1999-06-233913SENATE603701999-06-23The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills6037s219Billss2206037Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the War Crimes Act 1945 and a bill for an act to validate certain decisions made, and acts and things done, under Part XVA of the Customs Act 1901.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.603709:32:006037Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—WAR CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill repeals section 22 of the War Crimes Act 1945.The act was amended in 1989 prior to the fall of the "iron curtain" to enable trial in Australia with respect of conduct engaged in during World War II in Europe. Although the usual practice would have been to extradite persons accused of such crimes to the country where the crimes occurred, at the time it was considered politically unacceptable to extradite persons to countries behind the so called "iron curtain". The "iron curtain" has fallen and many of the republics, including Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are now independent states and have been accepted as members of the Council of Europe. Australia has, in the past, been prepared to enter into extradition arrangements with any country that is a member of the Council.The Government is actively pursuing the possibility of establishing modern extradition arrangements with many of these newly independent States. However, even if a modern extradition relationship was in place, it would still be impossible for those countries to comply with an extradition request while section 22 of the War Crimes Act remains in force.Effectively, section 22 of the act provides that where a person's extradition from Australia is sought for conduct covered by the act no surrender for extradition is possible unless the requesting country establishes a prima facie case. Thus, notwithstanding a modern extradition relationship with these countries, if the offence for which extradition is sought is a "war crime" then the requesting state must provide a prima facie case. Because of the differences between civil code and common law countries the practical effect is that it would be virtually impossible for a civil code jurisdiction to successfully seek the extradition of a person suspected of a war crime.The concept of a prima facie case in determining sufficiency of evidence is one to which most common law countries are accustomed. However, those countries which operate under a civil code system (e.g., Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) do not use this test in criminal proceedings. The practical issue is that the laws of evidence in common law systems are such as to make it very difficult for a civil code jurisdiction to supply evidence in an admissible form.The repeal of section 22 will remove the fundamental barrier to Australia's cooperation with the international community in relation to suspected war criminals.This is not to say that extradition of a suspected war criminal would be automatic. Any request for the extradition of a suspected war criminal would be subject to the general extradition arrangement with the requesting country. Such arrangement must include all the usual safeguards spelt out in the Extradition Act 1988. All that the amendment will do is to remove an additional onerous requirement that relates only to the extradition of war criminals. This Government sees no reason in principle why this practical impediment to the extradition of war criminals should be retained.The amendment to the act will not have any financial impact.CUSTOMS (TARIFF CONCESSION SYSTEM VALIDATIONS) BILL 1999This bill is designed to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the tariff concession system.The tariff concession system allows goods to be imported at a concessional rate of duty essentially in circumstances where there are no local manufacturers of substitutable goods.In November 1995, the chief executive officer of customs generally delegated his powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system to certain officers of customs.In July 1996, the government made changes to the tariff concession system.Those changes resulted in amendments to the Customs Act, including the introduction of additional powers and functions.New delegations were not sought for powers that were added to sections of the act which were already the subject of the November 1995 instrument.It was thought that that instrument was sufficient.The sufficiency of the delegations for the tariff concession system was questioned in a recent hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.In light of this, the chief executive officer signed two instruments on 31 May 1999.The first revoked all existing delegations for the tariff concession system.The second issued new delegations covering all the powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system.Both instruments took effect on 1 June 1999.Notwithstanding, it is possible that certain decisions and actions taken in relation to the tariff concession system subsequent to the 1996 changes to the act may not have been the subject of adequate delegations.This bill aims to remove any doubt about the validity of these decisions and actions, to the extent that they were taken in reliance on a delegation that may not have been sufficient.Finally, the government has decided that this bill should not apply to certain matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to certain applications for refunds of customs duty, which had not been decided before 1 June 1999.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the spring sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Miscellaneous6038603809:32:006038Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I declare that the following bills are urgent bills and I move:That these bills be considered urgent bills:(a) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999];(b) A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and 26 related bills;(c) A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and 3 related bills; and(d) A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 and 2 related bills.09:33:006038Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—Given that we have a motion for a guillotine before the Senate, there obviously is a capacity for me to move, subject to contingent notice of motion, a suspension of standing orders to allow debate on the motion that the Manager of Government Business has just moved. The Manager of Government Business has indicated to me, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, that it is not the government's intention to gag the allotment of time motion that is before the chair. On that basis, it is the opposition's intention to have a substantive debate on the allotment of time motion and not to proceed to suspending standing orders to allow debate on the motion that the manager has moved. The manager has given me a commitment that it is not the government's intention to gag the allotment of time motion and, on that basis, I will proceed in that way. Question put: That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell's) be agreed to. 09:39:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.28Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.O'Chee, W. G. Hutchins, S.Tambling, G. E. J. Quirke, J. A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.603909:42:006039Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the allotment of times for the remaining stages of the bills be as follows:(1) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999](a)committee of the whole, as follows: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999].chapters 2 to 4, dealing with assessment1 hour, or until 11.30 am on Wednesday, 23 June 1999, whichever occurs first.clauses 38 to 42 and amendments dealing with forestry operations1 ½ hours, or until 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999, whichever occurs first.chapter 5, dealing with biodiversitycommencing immediately after the previous item, until 2 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999; and recommencing at 3.30 pm until 4.30 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999.remainder of billcommencing immediately after the previous item, until 5 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]until 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999(b)remaining stages, both billsuntil 6 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 (2) a New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and 26 related bills(a)committee of the whole, as follows: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998commencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and a related bill, until 7.20 pm on Wednesday, 23 June 1999; andon Thursday, 24 June 1999, recommencing immediately after Prayers until 2 pm, and from 3.30 pm until 6.30 pm; andon Friday, 25 June 1999, commencing immediately after Prayers until 11 am A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998commencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998, until 1.30 pm on Friday, 25 June 1999 A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998commencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998, until 3.30 pm on Friday, 25 June 1999 A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998commencing immediately after Prayers, on Monday, 28 June 1999, until 1.30 pm A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998commencing at 3.30 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999, until 4.15 pm remaining bills in packageuntil 4.45 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999 (b) remaining stagesuntil 5.15 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999 (3) A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and 3 related bills(a)second readingcommencing no later than 7.30 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999, until 8.30 pm(b)remaining stagesuntil 9.15 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999 (4) A new Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 and 2 related bills(a)second readingcommencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and 3 related bills, until 11 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999(b)remaining stagesuntil 11.45 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999(5) Consideration of any messages from the House of Representatives in relation to any of the bills upon a message from the House of Representatives being reported in respect of any of the bills and on any subsequent proceedings—15 minutes each message or group of messages reportedI will support the motion with a few brief remarks. It has become increasingly clear over the previous weeks, particularly during the debate on the A New Tax System bills, that without an agreed time management program and process the bills would not come to a vote within any sort of reasonable time. What a lot of people do not know is that this debate on the A New Tax System bills has gone on for in excess of 48 hours now. That has put the debate on those bills into the list of the longest—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you are not in your correct place and you should not be shouting in any event.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It puts the debate on those bills into the league of the longest debates in Australian history. Indeed, it puts them in the league of the longest debates in world history. Look at the House of Commons. We know that people like the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, and the state Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, Mr Geoff Gallop, like to go across to England regularly to visit and pay homage to Tony Blair and take tea on the terrace at Chequers. We know that Mr Beazley has a total lack of policy and ideas and that he is a tired fellow who is worn out after 13 years in one of the worst governments in Australian history. He has to travel across to the motherland and tug his forelock to Tony Blair and sit down and say, `Tony, mate, could you please tell us what this third way is? We have run out of ideas in Australia.'Opposition senators interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Do you know what Mr Beazley says to Tony Blair, his mate, the right honourable Prime Minister of Great Britain?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I draw your attention to the motion and the debate that is ensuing.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—On a point of order, Madam President: I ask Senator Ray to withdraw the comments he made. He knows which ones, Madam President. It is unparliamentary to call someone an idiot, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, if you did say that you should withdraw it. I did not hear.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, Senator Patterson's objection is absolutely right. I did say that and I withdraw it.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Of course what Mr Beazley says to Mr Blair upsets those senators opposite who are having so much trouble coming up with a policy. Senator Sherry said that he hopes they might have a tax policy by next year or the year after at their national conference. They have a lot of trouble with their policy.Mr Beazley went out to the terrace at Chequers and asked Mr Blair what the third way is. Mr Beazley said to Mr Blair, `It looks a lot like what was done by Brian Burke and Bob Hawke during the eighties. We have actually tried the third way but have you got a different angle on it here now?' But he also learnt about the longest debate in the House of Commons—this is bringing us back to the point where I started. Mr Blair told Mr Beazley it was actually 42 hours and he told him the other day what a fantastic achievement it was to delay something for 48 hours.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No wonder you're not a minister—you're hopeless.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Don't shout, Senator.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The Australian people passed their judgment on your ministry, Senator Cook, very clearly in 1996 and 1998.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You'll never make the front bench in your own right. You are pathetic.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, you are in breach of standing orders.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It's okay, Madam President. We know about Senator Cook's temper. We know that 9.30 is a little bit early for Senator Cook. He had to tell the department of foreign affairs not to set any appointments before 10 o'clock. He wanted time to go for a swim in the swimming pool, do a work-out and have a cup of tea before he had any appointments. We all know that with Senator Cook having to appear in the chamber by—RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's a lie and you know it. You're a liar.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, withdraw that remark.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Under parliamentary orders I withdraw that remark, but he is not telling the truth and he is a liar.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is not for you to debate it. You can have an opportunity to speak later in this debate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—When someone lies in this chamber, how is it that standing orders prevent you from telling the truth? I withdraw the remark.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Thank you.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On a point of order, Madam President: this is supposed to be a serious motion. The Manager of Government Business is treating it as a total joke. You did once before draw his attention to that. This is a motion to allot hours for debate and I think he should get on with that and treat it seriously. Yes, we are being unruly on this side but we are being provoked by absolute banality.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, the motion is known to you.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Yes, Madam President. As I have said, I am directly addressing it. I have made the point—and it is a very important point in this debate—that the Labor Party opposite made a decision many months ago—and they have stuck to it—to do anything and say anything to stop this bill going through. It is a quite legitimate tactic.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Which bill? The family assistance bill? We haven't seen it yet!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Poor old Senator Chris Evans, he has not seen the family assistance bill! It has been on the Notice Paper for weeks. Madam President, I am making the point that the people opposite made a decision to stop these bills going through—quite a legitimate decision. They cannot come up with a policy so what they say is that they will stop ours. I am making the point that we have spent 48 hours on the new tax system debate. It is in the top six longest debates in Australian history and it is one of the longest debates in world history, and we have said that enough is enough.This allotment of time motion says about the new tax system that we would seek to consider three of the bills prior to the close of business on Friday, the balance of the A New Tax System bill and related bills package by dinner time on Monday, and the family assistance measures and also the closely held trust bill and two other bills by Monday night. That will take them to being some of the longest debates in Australian history. One of the points that needs to be made when discussing this time management program is that, of the six longest debates in Australian history, three of them have actually occurred in the last three years in this place.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We haven't seen the amendments on tax yet and now you're going to gag the debate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Madam President, it took the Australian Senate 90-something years to have three debates that were longer than 42 hours in duration and it has taken—RF4COOKSenator Cook—This is a new bill now.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, you can have an opportunity to speak in this debate at the appropriate time and you should cease interjecting. You should abide by standing orders.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Madam President, I say once again I am glad that you did call Senator Cook to order, but he again makes the case about why he really should not have appointments before 10 o'clock. He just continues to—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You're an absolute lightweight!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That is something that no-one could ever call Senator Ray: a lightweight.Opposition senators interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Poor old Senator Ray!Senator Robert Ray interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, cease interjecting. You will get an opportunity to speak.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Those opposite say that we need more time to consider these matters in detail. We believe that the allocation of times ensures that all senators, with goodwill—if that can possibly be achieved—will be provided with ample time for a thorough debate if that has not already been had on the new tax system. The environment debate, by the end of the time allotment, will have spread over two parliamentary days after some 11 months in committee. The new tax system spent 75 weeks I think in total in Senate committees, and this was through a Senate committee system which was designed, of course, to reduce the load of Senate debate in the committee of the whole. The reality is that, after 70 weeks in Senate committees, the time in the committee of the whole again has seen one of the longest debates in Australian Senate history. I commend the allotment of times to the Senate.09:52:006043Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—We have just heard one of the most infantile and vacuous contributions ever in this chamber from a manager of government business. I congratulate Senator Campbell on managing not to address the motion but to string his contribution out for at least seven of the 10 minutes that were available to him. What we have here is a proposal to confine debate to literally a couple of hours on legislation that is before this chamber for the first time—the environment package—that contains an unprecedented 906 amendments. That is what we are debating—a proposal from the government to stymie debate on this significant environment legislation.There are 906 amendments to the legislation and 569 government and Democrat sponsored amendments that this chamber had not seen before late last night. More than 300 of those amendments are to be debated in just one hour. A total of 511 of those amendments were hatched in secrecy by the government and the Australian Democrats without the knowledge of the green groups or the conservation groups and without the knowledge of, or consultation with, state governments and industry groups. That is because, as Senator Lees has made quite clear, she would not trust the conservation groups. She cannot afford to let anyone understand the details of the fix that she has come to with the government.I look at Senator Lees and know that, with the government, she is sponsoring another guillotine in the Senate. Senator Lees, you have become the Madame Defarge of the Senate. You sit there sponsoring this guillotine. All we have from you is the click of the knitting needles as the parade of tumbrels comes past. Whose head are you chopping off? You are chopping off the heads of the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace. You are chopping off the heads of the environment constituency, industry groups and the states, and you wash your hands of it. That is the problem that we have at the moment.Rather than acting in the way that the Democrats have traditionally, having a proper debate and a review of legislation—in the case of the environment legislation it is a legislative outrage—Senator Lees has been, and is about to be, in the final two weeks of this session, responsible for the bloody mutilation of Telstra and the bloody mutilation of the tax system, ensuring forever that we no longer have the checks and the balances that should be inherent in national environmental policy. That is the responsibility of Senator Lees, the Madame Defarge of the Senate and the Australian Democrats.Instead of using the electoral clout, the influence that the Democrats have been blessed with, to stop this sort of carnage, what is Senator Lees doing? She is sitting in the corner of the Senate and all you hear from her is the clicking of the knitting needles as the guillotine falls. I am quite confident that Senator Lees will not be thanked for this. What she will reap is an electoral backlash.The guillotine motion before the Senate allows virtually no debate. Literally, what the guillotine that Senator Lees and Senator Hill are sponsoring allows for is a few seconds debate in this chamber on 906 amendments. This guillotine does not apply just to the environment legislation, where it is an absolute outrage, although we acknowledge that it is less outrageous in relation to the tax legislation. We have a brand new tax system being proposed by the government. The proposal that the government went to the election on has been completely up-ended by Senator Lees and the government. Senator Campbell tells us about the longest debate in Senate history. This is a brand new debate. Again, in the GST package there are two new bills and 119 new government and Democrat sponsored amendments. Government mismanagement and Democrat interference has resulted in ANTS package mark 2, mark 3 or whatever we have before us. We have just received pages and pages of amendments from the Table Office. These are indicative that the tax system in this country is going to become utterly ramshackle at the conclusion of the Senate's debate.We say, `Let's examine the legislation properly. Let's give the Senate an opportunity for proper scrutiny of this legislation.' That principle has applied until recently, under all former Democrat leaders—but not under Madame Defarge—and it was accepted by the Australian Democrats. It is no wonder, Senator Lees, that already two of your number have ratted on you. Most of your party membership have ratted on you. And so they should, because you have sold them out. You have also sold out those Australians who voted for you.Not only has she done that but she has also sold out more than 300,000 small businesses that hang on the amendments we have to the tax package before the Senate that could become law. Small businesses and members of the public would say that the Senate is abrogating its duty if these matters are not properly examined.I have to say with some disappointment in relation to the Australia Democrats: have we ever witnessed a truer illustration of the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Because this is what has happened now. The Australian Democrats have the government over a barrel. They have real political and parliamentary leverage over this government, but they are not willing to use it. They are in the closed doors fix. They are selling out constituencies that I would acknowledge over the years have been considered integral to their political interests.They had an opportunity to say to this government, `We will give you your GST and the Democrat-government GST package, but we will give you only that package.' But they squibbed it; they sold out their own party's interest. They even sold out members of their own parliamentary party and they certainly sold out the organisational wing of their party. Senator Lees has ensured nothing other than the political demise of the Australian Democrats, as well as her own political demise. Sadly, as the Madame Defarge—as the supporter of the guillotine in the Senate on this legislation—that is precisely what she deserves.10:02:006045Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I find it extraordinary that the Australian Labor Party seems to think that we are in government. I think I perhaps need to listen to their nonsense about Telstra—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! All senators will abide by the standing orders. Senator Lees has the call.