harassment, and corruption and those types of behaviours, are unacceptable and not allowed in these four Commonwealth entities that we seek to modernise today. That's what we are seeking to do, as government. You characterise it in a different way. You're choosing to oppose this bill. We won't agree on the purpose. You seem to misconstrue the purpose—perhaps because it's not understood that it's against a backdrop of other work that we've been doing to reform the Public Service. I think your question says more about your approach than ours.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was possibly the most bizarre answer I have ever had in the Australian Senate. Seriously, have you listened to the answers that you have given to me in response to my questions? You say that you want to hold certain officeholders accountable under certain standards. How do we know that's true? The parliament's never going to see them. The Australian public are never going to see them. You could have nothing in those standards, and we would not know. That is the whole point of these questions. You are once again hiding from both the parliament and the Australian people what you are doing. So can you identify the specific criterion that distinguishes these four entities from comparable statutory bodies, such as ASIC, the ACCC, APRA, the Information Commissioner or the Australian Human Rights Commission and its commissioners?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can answer that question. In terms of the specific agencies or officeholders, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General's Department, when examining the statutory officeholders within their portfolios—this bill presents an appropriate legislative vehicle to progress that work through parliament. However, there are portfolio-specific nuances. For example, amendments to the Parliamentary Counsel Act do not include suspension provisions, because this is not a feature for statutory officeholders within the Attorney-General's portfolio.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, that wasn't an answer to my question, but I'm assuming that I'm going to ask questions and you are just going to read out the response that is provided to you. Again, though, let's see what we've established. You have a termination power exercisable against secret, non-disallowable, ministerially-set standards. So, basically, where we get to is: termination, at pleasure, by a minister. This is an incredibly dangerous path to go down, for the Australian people. It is one thing to set termination standards in legislation, and have the parliament and, quite frankly, others able to review them. This is a fundamental deviation from this, to the point whereby we are never ever going to know what is actually in those standards, because the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Australian public are never ever going to see them. So tell me, Minister: can the performance standards—the secret performance standards, which we are never going to see—be amended or replaced during an officeholder's term?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, once they're set, sorry, they're set?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already answered the question.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just asking for clarification. Is there a provision in the bill that allows the performance standards to be amended or replaced during an office holder's term?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cash, for the clarification. I appreciate that. There's nothing in the bill that prevents that from happening.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's nothing that prevents that from happening. So are you now saying they can be or replaced during an office holder's term?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, I apologise. I sought clarification on your question because you reframed it. It can be amended during the term.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What safeguards exist in the bill to prevent performance standards being set or amended retrospectively or shifted midterm to engineer a finding of unsatisfactory performance?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can provide more information, I will. But what I'll draw you to is that there would be, if there was a finding of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, procedural fairness processes that would apply. This bill doesn't exclude those processes. If I can provide more advice, I will.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, that wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked was what safeguards exist in the bill to prevent performance standards being set or amended retrospectively or shifted midterm to engineer a finding of unsatisfactory performance? You have now given evidence to the Senate that there is nothing in this bill that stops the performance standards, the secret performance standards, that the Australian public and the houses of parliament are never going to see. You've got all that on the record. That's what the bill is all about: taking away the transparency and ensuring that the minister holds all the power. What safeguards are in the bill to prevent the performance standards being set or amended retrospectively or shifted midterm to engineer a finding of unsatisfactory performance?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the same question. I've already answered the question, Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You haven't, but that's fine. I accept we won't be getting an answer. You've been at pains several times to date to say that there's nothing to see here, that it's a very simple bill and that it's merely a modernisation process. On that basis, will the government commit to tabling all performance standards issued under this bill within five sitting days?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not something that the government is planning on doing. I have stepped you through what this bill does and how it strengthens our appointment safeguards. I understand you have a different view on the bill, but I'm perplexed as to why this modernisation of four agencies to make sure that there is more adherence with the APS Code of Conduct is controversial. We're certainly happy to answer your questions, but my characterisation of modernisation is correct.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So just to confirm, then, in relation to this bill, which you call modernisation—I'm glad we're on broadcast, because the Australian people need to clearly understand what the Albanese Labor government means when it talks about modernisation. It's not an update. An update is just that. We all have a bit of a look at it, then say, 'Yes, we like it,' or, 'No, we don't like it,' and then we change it and make it better et cetera. The Albanese government's form of modernisation that is going to be passed through the parliament—I understand the Australian Greens are supporting this—is to ensure that in relation to these four entities we are taking away from the parliament the right to consider and clearly and transparently review these performance standards, and, as we've now heard from the minister, we will never see them.