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I am not going to talk about the tax bills and why we need to put a time management plan on the tax debate. I think it is fairly obvious from the comments made by the Labor Party that they are—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is a level of sledging going on in the chamber at the moment that is absolutely undignified and in breach of the standing orders.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—It is fairly obvious that the Labor Party intends to do—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The standing orders—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, I am standing up. You shouted after I stood up. I would remind senators of the standing orders and the requirement to abide by the rulings of the chair and the standing orders themselves. Standing order 203 is absolutely clear.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I will begin again by saying very clearly that anyone listening to this debate knows exactly what the Labor Party intend to do on the tax debate. They intend to make as much of a mess of it as they possibly can—Senator Murphy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy! Persistent and wilful interjecting is in breach of the standing orders and may be reported to the Senate.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—They are hoping to push us up against the date that they themselves had agreed to earlier—that is, 30 June—to ensure that a vote is held without the opportunity to debate the amendments and answer to some of the absolute nonsense that they have had great fun with in the House of Representatives. So I am just going to concentrate on the environment bill and why this bill has to be dealt with now, after some two years of being before a committee. Indeed, it was I who chaired this committee before I was leader.Can I just say, Madam President, before I continue: the Democrats are where we have always been at this stage of a session, looking at time management plans or whatever you call them. When you were in government, the speech that Senator Hill gave was basically given by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate. The speech that Senator Faulkner gave, removing some of the abuse, was largely that given by the Leader of the Opposition. You always oppose each other when we come to the end of a session. We have consistently supported the Labor Party—Mabo was one—and there has always been a series of bills that we have had to put through at the end of a session. We sit here and listen to this backwards and forwards nonsense, and we simply agree that, if we can get a manageable, workable program, that is the sensible way to deal with it.Senator Brown interjecting—8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator Brown. You may not care for one moment about the environment. Senator Brown has not saved one tree in his life. What we are defending is the right of the resources minister to make decisions on the environment. Let us get that very clear. We want to see the environment minister actually involved in decisions on the environment. The states are not going to be doing it, Senator Brown. You should go back and look at what is in the bill and in the amendments that we will be moving.At the moment, on issues as significant as woodchipping or Jabiluka or whatever, the environment minister can be completely cut out without involvement. Under this new legislation, as we look at the way in which approvals can be made, we actually have involvement. As far as the states' involvement is concerned, we have disallowable powers and both houses of parliament will be involved. To suggest that both houses of federal parliament are, for example, going to suddenly decide to dam the Franklin is absolute nonsense.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What about the RFAs?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Let us just look at environmentally sustainable development, something you would have thought that Senator Brown would have been interested in. At the moment there is no statutory requirement for the Commonwealth agency to worry about the—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Shouting across the chamber is disorderly.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—There is no requirement for Commonwealth agencies to actually take any interest in the environment. Now, annual reports of Commonwealth agencies must indicate how they are actually managing the environment—Senator Brown interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, I invite you to abide by the standing orders.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator Brown—and, in particular, look at how they are actually impacting on the environment. Just look at environmental impact assessments, again, something you would have thought Senator Brown would be interested in. At the moment it does not apply equally to all projects which have a significant impact on world heritage areas or on Ramsar wetlands. After this legislation goes through, it applies to all projects with significant—Opposition senators interjecting—8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Look, I know you do not want to talk about why we need to get the environment bills through.Opposition senators interjecting—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Did that give you an answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Opposition senators will cease shouting and behaving in a totally disorderly way. Do you have a point of order, Senator Ray?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Lees is now debating the bill, a pleasure she is not going to give us when she guillotines it. Let's go to the hours, not the issues.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Tell her to sit down! You've got no case on the guillotine!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Faulkner! There is a point of order. The point of order raised by Senator Ray is that you, Senator Lees, are debating the bill and not the motion before us. I would draw your attention to the motion before us, which relates to the allotment of time for the debates.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—We have set aside a full day for a debate on a bill that has been in and out of committees for over two years.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—What full day is that?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I realise that you would like to waste as much time on this debate as possible, but once—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—With 569 new amendments, you're joking!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, your behaviour is disorderly.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—As you know, Madam President, the debate did begin last night. The second reading is over and we now have a day to consider, through the committee stage process of this bill, the amendments that—AW5CARRSenator Carr—There are 906 amendments!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, shouting like that adds nothing to the dignity of the chamber or the progression of the debate.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I think, Madam President, one of the reasons the Labor Party seem to be so upset about us discussing this bill is that what we are actually achieving is far more than they ever achieved in government. They do not want this bill to go through. Unless we actually put some time management plans in place, they will talk it out. We will talk about it through August and on we will go, maybe for another year or two, hoping that nothing is achieved, hoping that the various interest groups will get back at this, will start eating away at it, will whittle it down.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Why don't you want scrutiny of the bill? What are you scared of?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator. Looking at where we are in terms of the environment, having achieved roughly 80 to 85 per cent of what the environment movement actually wants, I think the Labor Party would like us not to succeed in getting this bill through the Senate. So to suggest that we do not need some management of time now, after two years of consideration through the committee process where, after all, the amendments have come from, is absolutely extraordinary. As we proceed through the debate—and I take the opportunity as Senator Ray does not want to discuss some of the real issues now—we will actually have an opportunity to see why it is so essential that not only is this bill dealt with this side of Christmas but it is actually dealt with now.10:11:006047Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President—Senator Ferguson interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is one for and one against, Senator Ferguson, I think that is why I got the call, but there is time for you.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray has the call, and other senators will remain silent.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I said the other day that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with guillotines, and I indicated that my hostility to the Telstra one was not so much the ambush but the fact that the ambush followed immediately a lot of convivial negotiations for extra sitting hours, and I thought that was bad form. I thought you could at least have allowed a few hours to go by before you sprang the guillotine on us, after having been so nice as to extend all the sitting hours. Nevertheless, we recognised that Telstra was coming to a vote in this session, that the debate was probably not going to alter anyone's mind and that issue was dealt with.Secondly, we have said from the start that we believe the tax bills should be brought to fruition before 30 June. We thought that was the government's right. We did not guarantee on which day they would come to a vote but, essentially, that is the reason we had all those extra sitting hours. But, of course, it was not the Labor Party that withdrew the tax bills. We were in committee; we were at 10 per cent the way through. It was the government that pulled the tax bills off, not us. Now they want to put a time limitation on it—what a terrible word; I should be saying `if there is an undemocratic guillotine'. What is this political correctness that we are starting to use—time management and time limitation! It is sickening. I at least would have expected the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, as a political pragmatist, to approach it and say, `This is a guillotine.' But we have got into all these other phraseologies.I would have expected that, if we are to guillotine the tax bills, given that there are such comprehensive changes to it—and if there are not comprehensive changes to it, the Democrats have been total failures as negotiators—they themselves would have asserted that there have been massive changes to this tax bill proposed in the amendments and that there should be some time in which to consider them. However, there is some argument for a guillotine on the tax bills, provided the hours allotted are reasonable. We all agree in this chamber—virtually all anyway, not everyone—that it is desirable to have these matters resolved by 30 June, one way or the other. We were always intending to keep our guarantee in that regard.The one that is difficult to come to grips with is the environment bill. This is a bill that Senator Hill acknowledged in question time yesterday as having had a long gestation period. He said that it had been to committees, it is an important and critical bill, there have been consultations with the states, and the stakeholders have all been consulted. That is eminently sensible. The situation we now find is that in spite of all that consultation and consideration there are going to be massive and dramatic changes to the environment bill. The 560 amendments constitute almost a new bill. So none of the stakeholders have really been consulted about this. If they have, it has been in the last 16 hours, because these amendments were only released at 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. What chance have the states had, for instance, to see and evaluate them and influence the states house here? What chance have most of the environment groups had to look at these amendments? What chance have the various foresters, miners and all those critical people had? They have had no chance to look at these amendments and comment on them.This is a bill that could be held over until the spring sittings, because one thing we know is that it will have 45 certain votes in the spring sittings. It could be left to sit on the table. We could get on with the tax debate immediately and leave that one until the spring sittings. Why not? A lot of these people would like to have some input on it. If the numbers are there—as they are there today for the guillotine—and if there is time wasting, as Senator Lees alleged would occur in the spring sittings, and the bill did not come to fruition, then you can guillotine your bill through. But leave three months. Leave all the amendments sitting on the table so that we have at least got a chance of reading them. How many senators—I say through you, Madam President, to Senator Lees—are going to get the chance to read and analyse those 569 amendments that were tabled at 4 o'clock yesterday? Some of us may not want to or some of us may not bother but, for those who are diligent, what real consideration can this parliament give those amendments?Basically what I am saying is that, apart from the gormless way it was done, there is some justification for a guillotine on Telstra, there is some justification for a rolling guillotine on the tax bills so that people will be able to ration time, be able to concentrate on particular areas and get a chance to debate this raft of government amendments on the tax bill. But on the environment bill this is just impossible. There are two motives for the guillotine on the environment bill. There is the government motive. They would obviously always prefer to guillotine than have Senator Hill have to spend hours here trying to justify his amendments. He would much rather be back in his office—if I were him, so would I—doing the things involved in the normal course of events than being subjected to a cross-examination from Senators Bolkus, Brown, Margetts, et cetera. But that is actually what he is being paid to do. However, that would have only got this resolution 37-odd votes.Why are the seven Democrats voting for this? It is absolutely obvious. Having done the deal with the government, they do not want to be pressured. They just want it over and done with. They want the agony to end. They do not want to have to justify themselves for the next three months—back to their own party members, back to the constituencies that they appeal to. They do not have the intestinal fortitude, they do not have the mental strength, to go through that process.So we are facing a debate that will conclude at 6 o'clock today in which over 900 amendments have to be considered. We are facing a debate where 569 government amendments have to be considered by then. There is no way that those amendments can have proper scrutiny. The rest of the bill can. It has been through the processes. All of the rest of the existing bill is well known, well debated. It is simply these amendments that cannot be considered.I am going to take the government at their word—saying that they want a reasonable time on the tax debate. I propose to moved an amendment to their guillotine. The amendment has been circulated in the chamber. I move:Paragraph 2(a), omit "3.30 p.m. to 6.30 pm", substitute "3.30 p.m. to 10.30 pm".We want a little more time on the tax bill, Senator Lees. That is what we are asking for. We are asking for another four hours on the tax bills in total. I am sure that will appeal to you. You did say that there should be generous time on the tax bills.8U4LEESSenator Lees—You have four days on it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We have not really got four days, I am sorry. We have Thursday—but not a full day. We do not have a full day on Friday and it is not a full day on Monday. So Senator Lees apparently is not going to support another four hours. But of course the government will. The government is a generous operation. It believes in generous guillotines.What do they have to give up in order to get this extra four hours? What they have to give up is the valedictories on Thursday night. Oh, shock horror—just think, we are not going to be able to spend four hours here listening to vacuous hypocritical slimy speeches on our colleagues, when suddenly we are forgiven for all past sins. Imagine the saving in cliches. Imagine the savings in ersatz sentiment that we will make by supporting my amendment. Here is your chance. Deep down in the government, most of you want to get out of the valedictories. You can vote for my amendment. You can vote for an extra democratic four hours on the tax bills and miss all those things.But I have more. I will not only throw in steak knives; we will allow the valedictories then to occur at 10.30 on Thursday night. Let us see who sticks around. Let us see who runs for the cars, let us see who stays to send their colleagues off in style. I have news for you, Madam President. I am going to beat you out the door that night, because I am not sticking around for the valedictories if my great amendment gets up.10:22:006049Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—It is interesting to observe the behaviour of members in the chamber this morning. We just heard Senator Ray listened to in almost silence, but the Labor Party chooses to apply its own gag on Senator Lees as soon as she gets up to try and speak. She could not get more than three words out without being abused by Labor Party senators opposite. Did Senator Ray make the same speech when his former leader Gareth Evans moved the guillotine on 62 bills in one day? Not only was that guillotine sealed with a kiss on the floor of the parliament but Ms Kernot also chose to join Gareth afterwards on a much more permanent basis.Government senator interjecting—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—We should have guessed at the time but we did not. The subject that we are really debating in this motion is whether sufficient time has been allocated to consider the proposals that have been put before this chamber. When it comes to talking about sufficient time for important pieces of legislation that have been moved by successive governments before this chamber, the Labor Party ought to look at its own record. In this particular case, the Labor Party intend to oppose these bills. They have publicly stated that they will oppose the amendments. They have publicly stated that, regardless of any debate that takes place, they are going to oppose the proposals that are brought forward by the government and the amendments that have been agreed to by the Democrats. The Greens, Senator Brown in particular, are urging people to oppose the bills regardless of the debate.Honourable senator interjecting—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Yes, he got 50 people to attend his demonstration. But he is going to oppose the bills regardless of the debate that takes place in this chamber. The Democrats and the government have come to some agreement and they are going to support the amendments agreed to, regardless of the debate that takes place in this chamber. Let us say that, particularly in relation to the tax bills, over the period of time that these matters have been before the public record there has never been more scrutiny of proposals that have been put before the Australian public than has taken place over the tax bills that we are debating and that we are being asked to agree to in this place.Let us have a look at Labor's record when it comes to issues and matters of importance in regard to legislation. I seem to remember that, soon after I came into this place, the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Laurie Brereton, brought forward what were considered to be the most important changes to industrial relations that had ever taken place in the history of this federation. What time did that Labor government give us to scrutinise that industrial relations legislation? Of course, back in those days, Labor controlled the committees and so they most generously said that, in order to debate and discuss and have hearings on the most important industrial legislation to come before the parliament since Federation, they would allow three days of committee hearings—one committee, three days; that is it, finished—and then it was back into the chamber with a reasonably short debate and then their legislation was passed.Compare that with Peter Reith's industrial relations legislation that came before this parliament in 1996. What happened to that industrial relations legislation, which was then considered to be the most important legislation that came before parliament at that stage? We were forced to a roadshow circus for 18 days—18 days of scrutiny by the committee, and then back in the chamber for something like 50 hours of debate before that legislation was passed. So the Labor Party, before it starts to criticise the Liberal party or the coalition government on its attitude to important legislation and the amount of time that is made available for scrutiny of these bills, ought to look back at their own record and see just how much time they allocated when they brought their important bills in, compared with when we brought ours forward.The tax reform bills have had scrutiny unprecedented in the history of this parliament. They have gone to four committees. I always understood when I first came to this place that the purpose of taking legislation to committees—and we had legislation at that time—was so that the public could have some input, so that we could listen to the submissions of those interested parties and then, when the bills came back into the chamber, less time would be taken for debate. I have to say that in the last three years that simply has not been the case. We have had extended committee hearings, lengthy hearings—and then, when the bills have been heard in committee and have come back into this chamber, we find that we have another extended debate at the consideration in detail stage. So one wonders why on earth we ever send them out to committees if, when they come back, we then have 40 or 50 hours of debate on amendments in this place, when in fact the committee system was set up in order to alleviate the length of time that was taken in this place for debating bills.