The minister can say what she likes when it comes to what's going to be in them. We will never know. Despite the fact that the minister says there's nothing to see here—let's be very, very clear. I have just asked, on behalf of the Australian people, 'Will the government commit to tabling all performance standards issued under this bill within five days of issue so that we can see them?' Let us be clear what the minister has said. The answer is no. They will remain secret. And you wonder why some of us are not supporting this particular piece of legislation! We don't support things that we can't see.

How does the bill define unsatisfactory performance for the purposes of the termination provisions?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just run you through the bill because the bill does set out what standards for unsatisfactory performance of statutory office holders are impacted. The bill introduces a mechanism impacting the CEOs of Austrade and ACIAR that will allow the relevant minister to determine a performance standard in writing that the relevant statutory office holder will be expected to adhere to. Unsatisfactory performance may be judged against that standard. The bill has been intentionally devised to ensure that the judgement rests with the relevant person responsible for the termination. This also addresses a concern that executive accountability would be weakened where the standard is set externally or inflexibly in legislation. It allows the standards to be adapted to suit government and portfolio priorities as they progress.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a definition in the definitions section of the bill of unsatisfactory performance?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are several agencies that are dealt with, and we might need to go through each one separately because there are some separate definitions. You will probably have to refer me to which agency you're discussing. I note that the Director of Safeguards at ASNO is not subject to unsatisfactory performance standards. So perhaps you could direct your question to the particular agency, and I can get an answer for you.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to each of these agencies, what is the definition of unsatisfactory performance? You have just basically stated that the Senate there isn't one. The ministers themselves are responsible for drafting this. If that is so, will the standards be made public?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already answered the question about the standards and how they will be dealt with. What I would say to you is that the bill deals with—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are no standards.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say is that, with regard to particular agencies that are dealt with, there are definitions around misconduct and serious misconduct in the bill. Unsatisfactory performance, as I referred to for the first agency, Austrade, will be relative to the requirements of the role.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does 'relative to the requirement of the role' mean? Can you point to it in black and white in the legislation anywhere? Is there a definition section that says, 'Unsatisfactory performance means', and will the public ever get to see that?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Cash. Clearly we are getting into the territory of you asking questions that you know the answers to because you've read the bill. The bill doesn't contain that definition. You want me to say that on record. We have explained to you how those standards will be met, why we are bringing those standards forward and why those statutory office holders should be accountable to them.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, again, there is no definition of unsatisfactory performance in the legislation that we are debating. It's all up to the minister, and the standards will not be made public. Has the Attorney-General's Department provided advice on whether the termination or suspension provisions are consistent with the principle in Barratt v Howard 1999—that statutory office holders are not removable at pleasure absent clear legislative authority?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, as you would be aware from many Senate estimates hearings, we don't comment on legal advice that may have been provided to the government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not asking for a comment on the legal advice. I'm merely asking if you can take me through the case of Barratt v Howard please and how it applies to this situation, because it is very important.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, I did answer your question. Your question is very specific to that case. You're a legal scholar yourself. I'm sure you can read that decision. If I can provide you any additional advice, I will, but I'm not going to step you through a publicly available decision in the law.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The good news is this: you don't know what the case of Barratt v Howard is, but it's actually directly applicable to this legislation. And it is not an appropriate response for a minister of the Crown to not be able to state whether the Attorney-General's Department, who is responsible for this bill, has or has not given advice in relation to this. I'm not interested in the advice itself. I know we cannot get that. I appreciate that. But the fact that you are unable to even go anywhere near this federal case when it is on point is yet again another reason why this bill should have been subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Now, it raises the question: is it even compliant with the law? That is the point of the case of Barratt v Howard.

If the bill does not contain a statutory definition of 'unsatisfactory performance', is it correct—just so I can confirm in my own mind here—that the content of that term is effectively determined by the minister through the performance standards?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is correct.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are those going to be made public then?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the government is not required to make those standards public, and that's not our intention. As I have stepped out, the standards are made in relation to each agency or statutory office holder, because each statutory office holder would have different obligations or different requirements for what 'unsatisfactory performance' would mean.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we're delving more into the secrecy. I don't know what we've discovered here yet. There's nothing in this bill yet that I've had a proper answer to. I don't even know what we're reviewing at this moment, because everything has been done at the whim of a minister. It is a very dangerous transfer of power from the parliament to an executive that has no obligation at all under this piece of obligation to let the public know what is going on. Is there any requirement in the bill for the minister to give reasons for a termination decision?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In regard to the reasons of termination, there's no requirement in the bill. What I would say is it's not unusual for unsatisfactory performance to be a reason for termination, and that's why we've strengthened that, particularly in regard to the Austrade CEO role.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not quite sure how you're strengthening it when nobody in Australia knows what's going on other than the minister. So take me through the procedural fairness obligations that apply in relation to each of the statutory office holders before a termination or, in one case, a suspension decision is made under the bill.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you just repeat the first part of the question.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you take me through what the procedural fairness obligations are before a termination decision is made or, in one case, a suspension decision is made in relation to each of the statutory office holders.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cash, for that clarification. As I said previously, the bill does not exclude procedural fairness safeguards, and, accordingly, all procedural fairness obligations will apply automatically to the relevant decisions. The bill does not provide for merits review of suspension or termination decisions, which is consistent with Commonwealth statutes. This is because decisions to suspend, appoint or terminate statutory office holders relate to decisions concerning performance of specified functions that require particular expertise.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any requirement in the bill to notify the parliament when one of these statutory office holders is terminated under these provisions?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Senator Cash, there's no requirement in the bill itself, although it would be, I think, particularly unusual for a government not to inform the public of a termination of a statutory office holder—certainly because that statutory officeholder would need to be replaced, and that would be a normal process of government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does the termination framework in this bill compare with the protections that exist for other Commonwealth statutory office holders, such as members of the AAT, ASIC commissioners or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Appointment and termination provisions are different for numerous Commonwealth entities. You will note in this bill that some of the entities have different provisions we're bringing forward. That reflects the unique nature of some of the roles. You referred, I think, to the AAT—or the ART, as it's now referred to. The provisions do align. That was a very recent introduction—well, not that recent, but the most recent in nature. So there is an alignment there. I couldn't step you through every single Commonwealth entity in the entire Public Service, but, to give you a comparison with ART, I'm advised that there is an alignment of those entities. Again, we're dealing with different provisions for each entity because of the nuanced nature of some of the entities that we're dealing with.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's just made it—for the benefit of the Australian public—a whole lot worse because the ART is a $1 billion creation of the Labor government, and what you have now just said is that you actually moved from transparency in relation to the AAT and performance standards to now align with a process and culture of secrecy. So I have to say that alarms me now more than anything.