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You abused it straight off.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I would say in response to that, Senator Ray, that you know very well that, back in the time when the committee structure was set up, in fact it did alleviate lengthy debates in the chamber, because committees did the work and, when the matter came back here, it short-circuited the lengthy debates that we continue to have here. If we want that system to work, and if we do not want it to be abused, and if we want it to reach the stage where the Australian public has a chance to have some input into the legislation that is being put before them and where amendments can be brought about simply because of that input that the public has, then we ought to make sure that that committee system works.When we talk about the number of amendments that have been agreed to by the Democrats and the government and about the amendments that have been agreed to in relation to this environmental package, let me say that they are as a result of consultation. Senator Lees and the government have had input from all the various industry groups and bodies who actually want the original legislation changed. It is as a result of constructive negotiations with the Democrats that we have in fact reached the stage where we have those amendments in place and the Senate is ready to vote on them.The Labor Party are not going to change their vote one iota regardless of any debate that takes place. If we thought that the extension of the debate might actually change their mind and that they would support the government's position on tax reform, I am quite sure that we would allow the debate to go longer. We know that they are intransigent. We know that regardless of what debate takes place they will not change their view on any single issue. For that reason it is only sensible we put in place strict time limits so these bills can be dealt with and so the Australian public can know with some certainty what the bills are going to contain for the next 12 months as they get themselves organised to handle the new tax system which we have proposed.In relation to the environment, Senator Brown has been left on his own, so anything that Senator Brown might say is totally irrelevant. I understand that all of the major conservation groups in Tasmania have cast Senator Brown aside and have supported the position taken by the Australian Democrats, which is a sensible position. It is a position that we in the government have agreed with and can work for the good of Australia. Senator Brown has been cast aside. He will cut a very lone figure after June 30 when he comes up with some of the more ratbag ideas that he has been used to bringing up in this place. I am pleased that we have a sensible environmental package that can be passed today with the support of the Democrats. The people who have made representations to them have certainly been taken into account. The people whom Senator Brown thinks he represents no longer exist so he can get up and say all he likes about this package.I conclude by saying that no matter what time we take in debate of these issues it will not make one difference to any vote that takes place here today. The arguments will not be listened to on either side, so we ought to proceed and make sure these bills can be put in place for the good of the Australian community.10:31:006051Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That about sums up the government's position: the arguments will not be listened to. It also sums up the position of the Liberal lap-warming Democrats, half of whom have fled the chamber already. Let me put on the record that, of the seven Democrats who signed this obsequious letter in defence of the government's appalling environment position, we do not at the moment have Senator Bourne in the chamber; Senator Woodley is not here; Senator Murray from Western Australia has fled the chamber; and Deputy Leader Natasha Stott Despoja is nowhere to be seen. That is part of the story. I note that Senator Faulkner referred to Senator Lees as Madame Defarge with the knitting needles clicking as the tumbrel rolls in.Let me carry that analogy further: it is the environment of Australia in that tumbrel. It is the environment of Australia—as well as this legislation—that is facing the guillotine. It is the great forests of Australia, the great indigenous lands of Australia, the fisheries of Australia and the plains of Australia that are facing the chop in this legislation.I want, firstly, to correct a lie which hangs in the air in this chamber and which comes out of the press release put out by the Democrats. They said they had to have this debate, they had to cave in to the government and they had to jump into the Howard lap to crucify the environment because, if they did not, the Independents would and that is why they have to guillotine this debate today. But, Madam President, you will be aware that last night a motion was brought before this House by Senator Margetts which said, `Let this bill wait until August.' You will know that in August the numbers will be different here and the Democrats will have the complete balance of power for government legislation.Senator Harradine voted for that motion. Senator Colston was not in the chamber. The Democrats had the numbers to get that motion through, to hold this across to August to give them total power to get through the things that they failed to get at the Howard polished table in secret this last week. But what did the Democrats do? They are so comfortable warming the Liberal lap that they sat this side and denied themselves that opportunity because they cannot take that responsibility. They sold out on the forests. Remember, they went to that table last week saying, `We have got to have global warming in this legislation,' and they could have had that had they supported that motion of Senator Margetts last night but they gave it the thumbs down. They said, `We want an environment commissioner who can independently vet what is happening here—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The senator should be relevant to the debate about time allocations and talk about time allocations and not the legislation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—We are certainly debating a motion concerning the allocation of time for legislation for the remainder of the session. I have been very generous in allowing people to stray widely from that. I draw Senator Brown's attention to the main motion but I agree that most speakers—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—He has strayed that far, he has become a feral.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! If I am speaking, Senator, I do not expect to hear your voice.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—So be quiet!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—And you too, Senator. Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, there is no point of order. That is because what I am saying is that the Democrats, through the good offices of Senator Margetts, who tested them last night, had the ability to have this whole debate held over until August when there would not only be ample time to discuss all 900 amendments but there would be time to go back to the Australian people and have the transparent debate which the Democrats claim but which they have pulled the rug from under. There would be the time and the leverage then to get the things they manifestly failed to get for the environment.Madam President, the other lie that is in the Democrats so-called delivery of expansion of Commonwealth environment powers is that this legislation that they have obsequiously signed up to is better than the status quo.8U4LEESSenator Lees—Much better.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Much better, says Senator Lees, who, we can take it, has therefore rejected advice from a far greater expert in this field than herself from her own state—from the state of the absent Senator Stott Despoja. I refer to a letter sent to the Democrats today by Associate Professor Rob Fowler, Director of the Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Adelaide. Here is what Professor Fowler has to say:First, the new requirements for bilaterally accredited management plans for the purpose of bilateral agreement simply add another procedural hoop to an already complex process, but leave open the prospect of a wide range of approval powers being delegated to the states—the very thing that Senator Lees says is not going to happen. To continue:Second, and even more importantly—and this is why we should have time to discuss this matter—I believe it would still be possible as a matter of law for a State government to approve a Franklin Dam with this legislation or a sand-mine on Fraser Island—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I was not permitted in any way to move into the area of content of the debate. The nonsense that Senator Brown is now spouting in this chamber is debating the issue, and I ask you to draw him back to the motion before the chair.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are debating the issue, Senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order, firstly, the `nonsense' I am spouting is not mine; it is Professor Fowler that I am quoting. Secondly, it is very germane for me to debate why we should not have this truncated process now but should be debating this in August with the fullness of time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are debating the issue and the substance of it, and I did draw Senator Lees's attention to that earlier. I draw your attention to it as well and remind you of the content of the motion.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Democrats will need more protection than that as the day goes on, I can assure you.8U4LEESSenator Lees—We've got it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. In Senator Brown's contribution, you might have heard him say, `The Democrats will need more protection than that as the day goes on,' and Senator Lees said—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, I am taking a point of order. If you'd listen, dope, you might here what it is.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I think you should withdraw that. That is not the way to refer to another senator.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Certainly, Madam President. Senator Lees then said, `We've got it.' I wonder what that means in terms of the independence of the chair. I wonder whether it impugns the integrity of the chair. I wonder what it means, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I heard Senator Brown's statement and I thought that was a threat being made to another senator. I did not hear any other statement after that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Let me assure you that Senator Lees, and I am sure she will confirm it—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Absolutely.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, she said `Absolutely' and `We've got it.' Does that mean that there is some arrangement between you, the chair or other officers presiding and Senator Lees in relation to protection? I want to understand what it means.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The standing orders are quite clear, Senator. Every senator has the protection of the standing orders and has an obligation to adhere to them.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, Madam President, but I am interested in knowing what `We've got it' means.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The standing orders of the Senate protect all senators.8U4LEESSenator Lees—I wish to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented. I was not talking even vaguely about standing orders.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You would need leave to make a statement, Senator. Is leave granted?8U4LEESSenator Lees—I seek leave to make a statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?10000Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No.Leave not granted.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—So you are refusing leave, Bob?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No. I said that when I have finished I will give leave. Madam President, what a precious attitude from Senator Lees.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I draw your attention to the motion that the Senate is debating at the present time.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—While she is guillotining our ability to debate the amendments here—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on both sides will stop shouting across the chamber.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—While she places her hands on the chainsaws going into the forests around this country through this legislation and while she becomes a pilot in the helicopters dropping the incendiaries on the Tasmanian forests through this legislation, she wants us to accept a management plan which says we have 20 seconds for each amendment, including the Democrat amendments.What has happened in this management plan that we are being asked to accept is that the Democrats have totally acceded to their desire to get to the Howard table and share a bit of power and, in so doing, to chop the head of the Australian environment off—to sell out on their own principles, to sell out on their own past history, to sell out on the groups that are left to fight for the environment now against legislation which makes that so much more difficult.Senator Lees smiles as she clicks the needles and brings down the guillotine on this debate. This is the lowest ebb in parliamentary performance ever by the Democrats. This process of using the guillotine translates into their hands on the chainsaws when it comes to the Australian environment, and they will not be allowed to forget it.Already, when you go to public meetings these days, where the Democrats were once welcomed they are now booed. This process is going to make them part of the villainy as far as the continuing destruction of the Australian environment is concerned, and they do not even have the guts to allow a proper debate. (Time expired)10:43:006054Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today's debate is absolutely the biggest waste of time that this Senate could possibly look at. This is coming from an opposition that rammed through this place 221 bills in 13 years. This is coming from an opposition that is now squealing about the time that is being allocated to each bill. Yet, in 1990—not all that long ago, if the collective memories of the mob over there could go back to that time—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should not refer to the opposition in that fashion.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—This really forgetful group of people on the opposition benches—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—The Carmen Lawrence problem.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is right, Senator Abetz—they all suffer from the Carmen Lawrence syndrome. But the problem is that they have forgotten to remember that 52 bills in 1990 were rammed through this Senate in 34 hours. That is not even an hour a bill, and they are squealing today about allocation of time.They rammed through the parliament in one hour—not three days but one hour—corporations legislation that took three days to get through when they were in opposition. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1990 took one hour, and the Commonwealth Bank's restructuring bill took three hours. And here we go with this group of people pretending that there is something extraordinary about the behaviour that is going on here. Let us just remember that the tax legislation that is currently before the parliament has had 48 hours of debate thus far in this parliament. And not only that, but it has been looked at by the committee system for the equivalent of 75 weeks. Here we have the Labor Party complaining that there is inadequate time to debate this legislation, but no-one could seriously believe that when they look at 75 weeks of committee consideration and 48 hours of debate in this chamber. Let us have a look at the environment bills—because they are also squealing about those. Senator Brown, who is terribly Pontius Pilate about the whole thing—5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—And he has left the chamber now.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Yes, he has left the chamber. He cannot even be bothered staying in the chamber. Those bills have had 11 months of consideration by Senate committees and yet Senator Brown comes in here, flaps his gums and says that we are rushing it through. Fair dinkum! This is just beyond a joke. How on earth can Senator Brown, who is so irrelevant to the Australian political system—to say nothing of how irrelevant he is in this chamber—come in here and say that 11 months of Senate committee consideration is inadequate and that we should not now be considering the final votes on the environmental package?I also want to raise the hypocrisy of anyone who tries to say that these important bills are being rammed through. Many of us will remember the native title legislation brought in by the Labor government some years ago. We are talking about new legislation, we are talking about amendments, we are talking about sight unseen things: how about the 300-plus amendments that the Labor Party brought into this chamber once the committee stage had started? Their absolute inefficiency meant that this chamber continued to sit and sit, over the weekends and everything else—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No question times.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—No question times, Senator Campbell—that is exactly right. Everything was abandoned.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. If Senator Knowles is so critical of the Labor Party, why did she provide the Western Australian Labor Party with questions to ask against the Liberal Party of Western Australia?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Knowles.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—This is the absolute level of Senator Faulkner's comprehension and his gutter tactics. We have got used to that. It is like water off a duck's back. We see it every day in question time.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many people shouting in the chamber, and it is completely disorderly.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Thank you, Madam President. As I said, it is water off a duck's back. To have someone like Senator Faulkner having a go at you is actually quite a compliment because he is just the bottom of the barrel.I will come back to the hypocrisy of this debate. The grizzling about the time allocation for bills is just extraordinary. We have the two masters of guillotines over here—two people who were managers of government business when the Labor Party were in government: Senators Ray and Faulkner. Admittedly, Senator Faulkner was nowhere near up to the job; he was absolutely incompetent in the position. But Senator Ray, who I do believe is a competent operator, was the one who brought in the guillotine time and time again. Yet now Senator Ray is the one who is the most vocal against it. I cannot understand the logic behind that. This is important debating time that should be given to the consideration of important legislation, and yet the Labor Party and the totally irrelevant Senator Brown will not consider it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time for this debate has concluded. I put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Ray be agreed to.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Before you put the question, I think it would be useful for senators to understand what elements of the order of business today will not proceed if the motion is successful.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The motion overrules all other business but question time and motions to take note of answers. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Robert Ray's ) be agreed to.10:55:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Campbell, G. Vanstone, A. E.Collins, J. M. A. Ellison, C.Cook, P. F. S. Alston, R. K. R.Hutchins, S. Newman, J. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell's ) be agreed to.10:59:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Alston, R. K. R. Cook, P. F. S.Ellison, C. Collins, J. M. A.Newman, J. M. Hutchins, S.Vanstone, A. E. Campbell, G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills6056s1826056Consideration resumed from 22 June.11:02:006056Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I want to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum that you refused me tabling of last night.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, I did not refuse you, Minister. I was given the advice that it would have been better during that particular bill rather than this bill. You can table it whenever you like.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Now that both of these bills are being debated, I will table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments being moved to this bill, the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] . The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 22 June 1999.11:03:006056Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—A few points need to be made to clarify the record. We have the Democrats claiming that this legislation is an improvement because the Minister for the Environment and Heritage now has the role of making decisions. What a joke. Anyone who has been involved in government and anyone with a day's experience in this place would understand that there is no such thing as unfettered ministerial discretion. The systems of cabinet and the systems of government are such that a minister consults with other ministers. At the end of the day, matters go to cabinet. For Senator Lees to be saying on radio this morning and here today that this is a major improvement because from now on Senator Hill will make huge decisions in respect of mining, in respect of logging and in respect of protecting the environment is basically a hoax on her supporters and on the Australian public. There is nothing further from the truth.What this legislation does is to actually reduce the transparency of the decision making process. At least under the existing legislation there is transparency and there is publication of decisions and recommenda tions. That will go. The system adopted by the Australian Democrats and pushed by the government will mean no transparency. It will mean less accountability. It will still mean a minister consulting and being, in a sense, influenced by cabinet, but we will not have the same degree of transparency and, consequently, accountability because of the grubby little deal that the Democrats have entered into. Why have they done this? People across Australia are actually asking this morning: why have the Democrats given up their environmental cause?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Who are these `people across Australia'?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I reckon there is one reason, Senator Hill. You can laugh, because you have conned them. You have conned them all the way to this chamber into a situation where we have 25 minutes this morning to discuss 300 amendments.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I was laughing at your `people across Australia'.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—That amounts to about 10 seconds at most per amendment. It would be a joke to try to go through them all. The reason they have done this is to save their own skins. We are all asking why. I will tell you what has happened. The government has given them an assurance that they will not change the voting system for the Senate. That is what is behind this. There is no core concern for the environment, no core concern for biodiversity and no core concern for nuclear actions. There is no core concern for anything that they have pretended to be concerned about for such a long time. When it came to the crunch, when they sat down with the government across the table, maybe over a cup of tea, the assurance was given to the Democrats that the government would not change the voting procedures.To save their own skins, they are prepared to jeopardise the skins of so many of their constituents. This is what this is all about. For what other reason would they be rejecting the sorts of amendments that we are putting up this morning? These are the sorts of amendments that will ensure that a federal minister cannot write off any scrutiny or any assessment through the mechanisms of bilateral agreements, declarations or conservation agreements.These are the things that Senator Allison has railed against for so long, yet these are the things that she now embraces. These are mechanisms to avoid national scrutiny. She said, `We've got six matters of national environmental significance,' but she knows, and Senator Lees should know—if she does not know, she is incompetent; if she does know, then she is guilty of misleading the public, who do know—that these matters of national environmental significance can also be cascaded through to the states. They also know that there is no degree of public accountability and participation that is adequate enough, because they are the sorts of amendments that they are rejecting this morning.They are rejecting amendments that would introduce a pretty wide range, as opposed to their limited range, of criminal offences. They are rejecting amendments about the protection of critical habitat. They are rejecting amendments that would protect against expansion of the nuclear industry. They say, `We've got an amendment,' but the amendment they have does very little to protect against new generations of industry development in the nuclear industry in Australia.They are rejecting these amendments either through incompetence or deliberate action. They are rejecting in this batch of amendments a trigger for greenhouse actions. We have circulated one; we are moving one. It is a trigger that has been on the table with the minister for quite some time now. Greenhouse actions are defined in our amendment—the trigger is there. Let us spend some time looking at it. We do not maintain that it is perfect. We do maintain, however, that it is within the capacity of this parliament—and we have had some time to do it—to actually define a greenhouse trigger. But no, this trigger has been rejected by the Australian Democrats as part of the deal to save their own skins. Indigenous people have also been sacrificed in that respect. The Democrats are embracing a concept where, by declaration, a Commonwealth minister can basically exempt Commonwealth land or Commonwealth agencies from the operations of environmental assessment and scrutiny. They are adopting a system where, through bilaterals, this same thing can happen. They say that the bilateral arrangement has been refined. I will get to that in a minute.They are rejecting proposals for public participation. As I said earlier, they are rejecting proposals to extend nuclear actions to include the establishment or significant modification of nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear reactors and power plants, nuclear storage facilities and enrichment plants. They are rejecting proposals that would ensure that only on the grounds of the security of the Commonwealth, as opposed to this broad, ever-blossoming exemption clause of commercial-in-confidence, will public accountability be excluded. They are rejecting amendments that would ensure that ESD principles are firmly entrenched. They are rejecting amendments to protect world heritage properties. In respect of the Northern Territory there is an agreement, and there is an agreement with respect to bilaterals, but this legislation is nowhere near the benchmark provided for in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act in so many matters. There are some incremental improvements, but this is not as good.This deal adopted by the Australian Democrats lets the cause of the environment down enormously. One only has to look at the leading lawyers in this country and their views to come to that conclusion. Associate Professor Rob Fowler, the Director of the Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the Adelaide University, had to work overnight like the rest of us to examine over 500 government amendments. His view is that the Democrats are wrong and misleading on key provisions of this legislation. He is right. It does not take a Rhodes scholar to work out that they have sold out. This is what he says:The government-Democrat deal on national environment laws expected to be guillotined through the Senate today is fundamentally flawed—BH4HILLSenator Hill—He is fundamentally wrong.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—He is a person who gave evidence, Senator Hill, to the parliamentary inquiry, and Senator Allison embraced his evidence and thought he was a great witness. You say he is wrong, but unfortunately for you I think the jury is against you on this one. It is fundamentally flawed, according to one of Australia's leading environmental lawyers. To continue, this is what he says:On the crucial issue of handing Commonwealth responsibilities to the states the amendments added procedural hoops but still allowed delegation of these responsibilities, and comments to the contrary by Senator Lyn Allison are wrong and misleading.Senator Allison, do you know and are you misleading, or don't you know and should you not be here? The benchmark on this is one that you yourself have created. You are also on the record of that parliamentary committee as saying that Professor Fowler's evidence was amongst the best that we had. Here is the press statement. I am sure it will be an advance on the debate.Senator Hill says Professor Fowler is wrong. We are talking about a person who has had 25 years of teaching environmental law. Senator Hill, you put your experience up against his; you put your talents and qualities up against his. He is the co-editor of the environment law chapter of the Laws of Australia Compendium of the Law Book of Australia.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Haven't you ever come across an academic who is wrong?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Hill, I have come across more politicians who are wrong than academics who are wrong. I have come across more ministers who have been misled by their departments. What are they adopting? They are adopting a system that is flawed, a system that will give us duplication and a system that will basically accredit not just state laws but laws made under state laws. It will accredit local government authorities. We are moving to a system whereby national responsibility can be divested to the Shire Council of Hervey Bay. If sand mining on Fraser Island is allowed under a management plan accepted in this place, warm and fuzzy as it might appear, then this parliament writes off its powers to intervene and protect against that.I could talk all day about this, but I know Senator Brown and Senator Margetts want to say something as well so I will stop here. I will just say to the Democrats that you are fundamentally flawed, and you will be remembered for this.11:13:006059Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yesterday I suggested that an orderly way to proceed with this might be that I move all of the government amendments in relation to chapters 2 and 4. Last night I did not get leave to proceed in that manner. I again seek leave to proceed in that manner. Unless you, Madam Temporary Chairman, can suggest a better course of action that may be open to us, it would seem to me that within a limited time frame it would be better to deal with the batch of amendments which have to be voted on at 11.30 a.m.Leave not granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I move the first government amendment in my name:(10) Clause 11, page 8 (line 19), omit paragraph (c).I also want to respond to a few of the points made by Senator Bolkus in what seemed to be a slightly abbreviated rerun of his second reading debate speech. In actual fact he is quite wrong. This is a major reform of Australia's environmental laws that has been recognised by academics, including the one to which he referred, as long overdue. I do not think I have come across anyone who has objectively and carefully looked at Australia's environmental laws at the Commonwealth level and not found that they are significantly wanting. They are really outdated. They are not in fact immediately triggered by environmental issues at all; they are triggered by actions that might be taken by the Commonwealth government that have no direct relationship to environmental matters at all.This is the point that I was seeking to make last night: it makes no difference to environmental consequence if the funding of a particular project is funding from overseas that requires a FIRB approval, as opposed to funding internally. It is a nonsense to now say that the Commonwealth should have a responsibility only where it related to the overseas funding and not where it related to the domestic funding. The test, of course, for the Commonwealth—and for Commonwealth intervention—should be whether it concerns a matter of national environmental significance. It seemed to the government—and it actually seemed to others before we came to government—that that was the logical way in which to progress a reform of environment laws in this country. This is bearing in mind that, in the federal system in which we operate, what makes sense is to define what should be the Commonwealth responsibility and, as a consequence of that, to make it clear what remains a state responsibility—from an assessment point of view and also from the point of view of responsibility—and then to put in place procedures that allow for an interrelationship of the two to achieve a better national outcome.The Labor Party was aware—as I know when I came to government—of these issues and of these representations from the type of academic to which Senator Bolkus has referred. But in their 13 years in government unfortunately they found it too hard, like so many other things, such as the new taxation system that we are going to be debating for the remainder of this week. It remained in the too-hard basket, therefore it did not ever get to the chamber. We acknowledged that the reform was long overdue and that we should tackle it, even though it was complex and politically difficult. We are well aware that there are a range of stakeholders in these debates—industry being one, obviously the states being another, conservation groups another, indigenous groups yet another—and often it is not easy to find a formula that can meet the satisfaction of all.Notwithstanding that political difficulty, we decided the time had come and that we should tackle it. We said that the logical starting point was to seek to negotiate with the states on where that dividing line should be between Commonwealth responsibility and state responsibility so that it is much more meaningful to the community than what currently exists. Thus we sought to define—and I mention this in particular because this is part of the clauses that we are debating, between chapters 2 and 4—matters of national environmental significance, and there has been considerable debate as to where that line should have been drawn.We have heard, in the early parts of this debate, the Labor Party list a whole range of other issues that they say should have been included as primary Commonwealth responsibility—for example, land clearing. But land clearing was not included because in our view the primary responsibility on issues of natural resource management, such as land clearing, does and should remain with the states. That does not mean that there is not a national interest, and that does not mean that the Commonwealth will not take an active interest in the matter. In fact, as you would know, Madam Temporary Chairman, this government is investing substantial sums of taxpayers' money to revegetate Australia and to protect remnant bushland. This is pursuant to agreements that have been reached between the Commonwealth and the states whereby the states have agreed that they will ensure that action is not taken within their jurisdiction that threatens endangered species or ecological communities and also that they will work towards a reduction of overall land clearing in this country.The fact that there is still too much land clearing and that overclearing has caused very significant environmental damage—in particular its linkage to dryland salinity and the like—is not in dispute, and the response must therefore be partnership between the Commonwealth government, the state government and the community. But the primary responsibility in terms of the regulatory response for land clearing must be that of the states: some states have introduced appropriate regulations as a safety net, and some states are still yet to do that. We did not see that the Commonwealth should, in effect, take over that primary role of the states in that regard; the pressure should remain on the states to make sound decisions and the role of Commonwealth should be to support the states and, through them, the community to achieve better outcomes in that very important environmental area.So that is an example of an issue that is of national importance, but we have not defined it as a matter of national environmental significance in terms of a Commonwealth trigger. By a `trigger', I mean where the Commonwealth is primarily responsible for assessment and approval of an action that might have a detrimental consequence upon that matter of national environmental significance. Our definitions at this stage are more limited than that but they are very significant. I think the most significant one of all is in fact that of endangered species, because it demonstrates a change of attitude by the Australian community. There was a time when endangered species were seen as primarily the responsibility of the states. There is a species in South Australia on the verge of extinction and there is no doubt in my mind at all now that all Australians regard that as a matter of concern to them; a matter in which they expect the involvement of their Commonwealth or national government. We have listed matters of endangered species as a matter of national environmental significance, so an action that might have a detrimental effect upon such a species would require assessment and approval at the Commonwealth level.That takes us to the other important part of these chapters. Whilst we acknowledge that the Commonwealth should take primary responsibility for these areas of national environmental significance, such as endangered species, world heritage, Ramsar internationally listed wetlands and the like, it is also not always appropriate for the Commonwealth to carry out the assessment process itself. This is because the states are physically closer to the action for which the consent is being sought. They have the bureaucracies on the ground that are often better able to carry out this work than the Commonwealth. Therefore, it seems to us, again in a system where we have a cooperative relationship between the different tiers of government, that there will be circumstances when it will be better for the state to carry out an assessment process for the Commonwealth. It might surprise some in the chamber to learn that that actually occurs now, but it occurs on an ad hoc basis.What we are more interested in is putting in a process that can give the public confidence that, when the state is carrying out that assessment process for the Commonwealth, it is carrying it out according to best contemporary practice. So we have developed this concept of bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and the states that will allow the states, in certain circumstances, to assess for the Commonwealth the consequences of a particular action and, in even more limited circumstances—but there is no surprise in that because we have said it to the states all along—to even make an approval for the Commonwealth, pursuant to bilateral agreements.There was concern—and I concede that concern—by some that this might mean, in practice, a passing of responsibility from the Commonwealth to the states. A number of the amendments that we have before us in these parts that we are debating today are to ensure that the responsibility of the Commonwealth is not passed while we pass the administrative role. It was never our intention that that responsibility pass but, nevertheless, we accepted that the community has a right to be confident beyond our assertions to that fact. We are building in with these amendments a number of processes of public participation, greater transparency and, in certain limited instances, even the capacity to disallow by this body.On the issue which is more likely to happen in practice—the state carrying out an assessment for the Commonwealth—it may not be that that bilateral agreement will be through regulation that will set out the benchmarks, although that will be our goal and we will be heading down that path forthwith upon the passage of this bill. But if it is impossible for us to get the agreement of the chamber to that bilateral agreement—in other words, if it were disallowed—we would still be able to proceed. We are confident that we can get an agreement of best practice in relation to assessments that can be put in the form of regulation and that will not be disallowed. But we have the two fall backs, and I think this is important to industry. Those fall backs are that we can proceed under the state agreement, if we have made our best efforts, and we always have the alternative of being able to carry out the assessment ourselves.In relation to approvals, which are of even greater concern to some conservation groups, as I said, there are further restrictions. That is not surprising, because when the responsibility is passed to the Commonwealth by legislation it would be an unusual experience indeed for a Commonwealth minister to say that the state minister can make the decision—that is, the decision rather than the process—for the Commonwealth minister. We have demonstrated, particularly in relation to Shark Bay, that it is possible under management agreements that have been approved by the Commonwealth minister, that meet the best contemporary standards, that within such limited circumstances that responsibility can be passed. But we have said, as an extra safeguard, that that will be disallowable in this place. Of course, if it is disallowed, although I do not think it will be, it will revert to the Commonwealth responsibility. So industry does not miss out in that it is not delayed, and also the system will work.Why do I say that this will be unnecessary? It is really because what we are planning in the development of the bilateral agreements is a transparent process. We want the involvement of the community in that process; we want the involvement of parliamentary parties. That is why we sought to negotiate these amendments with the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, but neither were interested. If after the passage of this bill they do want to be involved—I hope the Australian Democrats will also be involved in the development of these bilaterals—to ensure that we are adopting best international practice, we would be very pleased to engage their participation. (Time expired)11:28:006061Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We are left with two minutes for a debate on the most comprehensive environmental matters while the Australian Democrats sat mute and allowed the minister to give a long dissertation. I draw attention to the pleas of people outside this place that the legislation not proceed. I refer to an urgent plea sent to Senator Lees and the Democrats from Dr Aila Keto, the President of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, summing up the damage this bill will do to the environment, saying this must not occur and calling for it to be called off. I have a letter from that magnificent elder Australian, Judith Wright McKinney, saying it has been such a let-down with the Democrats, nobody can be mistaken about the need for a greens party now and what a foolish and unpredictable thing this is.I draw the committee's attention in the seconds that are left to the very important amendment, which I have now circulated, to ensure that the minister does retain the power to overrule a bilateral agreement where the environment is manifestly being damaged. I hope that the Democrats will support that amendment because it is ostensibly one of the things on which they went to the prime ministerial table and they failed to get. I draw particular attention to it. The amendment complies in small measure with the concerns that Associate Professor Rob Fowler—he has been referred to earlier as an expert in the field—has. I can give an explanatory statement to the Democrats. We will test them on that one.