If I could now just turn to the suspension powers in the bill, what is the threshold that must be met before a minister may exercise the suspension power under the bill?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, as you are aware—I think your question relates to the foreign affairs and trade entities because, under the bill, only suspension provisions are there for those entities. So I'll just address those particular entities. The suspension power is being introduced to enable the relevant minister to suspend the relevant statutory office holder when it is deemed to be in the interests of the agency. The suspension power will be available for the statutory office positions of the CEO of Austrade, the CEO of ACIAR—and I'm sure there's a jazzier way to say 'ACIAR'—and the Director of Safeguards. This is part of a broader effort to ensure that any misconduct can be promptly addressed to ensure integrity and accountability. This will aid in maintaining a safe working environment and protect the public's confidence in the relevant entities' operations.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That wasn't the question that I asked, so I'm going to ask the question again: what threshold must be met before a minister may exercise the suspension power in this bill?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did answer your question. I referred to the interests of the agency, and that is the threshold that the minister needs to be convinced of. It is to ensure that the best interests of the agency are considered and that that threshold is met before a suspension is considered.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That makes almost no sense at all. What does 'the best interests of the agency' mean? Is the Australian public ever going to understand what factors are actually taken into account, or is it solely at the discretion of the minister of the day to determine what is in the best interests of the relevant agency?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, some of the factors that would be taken into account would be maintaining a safe working environment and protecting the public's confidence. I'm sure you can understand that, if there were an allegation of bullying or, particularly, sexual harassment or something that would not be in line with the APS code of conduct, in the interests of the agency, a suspension would be considered. It is a power that gives the minister the ability to suspend the statutory office holder, initially only for three months, if it is in the interest of that entity, as I said. Perhaps to pre-empt future questions, for longer suspensions, appropriate safeguards must be in place and link to formal processes that may be underway.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a maximum duration for a suspension under the bill? You've said 'three months'. But is there a maximum duration that the suspension can be in play for?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the bill, the maximum extension would be for up to 12 months.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And what procedural fairness obligations apply before a suspension is imposed?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said for the previous question, this bill doesn't remove normal procedural fairness processes. They would be the ones that apply for any suspension consideration.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that you're removing transparency, which you say the bill doesn't remove, is there therefore a section in black and white that actually refers to the procedural fairness obligations?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill seeks to amend the legislation relating to four separate entities. There's no specific stepping out of procedural fairness processes. They would be the normal procedural fairness processes that would apply through any administrative process through the Commonwealth.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it correct that the bill requires public notification by way of gazettal when the Director of Safeguards at ASNO is suspended?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we're getting into this territory of Senator Cash asking questions about what's in the bill, which she has read. There is no requirement for that to be gazetted, as you've requested.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm a little confused. I'm asking questions about a bill that I've read, yes. That's exactly right, and so far in relation to each of my questions all you've confirmed is a culture of secrecy. That is why I'm asking the questions. That is what a committee stage in the Senate is all about, or it was about until you decided to bypass most of them. I just need to understand this now. Are you saying there is no requirement, no public notification by way of gazette, when the Director of Safeguards at ASNO is suspended?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're asking the same questions, and I've said no.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So there's none. Okay. That's fine. Can you then take me through—is there any public notification requirement in the bill for the suspension of the CEO of ACIAR, Austrade or the parliamentary counsel?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you're aware, there's no suspension requirement for OPC, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Apologies, I think there was an initial entity that you asked about. Could you repeat that first part of the question?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the easier way to do it is to ask: are there any public notification requirements by way of gazette in the bill when someone is suspended?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No? There's none. If I could just turn now to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the directions power that is now provided in this bill, what type of matters may be the subject of a general direction issued by the Attorney-General to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel under the bill?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention of including a ministerial directions power in the OPC act is to allow the Attorney-General to direct OPC to ensure that drafting resources are being directed to the highest legislative priorities of the government and to enhance delivery of the government's legislative priorities. Any direction issued will be of a general nature and will be required to be issued to OPC in writing. It is expected that any direction relating to allocation of drafting resources to legislative priorities will be informed by decisions of the Parliamentary Business Committee of Cabinet.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I take you to part 3(10)(a) and (b) which says:

(10) If the Minister:

(a) suspends the appointment of the Director under subsection (1); or

(b) extends a period of suspension under subsection (4);

the Minister must publish notice of the suspension or extension.