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Brown! It being 11.30 a.m., time for consideration of this amendment and chapters 2 to 4 has concluded. I shall now proceed to put the question.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—I have a question about whether or not there are opposition amendments to this part.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I shall put government amendment No. 10. After that has been dealt with, I shall proceed to put the remainder of the government amendments—some that are split because they are not straight amendments; they are opposition to a clause standing as printed. I will then invite opposition and minor parties, if there are parts or numbers of their amendments that they wish to seek leave to move, to indicate to me which numbers they wish to move, and that course will be followed if leave is granted. Is that clear?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I have a point of clarification. The Senate has not actually given leave for the government's amendments to be taken together. Does this gag overrule the standing orders which have not given the government the right to move all their amendments together?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Standing order 142 allows and requires that all the government amendments be put because they have been circulated for more than two hours. They will be put together unless somebody indicates to me that they wish to vote differently or call a division on different items.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—The opposition amendments were also circulated last night and if I need to formally move them, I will do so.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, you do not formally need to move them.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Can I suggest that these amendments also be treated as one batch?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You can seek leave to have them put, after we have dealt with the government amendments.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. Standing order 84 states:The President may order a complicated question to be divided.This is an extraordinarily complicated question. We have dozens of amendments, totally unrelated to each other, some dealing with migratory species and others with matters to do with totally different aspects of the Australian environment. In such a complicated situation, I ask the chair to very diligently sort out those amendments and put separately amendments referring to one subject. It would be totally contrary to the spirit of the standing orders for an amalgam of totally disparate amendments to be put at this time. I ask that each of the amendments be put seriatim so that we can vote on them and know what we are voting on. I think it would be totally contrary to the standing orders for these to be put in the batches as indicated.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will read to you a ruling that I have received as to how I intend to operate, that is:Standing order 142(4) requires that, at the expiration of the time allotted for the consideration of a bill, the chair should put any amendment circulated by the government at least two hours before that time. Standing order 84(3) empowers the chair to divide a question (this applies in committee by virtue of standing order 144(7)).The chair divides a question at the request of a senator if the senator indicates that this will facilitate the senator voting in accordance with the senator's choice, for example, if the senator wishes to vote against a part of a question and for another part.There are now a large number of amendments to be resolved and I will divide the questions on the various groups of amendments only if a senator clearly indicates that this step is required to allow the senator to exercise the senator's choice in voting on the questions. Is that clear?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You said, `as an example, if a senator wants to vote differently on a particular instance.' I think it is an outrage that we are being asked to do this in this way, considering the various topics that are included here. Personally, I believe that we should vote on them separately and I am asking that we vote on them separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will allow that to proceed only if you can indicate to me that you are going to change your vote on a particular—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—The standing order that you read out said, `for example, if a senator wanted to vote separately.' I believe the principle here is that these should be recorded. It is only an example and it does not mean that this is the basis upon which it should be done. If you are now going to rule that the only basis on which a person can ask for a separate vote is that they are going to vote separately, that is going to be a new part of the standing order, which will then be a precedent for future votes.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, I am acting under standing order 142(4) and if I act on that alone, at the expiration of the time allotted for the consideration of a bill I will put any amendments circulated by the government at least two hours before that time. It does not say separately, either. I then go onto standing order 84(3) and that empowers me to divide the question, and I will only divide the question if a senator indicates to me that they wish to vote a different way on that group. I have ruled that that is the way I am going to rule, that is, I will take all those as a block and if you wish to vote a different way to parts of those in the block, you should indicate to me that you are going to do so and I will divide them. If you do not indicate that you wish to change your vote for different sections of the block, then I will put the block as a whole. If you disagree with my rulings, there are procedures that you can adopt, but that is the way I intend to proceed.11:37:006063Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I wish to indicate that I will be voting differently on amendments Nos 10 and 12.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am already putting 10 and 12 differently. All I will be doing at this stage, firstly, is getting rid of the question before the chair. I will be putting 10 separately and then putting the rest as a block.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, I am sorry. I meant amendments Nos 11 and 12. After amendment No. 10 is dealt with I will indicate to the chair where I will vote differently.10000Brown, Sen BobThe CHAIRMAN—If you are going to vote a different way from the other amendments, yes. But let me first of all proceed to putting the question for government amendment No. 10. The question is that government amendment No. 10 be agreed to.11:42:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.*Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Alston, R. K. R. Hutchins, S.O'Chee, W. G. Denman, K. J.Reid, M. E. Campbell, G.Vanstone, A. E. Cook, P. F. S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I shall now proceed to putting the remainder of the government amendments. I will put them as a block, unless somebody indicates which ones they wish to vote differently on. However, given that you can agree or not agree on them, I will take them in two blocks if you want them divided.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It has to be recognised that this process does not allow senators to discriminate their vote on a whole range of issues. But if we do take your course of action, Chair, and ask for specific votes to be taken on measures—when we know we do not have the numbers because the Democrats give the government the numbers—we simply eat into debating time. It is an appalling situation. However, it is there because of the Democrats. I will not be asking to shed these votes out, but do not take this as any indication, please—and I want that on the record—that I support this process because we are not splitting off these votes.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On behalf of the opposition, can I say that we see these amendments as essentially embroidery on the proverbial sandwich—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I also want to explain how the opposition will vote.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I need a point of order, please.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Can I do that by leave?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are now in the position of taking votes. If you have a point of order, please raise the point of order. If you do not—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—In view of the ruling you have given on the process, the opposition is in a position where we also have to make a collective assessment.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—What is your point of order?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—The point of order I am getting to is that, as I said, we see these amendments as essentially embroidery on the proverbial sandwich and, given that we have to treat them all in a block, we will not be opposing them. Whether we support them is another thing, but we are not opposing them.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 11 to 71, 75 to 146, and 148 to 174 on sheet DT218 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. Senator Brown, you are taking a point of order, I presume?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I just refer you again to standing order 84, which says that the President may order a complicated question to be divided. I have asked for that to happen. If ever there was a case in point, it is this. I ask you, Madam Chairman, to refer this matter to the President for a specific ruling on what that rule means if it does not pertain in this case.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will certainly refer it to Madam President. However, I plan to continue with the vote, which we were halfway through when the ayes had recorded their voices. I now ask those opposed to the following government amendments to say no:(11) Clause 12, page 9 (lines 21 to 25), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(12) Clause 12, page 9 (lines 28 and 29), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(13) Clause 14, page 12 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:Declarations because of threat in force for a year or less (7) The Minister must not specify that a declaration of a property is to be in force for more than 12 months if: (a) the declaration is made in the circumstances described in paragraph (1)(b); and (b) the property is not a property submitted by the Commonwealth to the World Heritage Committee under Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention as suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List.(14) Page 13 (after line 18), at the end of Subdivision A, add:15A Offences relating to declared World Heritage properties (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(15) Clause 16, page 14 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(16) Clause 16, page 14 (lines 13 and 14), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(17) Clause 17, page 15 (line 5) to page 16 (line 8), omit subclauses (3), (4), (5) and (6).(18) Page 16 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision B, add: 17A Making and revoking declarations of wetlandsDeclaring threatened wetlands of international importance (1) The Minister may declare a specified wetland to be a declared Ramsar wetland by notice in the Gazette if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the wetland is of international significance or is likely to be of international significance because of its ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology; and (b) the ecological character of some or all of the wetland is under threat. Note: The Minister may make more than one declaration of the same wetland under this section. See subsection 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .Consulting State or Territory before making declaration (2) Before the Minister makes a declaration relating to a wetland wholly or partly within a State or self-governing Territory, the Minister must inform the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory of the proposal to make the declaration, and give him or her a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposal.Consultation not required if threat is imminent (3) However, the Minister need not comply with subsection (2) if he or she is satisfied that the threat mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is imminent.Failure to comply with subsection (2) (4) The validity of a declaration is not affected by a failure to comply with subsection (2) in relation to the making of the declaration.When a declaration is in force (5) A declaration comes into force on the day it is published in the Gazette and remains in force for the period specified in the declaration, unless it is revoked earlier.Specifying period for which declaration is in force (6) The Minister must specify in a declaration the period for which it is to be in force. The period must not be longer than the shorter of the following periods: (a) the period the Minister believes the Commonwealth needs to: (i) decide whether the wetland is of international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology; and (ii) designate the wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention; (b) 12 months.Revocation of declaration of threatened wetland (7) The Minister must, by notice in the Gazette , revoke a declaration of a wetland if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the wetland is not of international significance because of its ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology; or (b) the Minister is satisfied that there is no longer a threat to any part of the wetland.(19) Page 16, at the end of Subdivision B (after proposed clause 17A), add:17B Offences relating to declared Ramsar wetlands (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if:(a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(20) Page 18 (after line 11), after clause 18, insert:18A Offences relating to threatened species etc. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on: (i) a listed threatened species; or (ii) a listed threatened ecological community. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on: (i) a listed threatened species; or (ii) a listed threatened ecological community; and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if: (a) the listed threatened species subject to the significant impact (or likely to be subject to the significant impact) is: (i) a species included in the extinct category of the list under section 178; or (ii) a conservation dependent species; or (b) the listed threatened ecological community subject to the significant impact (or likely to be subject to the significant impact) is an ecological community included in the vulnerable category of the list under section 181. Note 1: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . Note 2: Section 19 sets out other defences. The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in that section too. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(21) Clause 19, page 18 (line 14), after "18", insert "or 18A".(22) Clause 19, page 18 (line 19), after "18", insert "or 18A".(23) Clause 19, page 18 (line 24), after "18", insert "or 18A".(24) Clause 19, page 18 (line 27) to page 19 (line 2), omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute: (b) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that the subsection is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (25) Clause 19, page 19 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(26) Clause 20, page 19 (lines 23 to 27), omit paragraph (2)(c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(27) Clause 20, page 19 (lines 30 and 31), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(28) Page 19 (after line 31), at the end of Subdivision D, add:20A Offences relating to listed migratory species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if:(a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on a listed migratory species. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on a listed migratory species and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(29) Clause 21, page 21 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraph (4)(c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(30) Clause 21, page 21 (lines 13 and 14), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(31) Clause 22, page 21 (line 19), omit "or a facility for storing spent nuclear fuel".(32) Clause 22, page 21 (line 31) to page 22 (line 7), omit the definition of nuclear installation , substitute: nuclear installation means any of the following: (a) a nuclear reactor for research or production of nuclear materials for industrial or medical use (including critical and sub-critical assemblies); (b) a plant for preparing or storing fuel for use in a nuclear reactor as described in paragraph (a); (c) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section; (d) a facility for production of radioisotopes with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section. Note: A nuclear waste storage or disposal facility could include a facility for storing spent nuclear fuel, depending on the regulations.(33) Clause 22, page 22 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of nuclear reactor .(34) Page 22 (after line 19), at the end of Subdivision E, add:22A Offences relating to nuclear actions (1) A constitutional corporation, or a Commonwealth agency that does not enjoy the immunities of the Commonwealth, is guilty of an offence if: (a) the corporation or agency takes a nuclear action; and (b) the nuclear action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A constitutional corporation, or a Commonwealth agency that does not enjoy the immunities of the Commonwealth, is guilty of an offence if: (a) the corporation or agency takes a nuclear action; and (b) the nuclear action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the corporation or agency is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a nuclear action; and(b) the nuclear action is taken for the purposes of trade or commerce: (i) between Australia and another country; or (ii) between 2 States; or (iii) between a State and a Territory; or (iv) between 2 Territories; and (c) the nuclear action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (4) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a nuclear action; and (b) the nuclear action is taken for the purposes of trade or commerce: (i) between Australia and another country; or (ii) between 2 States; or (iii) between a State and a Territory; or (iv) between 2 Territories; and (c) the nuclear action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (5) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a nuclear action; and (b) the nuclear action is taken in a Territory; and (c) the nuclear action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (6) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a nuclear action; and (b) the nuclear action is taken in a Territory; and (c) the nuclear action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(7) An offence against subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495. (8) Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(35) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph (4)(c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that the subsection is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(36) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 16 and 17), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(37) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:Exception—fishing outside Commonwealth marine areas (6) Subsection (2) does not apply to an action that: (a) is fishing (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ); and (b) is permitted under a law of a State or self-governing Territory.(38) Page 25 (after line 20), at the end of Subdivision F, add:24A Offences relating to marine areasActions in Commonwealth marine areas affecting the environment (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken in a Commonwealth marine area; and (c) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Actions in Commonwealth marine areas likely to affect the environment (2) A person is guilty of an offence if:(a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken in a Commonwealth marine area; and (c) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Actions outside Commonwealth marine areas affecting those areas (3) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken outside a Commonwealth marine area but in the Australian jurisdiction; and (c) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth marine area. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Actions likely to affect environment in Commonwealth marine areas (4) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken outside a Commonwealth marine area but in the Australian jurisdiction; and (c) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth marine area and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Fishing with impact in State or Territory waters managed by Commonwealth (5) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action that: (i) is fishing (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ); and (ii) is included in the class of activities forming a fishery (as defined in that Act) that is managed under the law of the Commonwealth as a result of an agreement made under section 71 or 72 of that Act before the commencement of this section; and (b) the action is taken in the coastal waters (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ) of a State or the Northern Territory; and (c) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment in those coastal waters. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Fishing with likely impact in State or Territory waters managed by Commonwealth (6) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action that: (i) is fishing (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ); and (ii) is included in the class of activities forming a fishery (as defined in that Act) that is managed under the law of the Commonwealth as a result of an agreement made under section 71 or 72 of that Act before the commencement of this section; and (b) the action is taken in the coastal waters (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ) of a State or the Northern Territory; and (c) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in those coastal waters and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.Penalties (7) An offence against subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495.Defences—general (8) Subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that the subsection is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .Defence—fishing in Commonwealth waters managed by State (9) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if the action: (a) is fishing (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ); and (b) is included in the class of activities forming a fishery (as defined in that Act) that is managed under the law of a State or the Northern Territory as a result of an agreement made under section 71 or 72 of that Act before the commencement of this section; and (c) is permitted under a law of the State or Territory. Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .Defence—fishing outside Commonwealth marine areas (10) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply to an action that: (a) is fishing (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ); and (b) is permitted under a law of a State or self-governing Territory. Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(39) Clause 25, page 26 (lines 3 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(c), substitute: (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(40) Clause 25, page 26 (lines 10 and 11), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(41) Clause 25, page 26 (lines 12 to 23), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Before the Governor-General makes regulations prescribing an action for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister (the Environment Minister ) must: (a) inform the appropriate Minister of each State and self-governing Territory of the proposal to prescribe: (i) the action; and (ii) a thing as matter protected by this section in relation to the action; and (b) invite the appropriate Minister of each State and self-governing Territory to give the Environment Minister comments on the proposal within a specified period of at least 28 days; and (c) consider the comments (if any); and (d) if comments have been given as described in paragraph (b)—take all reasonable steps to consult the appropriate Minister of each State and self-governing Territory with a view to agreeing on: (i) the action to be prescribed; and (ii) the thing to be prescribed as matter protected by this section in relation to the action. Note: Section 34 provides that the matter protected by this section is a thing prescribed by the regulations in relation to the action. (3A) To avoid doubt, regulations may be made for the purposes of this section even if no agreement is reached on the matters described in paragraph (3)(d).(42) Clause 25, page 27 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Regulations prescribing an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more countries must specify the agreement.(43) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 3 and 4), omit paragraph (c).(44) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 5 to 9), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that the subsection is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(45) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 12 and 13), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(46) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 18 to 23), omit subclause (4).(47) Page 29 (after line 26), at the end of Subdivision A, add:27A Offences relating to Commonwealth land (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken on Commonwealth land; and (c) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken on Commonwealth land; and (c) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken outside Commonwealth land but in the Australian jurisdiction; and (c) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (4) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action is taken outside Commonwealth land but in the Australian jurisdiction; and (c) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (5) An offence against subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495.(6) Subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of the subsection; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of the subsection; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that the subsection is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process); or (e) the person taking the action is a Commonwealth agency. Note 1: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . Note 2: Section 28 regulates actions by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency with a significant impact on the environment.(48) Heading to Subdivision B, page 30 (line 2), omit "activities and decisions ", substitute "actions ".(49) Clause 28, page 30 (lines 25 to 29), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or(50) Clause 28, page 31 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action".(51) Page 31 (after line 15), at the end of Part 3, add:Division 3—Review of extension of operation of this Part28A Identifying extra matters to be protected by this Part (1) Every 5 years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on whether this Part should be amended (or regulations made for the purposes of section 25) to prohibit or regulate additional actions that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on environmental matters that may properly be regarded as being of national or international significance. (2) The following must be taken into account in preparing the report: (a) environmental matters that are properly regarded as being of national or international significance; (b) the adequacy of existing legislation and administrative measures of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories to prevent significant impacts on those matters; (c) the principles of ecologically sustainable development; (d) Australia's international obligations; (e) the objects of this Act; (f) the matters (if any) prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. (3) Before preparation of the report begins, the Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations (if any) an invitation for persons to comment, within a specified period, on the matters to be covered by the report. (4) Before preparation of the report is completed, the Minister must cause to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) a draft of the report; and (b) an invitation to comment on the draft within the period specified by the Minister. (5) The Minister must publish the report. (6) To avoid doubt, this section does not affect the operation of section 25.(52) Clause 29, page 32 (line 13), after "provision", insert "(because the action is approved in accordance with a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the bilateral agreement)".(53) Clause 29, page 32 (line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (d) the bilaterally accredited management plan is in force under a law of the State or Territory identified in or under the bilateral agreement; and (e) the action is taken in accordance with the bilaterally accredited management plan.(54) Clause 31, page 33 (line 27), after "Part 3", insert "(because the action is approved or taken in accordance with a bilaterally accredited management plan)".(55) Clause 31, page 33 (line 32), at the end of the clause, add: ; and (f) the bilaterally accredited management plan is in force under a law of the State or self-governing Territory identified in or under the bilateral agreement; and (g) the action is taken in accordance with the bilaterally accredited management plan. (56) Page 34 (before line 2), before clause 32, insert:Subdivision A—Effect of declarations[Approval declarations](57) Clause 32, page 34 (line 9), after "provision", insert "(because the action is approved in accordance with an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration)".(58) Clause 32, page 34 (line 10), at the end of the clause, add: ; and (c) the accredited management plan is in force under a law of the Commonwealth identified in or under the declaration; and (d) the action is taken in accordance with the accredited management plan.(59) Page 34 (after line 10), after clause 32, insert:Subdivision B—Making declarations[Approval declarations](60) Clause 33, page 34 (line 11) to page 35 (line 26), omit the clause, substitute:33 Making declaration that actions do not need approval under Part 9Declaration of actions not needing approval (1) The Minister may declare in writing that actions in a class of actions specified in the declaration wholly or partly by reference to the fact that their taking has been approved by the Commonwealth or a specified Commonwealth agency, in accordance with a management plan that is an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration, do not require approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3. Note 1: Subdivisions C and D set out rules about prerequisites for making a declaration and limits on making a declaration. Note 2: Section 35 provides for revocation of a declaration.What is an accredited management plan ? (2) A management plan is an accredited management plan for the purposes of a declaration that certain actions do not require approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3 if and only if the management plan: (a) is in force under a law of the Commonwealth identified in or under the declaration; and (b) has been accredited in writing by the Minister in accordance with this section for the purposes of the declaration.Accrediting management plan (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister may accredit by written instrument a management plan for the purposes of a declaration. However, the Minister may do so only if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the management plan and the law under which it is in force (or is to be in force) meet the criteria prescribed by the regulations; and (b) there has been or will be adequate assessment of the impacts that actions approved in accordance with the plan: (i) have or will have; or (ii) are likely to have; on each matter protected by a provision of Part 3 to which the declaration relates; and (c) actions approved or taken in accordance with the management plan will not have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 to which the declaration relates. The Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations (if any) the instrument accrediting the management plan. Note: Subdivision C sets out more prerequisites for accrediting a plan.Tabling of management plan before accreditation (4) The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a copy of a management plan that the Minister is considering accrediting for the purposes of subsection (2), together with a notice that the Minister proposes to accredit the plan for a declaration under this section.No accreditation before end of period for opposition (5) The Minister must not accredit a management plan for the purposes of subsection (2) under a bilateral agreement: (a) before, or within 15 sitting days after, a copy of the management plan is laid before each House of the Parliament under this section; or (b) if, within those 15 sitting days of a House, notice of a motion to oppose accreditation of the management plan is given in that House—within 15 sitting days of that House after the notice is given.No accreditation after accreditation opposed (6) The Minister must not accredit the management plan if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution opposing accreditation of the management plan following a motion of which notice has been given within 15 sitting days after the management plan has been laid before the House under this section.No accreditation if motion not defeated in time (7) The Minister must not accredit the management plan if at the end of 15 sitting days after notice of a motion to oppose accreditation of the management plan that was given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the management plan was laid before the House under this section: (a) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (b) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.Extended time after dissolution or prorogation (8) If: (a) notice of a motion to oppose the accreditation of the management plan is given in a House of the Parliament (the opposing House ); and (b) before the end of 15 sitting days of the opposing House after the notice is given: (i) the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires; or (ii) the Parliament is prorogued; and (c) at the time of the dissolution, expiry or prorogation (as appropriate): (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (ii) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of;the management plan is taken for the purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (7) to have been laid before the opposing House on the first sitting day of that House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation (as appropriate). (61) Page 36 (after table item 1), insert:1A section 15Athe world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property(62) Page 36 (after table item 2), insert:2A section 17Bthe ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland(63) Page 36 (after table item 8), insert:8A subsection 18A(1) or (2)a listed threatened species (except a species included in the extinct category of the list referred to in section 178 or a conservation dependent species) and a listed threatened ecological community (except an ecological community included in the vulnerable category of the list referred to in section 181)(64) Page 36 (after table item 9), insert:9A section 20Aa listed migratory species(65) Page 36 (after table item 10), insert: 10A section 22Athe environment(66) Page 36 (after table item 13), insert: 13A subsection 24A(1) or (2)the environment13B subsection 24A(3) or (4)the environment in a Commonwealth marine area13C subsection 24A(5) or (6)the environment in the coastal waters (as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 ) in which the action is taken of the State or Territory(67) Page 36 (after table item 16), insert: 16A subsection 27A(1) or (2)the environment 16B subsection 27A(3) or (4)the environment on Commonwealth land(68) Page 37 (before line 1), before clause 35, insert:Subdivision C—Prerequisites for making declarations34A Minister may only make declaration if prescribed criteria are met The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 only if the Minister is satisfied that the declaration: (a) accords with the objects of this Act; and (b) meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations.34B Declarations relating to declared World Heritage properties (1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a declared World Heritage property only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Aust ralia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration will promote the management of the property in accordance with the Australian World Heritage management principles; and (c) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 33 for the purposes of a declaration relating to a declared World Heritage property only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan will promote the management of the property in accordance with the Australian World Heritage management principles.34C Declarations relating to declared Ramsar wetlands (1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a declared Ramsar wetland only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Ramsar Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration will promote the management of the wetland in accordance with the Australian Ramsar management principles; and (c) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 33 for the purposes of a declaration relating to a declared Ramsar wetland only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Ramsar Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan will promote the management of the wetland in accordance with the Australian Ramsar management principles.34D Declarations relating to listed threatened species and ecological communities (1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under: (i) the Biodiversity Convention; or (ii) the Apia Convention; or (iii) CITES; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species or community to which the declaration relates; and (c) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with any recovery plan for the species or community or a threat abatement plan; and (d) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 33 for the purposes of a declaration relating to a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under: (i) the Biodiversity Convention; or (ii) the Apia Convention; or (iii) CITES; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species or community to which the declaration relates; and (c) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan is not inconsistent with any recovery plan for the species or community or a threat abatement plan.34E Declarations relating to migratory species (1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a listed migratory species only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with the Commonwealth's obligations under whichever of the following conventions or agreements because of which the species is listed: (i) the Bonn Convention; (ii) CAMBA; (iii) JAMBA; (iv) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4); and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species to which the declaration relates; and (c) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 33 for the purposes of a declaration relating to a listed migratory species only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan is not inconsistent with the Commonwealth's obligations under whichever of the following conventions or agreements because of which the species is listed: (i) the Bonn Convention; (ii) CAMBA; (iii) JAMBA;(iv) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4); and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management plan will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species to which the declaration relates.Subdivision D—Other rules about declarations[Approval declarations](69) Clause 35, page 37 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute: (a) before the revocation of a declaration made under section 33, an action could be taken without approval under Part 9 because its taking had been approved by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency in accordance with a management plan that was an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration; and(70) Clause 36, page 37 (line 17), omit "or revoking a declaration under section 33 or 35", substitute "a declaration or accrediting a management plan under section 33, or revoking a declaration under section 35,".(71) Clause 36, page 38 (line 2), after "33,", insert "an instrument accrediting a management plan under section 33,".