You've just given evidence that there is no requirement to do this.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which entity are you referring to?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part 3, Director of Safeguards, division 1 suspension of employment, Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My answer previously—and I appreciate we are going back and forth quite quickly—was in relation to OPC. There's no suspension provision that's been included for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. If your question relates to the director from part 3, I can seek advice about that.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My exact question was: is it correct that the bill requires public notification by way of gazette when the Director of Safeguards at ASNO is suspended? I don't know how I mentioned Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I'm reading it word for word from my list of questions.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify, I think we were talking about two agencies at the same time. We have set the record straight on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The reference that you make is a reference in the bill to making the suspension public; my answer was about it being gazetted. The bill doesn't set out how the suspension would be made public.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it does need to be made public. Can I go back to the question that followed, because, based on the answer, we've now changed the answer to ASNO. Is it correct that no equivalent public notification requirement exists for the suspension of the CEO of ACIAR and the CEO of Austrade?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The requirement to make public the suspension for the director relates to the regulatory environment or the regulatory community that it relates to. That doesn't exist for the CEO of Austrade or ACIAR.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the policy rationale behind it? Okay. I will go back to the general directions. Is there an exhaustive definition of what constitutes a general direction under the bill, or is the power an open-ended power in relation to the ability of the minister or the Attorney-General to issue a general direction to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In regard to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—just because we are jumping around a little bit, I'm just confirming that that question is about the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the direction that would be issued—as I said, it would be of a general nature. It does ensure that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel would not be required to comply with a direction to the extent that it relates to the First Parliamentary Counsel's performance or exercise of their powers under the Public Service Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. That safeguard ensures that any directions would be consistent with the First Parliamentary Counsel's statutory responsibilities as OPC's accountable authority and agency head.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this the first time that there has been a legislative power for the Attorney-General to issue a general direction to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel under the bill?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Cash, this would be a new provision.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you confirm, then: in terms of the general nature, is there anything in black and white that says, 'These are the parameters for the minister'? It's very dangerous, this power. This is the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. They are actually an independent body. So is there anywhere we can look to in this legislation that says to the minister, 'It's a very serious power; you are now directing an independent body, so you can only give a general direction'? Is it an open-ended power? Is there anywhere that sets out the exact criteria that the minister has to look at?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said previously, Senator Cash, and as you would be aware, under new section 3A, subsection (1), the minister may give direction to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel about the performance of its functions, but a direction under subsection (1) must be of a general nature only.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When courts seek to interpret legislation, they look to a number of sources, as you know. One of those sources is obviously what we're talking about now. At this point in time, we have not given the courts any further guidance in relation to what a general direction is. I'm happy to accept if a general direction is an open-ended direction at the discretion of the minister. I'll accept that as the answer. I'm not going to agree with it. I think it's an incredibly dangerous path to walk down, given that this is a new section. This is the first time the Attorney-General has been, in black and white, given the legislated ability to provide a direction. But it's not good enough to say to the Senate, 'Well, it says a general direction.' What is a general direction? Are there any parameters at all surrounding what a general direction is? How will the Attorney-General know if they have indeed overstepped the mark?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As related to my previous answer, Senator Cash, as I've said, the direction must be of a general nature. If you read section 3A, you will note that the direction must relate to the performance of OPC's functions as outlined in section 3 of the OPC act, so the general direction relates to those functions. These functions cover drafting proposed laws, amendments and subordinate legislation, as well as publishing current and proposed laws. So the general direction would relate to those functions as outlined in the OPC act.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can a general direction then address the internal processes or methodologies used in drafting legislation?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, the direction must be of a general nature only. I think we all have a lot of respect for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and the word 'only' is very specific here in this legislation. It ensures that the general direction must only relate to the performance of OPC's functions as outlined in the act. As I've said to you, that means that the direction can only relate to drafting proposed laws, amendments and subordinate legislation, as well as publishing current and proposed laws. A direction of a general nature could not be specific to, for example, a type of technology that might need to be used. What we have sought to do is to ensure that, as I said in a previous answer, the OPC will not be required to comply with the direction to the extent that it relates to the First Parliamentary Counsel's performance and exercise of powers under the acts that they are required to comply with.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many directions is the minister able to give to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The power is not constrained to one particular direction.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it correct that the directions issued under this power are not legislative instruments?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it correct that there is no requirement in the bill for these directions to be tabled in either house of parliament?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no requirement that the ministerial directions be tabled in parliament.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister be in any way, shape or form ever advising the parliament or the Australian public that they have issued only—to quote you—a general direction to the independent Office of Parliamentary Counsel?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation does contemplate this scenario. The OPC will receive the direction in writing, and the Attorney-General will have discretion to publish or give notice of any direction in any manner the Attorney-General considers appropriate. For example, the Attorney-General may decide to table a direction in parliament or to require, for example, OPC to publish the direction on its website.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You referred to the discretion of the Attorney-General. Does that also mean that the Attorney-General has the discretion to not have this published?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation says the Attorney-General 'may publish' the notice.'

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, can I just confirm that the discretion you have referred to also means that, yes, they may decide to but, within this bill, there is no requirement for the Attorney-General to have this published? They don't have to. You mentioned the word 'discretion' in relation to the Attorney-General. So there is no requirement in the bill that actually says, 'Within five days, you have to advise the parliament and the people of Australia that the Attorney-General has indeed issued a general direction to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel'?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I answered that question; I think it's been repeated there. For further clarification, it is appropriate that there is no blanket obligation to publish a direction, as there may be circumstances in which a direction relates to confidential matters.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the direction have to be in writing?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the government is so big on transparency and they're just general directions—as you've said, they're only general directions—will the government commit to publishing all directions issued to the OPC and tabling them in the parliament within five days of issue?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will commit to complying with this legislation, if passed by the Senate, which allows the minister to publish those notices at the discretion of the Attorney-General.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'm going to take a wild guess here that we're never going to see one of these directions. When were the Office of Parliamentary Counsel first consulted on these provisions?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do know that there was consultation undertaken with key Commonwealth stakeholders on the development of the framework, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Department of Finance and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Affected entities, including the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, were also consulted.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you say the Office of Parliamentary Counsel were also consulted, when were they consulted, and were they consulted specifically in relation to the introduction—and you've said it's a new law—of a ministerial directions power?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All affected entities were consulted. That was my answer to you. They were consulted on the bill—all of what is in the bill. We're in a particularly strange situation—I think you would agree, Senator Cash—where the nature of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel means they would have actually seen this legislation in its draft form because of the nature of the work that they do. But there was consultation with all of the agencies affected about the provisions in the bill.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be going for a little while, so can you undertake to find out on what dates the Office of Parliamentary Counsel were consulted? In particular, I want to know—it's one thing to be responsible for drafting legislation. That means nothing. That doesn't mean you've been consulted on it. Were they consulted, and did they indeed support the introduction of a ministerial directions power?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered the question in regard to consultation. I can undertake to find out whether there's a date available to us for you.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any provision in the bill that expressly prohibits a general direction from addressing the prioritisation, scheduling or sequencing of drafting work?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, it's a general direction and relates to the functions of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That includes the drafting of legislation.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to confirm then, there's nothing in the bill that expressly prohibits a general direction from addressing the prioritisation, scheduling or sequencing of drafting work so that the Attorney-General actually can therefore issue a general direction in relation to what they should prioritise, what they should schedule and what they should sequence by way of their drafting work?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify, the First Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for prioritising the legislative work of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, so that's why the direction is of a general nature, and the question you're asking in relation to prioritisation of legislation would be a matter for the First Parliamentary Counsel.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I confirm then that there is no ability, therefore, for the minister to issue a general direction in relation to or to the First Parliamentary Counsel regarding the prioritising, scheduling or sequencing of drafting work and that will solely sit with the First Parliamentary Counsel as to how they will prioritise work?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the direction would have to be general in nature only, and the Attorney-General would only be able to give a direction of general nature. That's what I've said to number of your questions, and it relates to the one you've just asked me.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are no further down the path in relation to understanding what a general direction is and what it can actually do and who needs to follow it. Can a general direction require OPC to adopt particular drafting conventions, standard clauses or template provisions?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. That's a matter for the First Parliamentary Counsel.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can a general direction require OPC to report to the Attorney-General on its workload, including the volume and subject matter of work?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This ministerial direction that we are discussing, which is part of this legislation, again, would be of a general nature only, but, of course, the Attorney-General could, from time to time, request that information outside of a ministerial direction.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I have you confirm for me, in relation to the role of the OPC, whether they provide confidential drafting services to non-government senators and members.