(75) Clause 45, page 47 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (3), substitute:Publishing notice of intention to enter into agreement (3) As soon as practicable after starting the process of developing a draft bilateral agreement with a State or self-governing Territory, the Minister must publish, in accordance with the regulations (if any), notice of his or her intention to develop a draft bilateral agreement with the State or Territory.Publishing bilateral agreements and related material (4) As soon as practicable after entering into a bilateral agreement, the Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations: (a) the agreement; and (b) a statement of the Minister's reasons for entering into the agreement; and (c) a report on the comments (if any) received on the draft of the agreement published under Subdivision B. (76) Clause 46, page 48 (line 1) to page 50 (line 2), omit the clause, substitute:46 Agreement may declare actions do not need approval under Part 9Declaration of actions not needing approval (1) A bilateral agreement may declare that actions in a class of actions specified in the agreement wholly or partly by reference to the fact that their taking has been approved by: (a) the State or self-governing Territory that is party to the agreement; or (b) an agency of the State or Territory; in accordance with a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement do not require approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3.What is a bilaterally accredited management plan ? (2) A management plan is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement declaring that certain actions do not require approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3 if and only if the management plan: (a) is in force under a law: (i) of the State or Territory that is party to the agreement; and (ii) identified in or under the agreement; and (b) has been accredited in writing by the Minister in accordance with this section for the purposes of the agreement.Accrediting management plan (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister may accredit in writing a management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement with a State or self-governing Territory. However, the Minister may do so only if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the management plan and the law of the State or Territory under which the management plan is in force (or is to be in force) meet the criteria prescribed by the regulations; and (b) there has been or will be adequate assessment of the impacts that actions approved in accordance with the management plan: (i) have or will have; or (ii) are likely to have; on each matter protected by a provision of Part 3 in relation to which the agreement makes a declaration under subsection (1); and(c) actions approved in accordance with the management plan will not have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 in relation to which the agreement makes a declaration under subsection (1).The Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations (if any) the instrument accrediting the management plan. Note: Subdivision B sets out more prerequisites for accrediting a plan.Tabling of management plan before accreditation (4) The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a copy of a management plan that the Minister is considering accrediting for the purposes of subsection (2).No accreditation before end of period for disallowance (5) The Minister must not accredit a management plan for the purposes of subsection (2) under a bilateral agreement: (a) before, or within 15 sitting days after, a copy of the plan is laid before each House of the Parliament; or (b) if, within those 15 sitting days of a House, notice of a motion to disallow the management plan is given in that House—within 15 sitting days of that House after the notice is given.Disallowance motion passed (6) The Minister must not accredit the management plan if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the management plan following a motion of which notice has been given within 15 sitting days after the plan has been laid before the House.Disallowance motion not defeated in time (7) The Minister must not accredit the management plan if at the end of 15 sitting days after notice of a motion to disallow the management plan that was given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the management plan was laid before the House: (a) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (b) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of. Extended time after dissolution or prorogation (8) If: (a) notice of a motion to disallow the management plan is given in a House of the Parliament (the disallowing House ); and (b) before the end of 15 sitting days of the disallowing House after the notice is given: (i) the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires; or (ii) the Parliament is prorogued; and (c) at the time of the dissolution, expiry or prorogation (as appropriate): (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (ii) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of;the management plan is taken for the purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (7) to have been laid before the disallowing House on the first sitting day of that House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation (as appropriate).No preference (9) In accrediting a management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement making a declaration relating to an action: (a) by a person for the purposes of trade between Australia and another country or between 2 States; or (b) by a constitutional corporation;the Minister must not give preference (within the meaning of section 99 of the Constitution) to one State or part of a State over another State or part of a State.Requirements for bilateral agreement making declaration (10) The declaration does not have effect for the purposes of this Act unless the bilateral agreement requires the State or self-governing Territory that is party to the agreement and agencies of the State or Territory: (a) to act in accordance with a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement; and (b) not to approve the taking of actions that would be inconsistent with a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement. (77) Page 52 (after line 14), after clause 48, insert:48A Mandatory provisionsApplication (1) A bilateral agreement with a State or self-governing Territory including a declaration that is described in section 46 or 47 and covers actions described in subsection (2) or (3) does not have effect for the purposes of this Act unless the agreement also includes the undertaking required by subsection (2) or (3) (as appropriate).Agreements including declarations about approvals (2) A bilateral agreement including a declaration described in section 46 must include an undertaking by the State or Territory to ensure that the environmental impacts that the following actions covered by the declaration have, will have or are likely to have on a thing that is not a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the declaration has effect will be assessed to the greatest extent practicable: (a) actions taken in the State or Territory by a constitutional corporation; (b) actions taken in the State or Territory by a person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories; (c) actions that are taken in the State or Territory and are actions whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries; (d) actions taken in the Territory (if applicable).Agreements including declarations about assessment (3) A bilateral agreement including a declaration described in section 47 must include an undertaking by the State or Territory to ensure that the environmental impacts that the following actions covered by the declaration have, will have or are likely to have (other than the relevant impacts of those actions) will be assessed to the greatest extent practicable: (a) actions taken in the State or Territory by a constitutional corporation; (b) actions taken in the State or Territory by a person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and an other country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories; (c) actions that are taken in the State or Territory and are actions whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries; (d) actions taken in the Territory (if applicable).Auditing (4) A bilateral agreement does not have effect for the purposes of this Act unless it includes a provision recognising that, under the Auditor-General Act 1997 , the Auditor-General may audit the operations of the Commonwealth public sector (as defined in section 18 of that Act) relating to the bilateral agreement.(78) Clause 49, page 52 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add: (2) A provision of a bilateral agreement does not have any effect in relation to an action in Booderee National Park, Kakadu National Park or Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. (3) Booderee National Park is the Commonwealth reserve (as it exists from time to time) to which the name Booderee National Park was given by Proclamation continued in force by the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999 .(79) Page 52 (before line 22), before clause 50, insert:49A Consultation on draft agreement The Minister may enter into a bilateral agreement only if he or she: (a) has published in accordance with the regulations: (i) a draft of the agreement; and (ii) an invitation for any person to give the Minister comments on the draft within a specified period of at least 28 days after the latest day on which the draft or invitation was published; and (b) has taken into account the comments (if any) received in response to the invitation; and (c) has considered the role and interests of indigenous peoples in promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources in the context of the proposed agreement, taking into account Australia's relevant obligations under the Biodiversity Convention.(80) Clause 51, page 53 (line 9), omit "(if any)".(81) Clause 51, page 53 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a declared World Heritage property only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the plan will promote the management of the property in accordance with the Australian World Heritage management principles.(82) Clause 52, page 53 (line 21), omit "(if any)".(83) Clause 52, page 53 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a declared Ramsar wetland only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Ramsar Convention; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the plan will promote the management of the wetland in accordance with the Australian Ramsar management principles.(84) Clause 53, page 54 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under: (i) the Biodiversity Convention; or (ii) the Apia Convention; or (iii) CITES; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the plan will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species or community to which the provision relates; and (c) the Minister is satisfied that the plan is not inconsistent with any recovery plan for the species or community or a threat abatement plan.(85) Clause 54, page 54 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: The Minister may accredit a management plan under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a listed migratory species only if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the plan is not inconsistent with the Commonwealth's obligations under whichever of the following conventions or agreements because of which the species is listed: (i) the Bonn Convention; (ii) CAMBA; (iii) JAMBA; (iv) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4); and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the plan will promote the survival and/or enhance the conservation status of each species to which the provision relates.(86) Clause 55, page 54 (line 29), after "agreement", insert ", or accredit for the purposes of a bilateral agreement a management plan,".(87) Clause 56, page 55 (lines 22 to 26), omit subclause (2).(88) Clause 60, page 60 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The suspension continues for the shorter of the following periods: (a) 3 months; (b) the period that is specified in the notice (either by reference to time or by reference to the occurrence of an event).(89) Clause 60, page 60 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (5) As soon as practicable after the Minister (the Environment Minister ) gives the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory (the State or Territory Minister ) notice of the suspension, the Environment Minister must consult the State or Territory Minister about the non-compliance. (6) To avoid doubt, this section has effect despite sections 58 and 59. (90) Clause 62, page 60 (line 26) to page 61 (line 4), omit "may" (wherever occurring), substitute "must".(91) Clause 63, page 61 (line 12), omit "may", substitute "must".(92) Clause 64, page 62 (lines 25 and 26), omit "a manner specified in the agreement", substitute "accordance with a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement".(93) Clause 64, page 63 (lines 1 to 10), omit subclause (3).(94) Page 63 (after line 28), at the end of Subdivision B, add:65A Expiry of bilateral agreement does not affect certain actionsApplication of subsection (2) (1) Subsection (2) explains how this Act operates in relation to an action that a person was able to take without approval under Part 9 for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 because of Division 1 of Part 4 and a provision of a bilateral agreement immediately before the agreement ceases to have effect for the purposes of this Act under section 65.Actions already approved may be taken (2) This Act continues to operate in relation to the action as if the agreement had not ceased to have effect if the action was able to be taken without approval under Part 9 because its taking had already been approved in accordance with a management plan that was a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement.(95) Clause 66, page 64 (line 24), omit "specially".(96) Clause 68, page 66 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to a person proposing to take an action if the person has been informed by the Minister under section 73 that the proposal has been referred to the Minister.(97) Clause 70, page 67 (line 16), at the end of subclause (1), add "or a longer period agreed by the Minister and the requested person, State, Territory or agency (as appropriate)".(98) Clause 70, page 67 (line 17), omit "the person does not refer the proposal to take the action, he or she", substitute "the propo sal to take the action is not referred, the person".(99) Clause 71, page 67 (lines 26 to 31), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A Commonwealth agency (except the Minister) that is aware of a proposal by a person to take an action may refer the proposal to the Minister for a decision whether or not the action is a controlled action, if the agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.(100) Clause 73, page 68 (lines 9 to 12), omit the clause, substitute:73 Informing person proposing to take action of referral As soon as practicable after receiving a referral under section 69 or 71 of a proposal by a person to take an action, the Minister must: (a) inform the person of the referral; and (b) invite the person to give the Minister relevant information about whether the action is a controlled action, within 10 business days.(101) Clause 74, page 69 (lines 10 to 15), omit subclause (3), substitute:Inviting public comment (3) As soon as practicable after receiving a referral of a proposal to take an action, the Environment Minister must cause to be published on the Internet: (a) the referral; and (b) an invitation for anyone to give the Minister comments within 10 business days (measured in Canberra) on whether the action is a controlled action.(102) Clause 75, page 70 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:Minister must consider public comment (1A) In making a decision under subsection (1) about the action, the Minister must consider the comments (if any) received: (a) in response to the invitation (if any) under subsection 74(3) for anyone to give the Minister comments on whether the action is a controlled action; and (b) within the period specified in the invitation.(103) Clause 77, page 73 (lines 1 to 10), omit subclause (3), substitute:Identifying manner of action so it is not caught by provision of Part 3 (3) If, in deciding whether the action is a controlled action or not, the Minister has made a decision (the component decision ) that a particular provision of Part 3 is not a controlling provision for the action because the Minister believes it will be taken in a particular manner (whether or not in accordance with an accredited management plan for the purposes of a declaration under section 33 or a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement), the notice must set out the component decision, identifying the provision and the manner. Note: The Minister may decide a provision of Part 3 is not a controlling provision for an action because he or she believes that the action will be taken in a manner that will ensure the action will not have (and is not likely to have) an adverse impact on the matter protected by the provision.(104) Clause 78, page 73 (line 28), after "75(1)", insert "about an action".(105) Clause 78, page 74 (lines 1 to 6), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the revocation and substitution is warranted by the availability of substantial new information about the impacts that the action: (i) has or will have; or (ii) is likely to have; on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3; or(aa) the Minister is satisfied that the revocation and substitution is warranted by a substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseen at the time of the first decision and relates to the impacts that the action: (i) has or will have; or (ii) is likely to have; on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3; or(106) Clause 78, page 74 (lines 12 to 15), omit paragraph (1)(c), substitute: (c) if the first decision was that the action was not a controlled action because of a provision of a bilateral agreement or a declaration under section 33 and a management plan that is a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of the agreement or an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration: (i) the provision of the agreement or declaration no longer operates in relation to the action; or (ii) the management plan is no longer in force under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a self-governing Territory identified in or under the agreement or declaration; or(107) Clause 78, page 74 (lines 18 to 34), omit subclause (2), substitute:Reversing decision that provision of Part 3 is not controlling provision (2) A provision of Part 3 letting an action be taken if the Minister has decided that a particular provision (the prohibiting provision ) of that Part is not a controlling provision for the action does not prevent the Minister from acting under subsection (1) to revoke a decision that the prohibiting provision is not a controlling provision for an action and substitute a decision that the prohibiting provision is a controlling provision for the action.(108) Clause 80, page 78 (line 13), omit "a specially accredited", substitute "an accredited assessment".(109) Clause 83, page 80 (after line 18), insert after note 2: Note 2A: An action will be in a class of actions declared not to need assessment under this Part only if the action has been assessed in a manner specified in the bilateral agreement.(110) Clause 84, page 81 (after line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: An action will be in a class of actions declared not to need assessment under this Part only if the action has been assessed in a manner specified in the declaration.(111) Clause 84, page 81 (lines 10 to 22), omit subclause (3), substitute:Prerequisites for making a declaration (3) The Minister may make a declaration only if he or she is satisfied that: (a) assessment of an action in the specified manner will include assessment of the impacts the action: (i) has or will have; or (ii) is likely to have; on each matter protected by a provision of Part 3; and (b) the specified manner of assessment meets the standards (if any) prescribed by the regulations; and (c) if the taking of an action assessed in the specified manner must be approved under Part 9, he or she will receive a report including, or accompanied by, enough information about the relevant impacts of the action to let him or her make an informed decision whether or not to approve under Part 9 (for the purpose of each controlling provision) the taking of the action.Further requirements for making a declaration (3A) Sections 34A, 34B, 34C, 34D and 34E apply in relation to the making of a declaration under this section in the same way that they apply to the making of a declaration under section 33.(112) Clause 85, page 83 (line 9), omit "a specially accredited", substitute "an accredited assessment".(113) Clause 87, page 84 (line 5), omit "a specially accredited process", substitute "an accredited assessment process".(114) Clause 87, page 85 (line 5), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (e) the guidelines (if any) published under subsection (6).(115) Clause 87, page 85 (lines 6 to 17), omit subclause (4), substitute:Accredited assessment process (4) The Minister may decide on an assessment by an accredited assessment process only if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the process is to be carried out under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a self-governing Territory; and (b) the process and the law meet the standards (if any) prescribed by the regulations; and (c) the process will ensure that the relevant impacts of the action are adequately assessed; and (d) he or she will receive a report of the outcome of the process that will provide enough information on the relevant impacts of the action to let him or her make an informed decision whether or not to approve under Part 9 (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action.(116) Clause 87, page 85 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: Guidelines for choosing assessment approach (6) The Minister may publish in the Gazette guidelines setting out criteria for deciding which approach must be used for assessing the relevant impacts of an action.(117) Heading to clause 90, page 87 (line 11), omit "trying another approach ", substitute "starting an assessment ".(118) Clause 90, page 88 (line 4), omit "4,".(119) Clause 91, page 88 (line 25), omit "a specially accredited", substitute "an accredited assessment".(120) Clause 93, page 89 (lines 8 to 28), omit the clause, substitute:93 Public comment on information included in referral (1) Within 10 business days of the decision, the Minister must give the designated proponent a written direction: (a) to publish within 10 business days in accordance with the regulations: (i) specified information included in the referral to the Minister of the proposal to take the action; and (ii) specified information that was given to the Minister under section 86; and (iii) specified information relating to the action that was given to the Minister after the referral but before the Minister made the decision under section 87; and (iv) an invitation for anyone to give the designated proponent comments relating to the information or the action within a period of the length specified in the direction; and (b) to give to the Minister a copy and summary of any comments received within the period specified in the invitation. (2) The designated proponent must comply with the direction.(121) Clause 95, page 90 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraph (1)(a).(122) Clause 95, page 90 (lines 23 and 24), omit "was required under section 93 to invite comments on the action and has received comments", substitute "has received comments in response to an invitation under section 93".(123) Clause 95, page 90 (lines 27 to 29), omit "was required under section 93 to invite comments on the action and did not receive any comments", substitute "has not received any comments in response to an invitation under section 93".(124) Clause 95, page 91 (lines 5 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute:Discretion not to publish (3) However, the Secretary may refuse to provide a copy of so much of the report as: (a) is an exempt document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 on the grounds of the security of the Commonwealth or its providing advice to the Minister; or (b) the Secretary is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.Commercial-in-confidence (4) The Secretary must not be satisfied that a part of the report is commercial-in-confidence unless a person demonstrates to the Secretary that: (a) release of the information in that part would cause competitive detriment to the person; and (b) the information in that part is not in the public domain; and (c) the information is not required to be disclosed under another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (d) the information is not readily discoverable.