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives provide drafting for, as you referred to, non-government senators and House of Representatives members. That is separate to the function of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and there are separately funded staff. What may happen, from time to time, as you would be aware as a former attorney-general, is that the OPC may second parliamentary counsel officers or drafters into the Department of Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives to perform those functions.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If they are seconded, is the Attorney-General able to issue a ministerial direction to them?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The direction is to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. As you would know, if Office of Parliamentary Counsel staff are seconded, they would be at the direction of the Department of Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I now turn to ASNO and, in particular, the independence of this particular body. Does the government accept that independence of the Director of Safeguards is critical to Australia's compliance with its international nuclear safeguards obligations, including under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Australia's safeguard agreements with the IAEA?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Effective independence is a requirement.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the policy rationale behind why the bill does not include unsatisfactory performance as a grounds for termination of the Director of Safeguards?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  That is correct.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given you've agreed that that is the policy rationale behind the noninclusion of unsatisfactory performance as a grounds for termination of this particular director, does the government therefore accept that the exercise of a suspension power, which can strip the director of their functions and sideline the regulator's leadership, could in practice achieve the same outcome as a termination—namely, the removal of an independent regulator from their role. The evidence that you've previously given in relation to a suspension is that it could be for up to 12 months.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, suspension and termination are two different things. The suspension power, as we've stepped through previously, is required to ensure that, if there is a risk to the integrity of the entity or to the workplace—a particular hypothetical example would be where there are allegations of sexual misconduct and so forth. That suspension would be required. Of course, in that circumstance, there would be a director acting in the role, and, as we've stepped through before, that suspension would be publicly notified.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this the first time that a suspension power in relation to this particular director has been put into legislation?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the independence of this particular agency and also the international obligations in relation to it, credibility is of the utmost importance in relation to the Director of Safeguards. Did the government consult with the IAEA or any of Australia's defence partners et cetera regarding the introduction of a ministerial suspension power over the Director of Safeguards?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be clear, the Director of Safeguards does require a high level of independence, given their responsibility for the regulation of nuclear nonproliferation in Australia. There is no introduction of termination on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance for the director so as to avoid any suggestion of interference in the regulator's independence. The government recognises that this solution best serves the commitment to ensure that there is accountability and integrity and delivery but also the independence of the agency.

You asked me whether there was consultation. As I mentioned before, there was consultation with the Public Service and with ASNO. There was no specific consultation with the international agency that you mentioned, but the specific agency was consulted.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the admissions in relation to the importance of independence for the Director of Safeguards, with the international credibility issues in particular, what safeguards exist in the bill to prevent suspension—which your evidence is you can actually be suspended for up to 12 months—being used to undermine ASNO's operational independence at a time when Australia's nuclear safeguards credibility is directly relevant to the AUKUS partnership?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I've stepped you through the safeguards within the bill, which does not introduce grounds for unsatisfactory performance for termination. In regard to suspension, as I have mentioned, it is in relation to ensuring that there is a safe workplace—an incredibly important thing for an agency of this nature. We did consult with ASNO in relation to the provisions in this bill. Again, we are very committed to the independence of this agency and its importance. We're also committed to the accountability and integrity of people who hold high office in this country, and that includes the director.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that everything we have learned in the committee stage completely justifies the reason that the coalition will not be supporting this bill. It is one thing to support sound governance and appropriate accountability, but I have to say that accountability on behalf of the Australian people must always be accompanied by transparency, and this bill does nothing more and nothing less than increase executive power.

It's very dangerous when a government that hates transparency takes things away from the parliament and gives it to a minister without appropriate oversight. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing more and nothing less than expand executive influence. It limits guaranteed parliamentary visibility in key areas, and it does so, sadly, as I said, without being given the level of scrutiny that it should have been given. In the interest of time—we're about to hit a hard marker—as I said, I'm very glad that we had this Q&A, because it's totally justified that this is nothing more and nothing less than a ministerial grab for power.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, the OPC was consulted on 23 December.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.