(125) Clause 97, page 92 (lines 10 and 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Minister must prepare written guidelines for the content of a draft report about the relevant impacts of the action. The Minister must do so: (a) within 20 business days of the decision that the relevant impacts of the action must be assessed by a public environment report under this Division; or (b) if the Minister invites a person to comment on a draft of the guidelines within a period specified by the Minister—within 20 business days after the end of that period (or the latest of those periods, if there is more than one).(126) Clause 97, page 92 (line 21) to page 93 (line 2), omit paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the action is to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory; and (b) the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory has asked the Minister admin istering this section to ensure that the draft report includes information about those other impacts to help the State or Territory, or an agency of the State or Territory, make decisions about the action; and (c) the action: (i) is to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (ii) is an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.(127) Clause 100, page 95 (lines 14 to 20), omit subclause (3), substitute:Discretion not to publish (3) However, the Secretary may refuse to provide a copy of so much of the report as: (a) is an exempt document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 on the grounds of the security of the Commonwealth or its providing advice to the Minister; or (b) the Secretary is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.Commercial-in-confidence (4) The Secretary must not be satisfied that a part of the report is commercial-in-confidence unless a person demonstrates to the Secretary that: (a) release of the information in that part would cause competitive detriment to the person; and (b) the information in that part is not in the public domain; and (c) the information is not required to be disclosed under another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (d) the information is not readily discoverable.(128) Clause 102, page 96 (lines 10 and 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Minister must prepare written guidelines for the content of a draft statement about the action and its relevant impacts. The Minister must do so: (a) within 20 business days of the decision that the relevant impacts of the decision must be assessed by an environmental impact statement under this Division; or (b) if the Minister invites a person to comment on a draft of the guidelines within a period specified by the Minister—within 20 business days after the end of that period (or the latest of those periods, if there is more than one).(129) Clause 102, page 96 (line 21) to page 97 (line 2), omit paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the action is to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory; and (b) the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory has asked the Minister administering this section to ensure that the draft statement includes information about those other impacts to help the State or Territory, or an agency of the State or Territory, make decisions about the action; and (c) the action: (i) is to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (ii) is an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.(130) Clause 105, page 99 (lines 15 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:Discretion not to publish (3) However, the Secretary may refuse to provide a copy of so much of the report as: (a) is an exempt document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 on the grounds of the security of the Commonwealth or its providing advice to the Minister; or (b) the Secretary is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.Commercial-in-confidence (4) The Secretary must not be satisfied that a part of the report is commercial-in-confidence unless a person demonstrates to the Secretary that: (a) release of the information in that part would cause competitive detriment to the person; and (b) the information in that part is not in the public domain; and (c) the information is not required to be disclosed under another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (d) the information is not readily discoverable.(131) Clause 107, page 101 (lines 10 to 21), omit paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the action is to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory; and (b) the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory has asked the Minister administering this section to ensure that the inquiry reports on those other impacts to help the State or Territory, or an agency of the State or Territory, make decisions about the action; and (c) the action: (i) is to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (ii) is an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.(132) Clause 108, page 102 (line 11), omit "information,".(133) Clause 130, page 117 (lines 6 to 17), omit subclause (1), substitute:Basic rule (1) Within whichever of the following periods is relevant, the Minister must decide for the purposes of each controlling provision whether or not to approve the taking of a controlled action: (a) 30 business days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies in writing, if the action is the subject of an assessment report; (b) 40 business days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies in writing, if a commission has conducted an inquiry relating to the action. Start of period—basic rule (1A) The relevant period starts on the first business day after the day the Minister receives the assessment report or the report of the commission (as appropriate).Start of period—certain actions in States and Territories (1B) However, if the action is to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory and is covered by subsection (1C), the relevant period starts on the later of the following days: (a) the day worked out under subsection (1A); (b) the first business day after the day the Minister receives from the State or self-governing Territory a notice: (i) stating that the certain and likely impacts of the action on things other than matters protected by the controlling provisions for the action have been assessed to the greatest extent practicable; and (ii) explaining how they have been assessed. Note 1: This means that the Minister cannot grant an approval until he or she has received notice from a State or Territory as described in paragraph (1B)(b). Note 2: Subsection (1B) also applies in relation to actions to be taken in an area offshore from a State or the Northern Territory. See section 157.Actions to which subsection (1B) applies (1C) Subsection (1B) applies to an action only if it: (a) is to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (b) is an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.Start of period—actions in 2 or more jurisdictions (1D) If the action is to be taken in more than one State or self-governing Territory, the relevant period does not start until after the last day on which the Minister receives from one of those States or Territories a notice described in paragraph (1B)(b).Exception for certain actions (1E) Subsection (1B) does not apply if: (a) the action: (i) is a nuclear action; or (ii) is to be taken in a Commonwealth marine area; or (iii) is to be taken on Commonwealth land; or (iv) is to be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency; and (b) the relevant impacts of the action have been assessed under Part 8.(134) Clause 130, page 117 (line 25), omit "specially accredited", substitute "accredited assessment".(135) Clause 133, page 119 (lines 25 to 27), omit subclause (1), substitute:Approval (1) After receiving an assessment report relating to a controlled action, or the report of a commission that has conducted an inquiry relating to a controlled action, the Minister may approve for the purposes of a controlling provision the taking of the action by a person.(136) Clause 133, page 120 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:Circumstances in which approval must not be granted (5) The Minister must not approve for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 the taking in a State or self-governing Territory of an action that is covered by subsection (6) before the Minister receives from the State or Territory a notice described in paragraph 130(1B)(b). This does not apply if: (a) the action: (i) is a nuclear action; or (ii) is to be taken in a Commonwealth marine area; or (iii) is to be taken on Commonwealth land; or (iv) is to be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency; and (b) the relevant impacts of the action have been assessed under Part 8. Note: Subsection (5) also applies in relation to actions to be taken in an area offshore from a State or the Northern Territory. See section 157. Actions to which subsection (5) applies (6) Subsection (5) applies to an action only if it: (a) is to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (b) is an action whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.Notice of refusal of approval (7) If the Minister refuses to approve for the purposes of a controlling provision the taking of an action by the person who proposed to take the action, the Minister must give the person notice of the refusal. Note: Under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 , the person may request reasons for the refusal, and the Minister must give them.(137) Clause 134, page 122 (line 13), omit "or of", substitute "such as".(138) Clause 134, page 122 (after line 27), after paragraph (4)(a), insert: (aa) information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the designated proponent of the action; and(139) Clause 134, page 122 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:Validity of decision (5) A failure to consider information as required by paragraph (4)(aa) does not invalidate a decision about attaching a condition to the approval.(140) Clause 135, page 123 (line 1), after "21", insert "or 22A".(141) Clause 136, page 124 (line 15) to page 125 (line 14), omit subclause (3).(142) Clause 137, page 125 (line 28), after "12", insert "or 15A".(143) Clause 138, page 126 (line 3), after "16", insert "or 17B".(144) Clause 139, page 126 (line 9), after "16", insert "or section 18A".(145) Clause 140, page 126 (line 19), after "20", insert "or 20A".(146) Page 126 (after line 28), after clause 140, insert: 140A No approval for certain nuclear installations The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility.(148) Page 128 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:142A Offence of breaching conditions on approval (1) A person whose taking of an action has been approved under this Part is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action or omits to take an action; and (b) the action or omission contravenes a condition attached to the approval and the person is reckless as to that fact; and (c) the action or omission results or will result in a significant impact on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) A person whose taking of an action has been approved under this Part is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action or omits to take an action; and (b) the action or omission contravenes a condition attached to the approval and the person is reckless as to that fact; and (c) the action or omission is likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (4) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495.(149) Clause 143, page 130 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (5), add: Note: If the person is not satisfied with changed conditions attached to the approval of the person's action, he or she can ask the Minister to reverse the change by making another change to the conditions under this section.(150) Clause 143, page 130 (line 17), omit "provide", substitute "publish".(151) Clause 145, page 131 (after line 31), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Minister may, by written instrument, revoke an approval under this Part of an action for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3 if he or she believes that: (a) the impacts that the action has had, will have or is likely to have were not accurately identified in information available to the Minister when the approval was given; and (b) the information did not accurately identify those impacts because of negligence or a deliberate act or omission by the person proposing to take the action or the designated proponent of the action.(152) Page 132 (after line 10), at the end of Division 3, add:145A Reinstating suspended or revoked approvalApplication (1) This section applies if the Minister has, by written instrument: (a) suspended an approval under this Part of the taking of an action by a person; or (b) revoked an approval under this Part of the taking of an action by a person.Requesting reinstatement of approval (2) Within 2 months after receiving a copy of the instrument under this Division, the person may request the Minister to reinstate the approval. Deciding whether to reinstate approval (3) Within 20 business days of receiving the request, the Minister must decide whether or not to reinstate the approval.Considerations for decision (4) Subdivision B of Division 1 applies to the decision whether or not to reinstate the approval in the same way as it applies to a decision whether or not to approve the taking of an action.Extra time for decision (5) A day is not to be counted for the purposes of subsection (3) if: (a) the Minister and the person agree in writing that it should not be counted; or (b) the Minister has requested the person to provide information under subsection (6) and the day is on or before the day on which the Minister receives the last of the information requested.Requesting information for decision (6) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that he or she does not have enough information to make an informed decision whether or not to reinstate the approval, the Minister may request the person to provide specified information relevant to making the decision.Reversal of decision to suspend or revoke approval (7) If the Minister decides to reinstate the approval, it and any conditions attached to it immediately before the suspension or revocation have effect on and after the day of the decision (subject to any future suspension or revocation under this Division).Notice of decision about reversal (8) The Minister must: (a) give the person written notice of the Minister's decision; and (b) publish notice of the decision in accordance with the regulations.(153) Page 132, at the end of Part 9 (after proposed clause 145A), add:Division 4—Transfer of approvals145B Transfer with Minister's consentTransfer by written agreement (1) A person (the transferor ) whose taking of an action has been approved under this Part for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 may transfer the approval to another person (the transferee ) by written agreement, subject to the Minister's consent.Transfer ineffective until Minister consents (2) The transfer does not have effect for the purposes of this Act until the Minister consents in writing to the transfer. To avoid doubt, the Minister's consent to a transfer cannot take effect before the Minister gives the consent.Effect of consent (3) If the Minister consents to the transfer: (a) this Act (except Division 3) operates in relation to the transferor as if the Minister had revoked the approval when the Minister's consent took effect; and (b) this Act operates in relation to the transferee as if, when the Minister's consent to the transfer took effect, he or she: (i) had approved under this Part for the purposes of the provision of Part 3 the taking of the action by the transferee; and (ii) had attached to the approval the conditions that were attached to the approval of the taking of the action by the transferor.Considerations in deciding whether to consent (4) In deciding whether or not to consent to the transfer, the Minister may consider: (a) whether the transferee would be a suitable person to be granted the approval, having regard to the transferee's history in relation to environmental matters; and (b) whether the transferee can comply with the conditions attached to the approval.Giving copies of consents to transferor and transferee (5) The Minister must give the transferor and to the transferee a copy of the consent each.(154) Clause 146, page 133 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The agreement may also provide for the assessment of other certain and likely impacts of actions under the policy, plan or program if: (a) the actions are to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory; and (b) the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory has asked the Minister administering this section to ensure that the assessment deal with those other im pacts to help the State or Territory, or an agency of the State or Territory, make decisions about the actions; and (c) the actions: (i) are to be taken by any person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country, between 2 States, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories or by a constitutional corporation; or (ii) are actions whose regulation is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligation under an agreement with one or more other countries. Note: Paragraph (1A)(a) also applies to actions to be taken in an area offshore from a State or the Northern Territory. See section 157.(155) Clause 146, page 133 (before line 11), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the preparation of draft terms of reference for a report on the impacts to which the agreement relates; and (ab) the publication of the draft terms of reference for public comment for a period of at least 28 days that is specified by the Minister; and (ac) the finalisation of the terms of reference, to the Minister's satisfaction, taking into account the comments (if any) received on the draft terms of reference; and(156) Clause 146, page 133 (line 11), omit "those impacts", substitute "the impacts to which the agreement relates".(157) Clause 146, page 133 (line 12), after "comment", insert "for a period of at least 28 days that is specified by the Minister".(158) Clause 146, page 133 (line 12), after "draft", insert "report".(159) Clause 146, page 133 (line 14), after "draft", insert "report".(160) Clause 146, page 133 (line 22), omit "those impacts", substitute "the impacts to which the agreement relates".(161) Clause 146, page 134 (lines 1 to 4), omit note 2, substitute: Note 2: If the Minister endorses a policy, plan or program embodied in a management plan in force under a law, he or she may declare under section 33, or make a bilateral agreement declaring, that actions approved in accordance with the management plan do not need approval for the purposes of a specified provision of Part 3.(162) Clause 146, page 134 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (3) If the agreement relates to actions to be taken in a State or self-governing Territory, the Minister must tell the appropriate Minister of the State or Territory: (a) that the agreement has been made; and (b) what those actions are (in general terms).(163) Clause 147, page 135 (line 25), omit "(which protects", substitute "or 24A (which protect".(164) Clause 153, page 140 (lines 5 to 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Minister must: (a) make a declaration under section 33 that actions approved in accordance with the accredited management plan consisting of the endorsed plan or policies do not require an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of subsection 23(1), (2) or (3) or subsection 24A(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6); and (b) accredit under section 33 the endorsed plan or policies as an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration. Note: The declaration and accreditation will allow actions that would otherwise be prohibited by sections 23 and 24A to be taken without approval if they are taken in accordance with the accredited management plan. See section 32.(165) Clause 160, page 146 (after line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: The giving of an authorisation for an action may be constituted by the renewal of an authorisation of the action or the variation of an authorisation for a different action.(166) Clause 160, page 146 (lines 18 and 19), omit "the provision of funding by the Commonwealth under Australia's foreign aid program for a project", substitute "the entry by the Commonwealth, under Australia's foreign aid program, into a contract, agreement or arrangement for the implementation of a project".(167) Clause 160, page 146 (after line 29), insert: (2A) Regulations may prescribe an action for the purposes of paragraph (2)(d): (a) partly by reference to the action's having, or being likely to have, a significant impact on the environment; or (b) partly by reference to a specified person believing that the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment; or (c) wholly or partly by reference to legislation under which the authorisation of the action is to be granted. This does not limit the ways in which regulations may prescribe an action.(168) Clause 162, page 148 (line 24), omit "and 83", substitute ", 83 and 84".(169) Clause 162, page 149 (line 2), after "controlled action", insert "when the proposal to give the authorisation was referred to the Minister".(170) Clause 162, page 149 (line 6), omit "that Part", substitute "Part 8".(171) Clause 162, page 149 (line 10), omit "that Part", substitute "Part 8".(172) Clause 165, page 150 (line 14) to page 151 (line 21), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute:Overview (1) This section provides for the assessment of an action for which a person is applying for a permit under Division 3 of Part 13 (about whales and other cetaceans).Application of Part 8 (2) Part 8 (except sections 82, 83 and 84) and the other provisions of this Act (so far as they relate to that Part) apply in relation to the action proposed to be authorised by the permit as if: (a) the application for the permit were a referral of a proposal to take the action; and (b) the Minister had decided under Division 2 of Part 7 that the action was a controlled action when the application was made; and (c) the person applying for the permit had been designated as the proponent of the action by the Minister under section 75; and (d) a reference in Part 8 or those provisions to the relevant impacts of the action were a reference to the impact that the action has, will have or is likely to have on cetaceans; and (e) a reference in Part 8 or those provisions to making an informed decision on approving under Part 9 (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action were a reference to making an informed decision about whether or not to issue the permit.(173) Clause 168, page 153 (lines 19 to 26), omit subclause (2), substitute:Agreement applying Division 4 of Part 8 (2) An agreement that specifies that Division 4 of Part 8 (about assessment on preliminary documentation) is to apply in relation to an action may deal with how the Minister will exercise his or her power under section 94 to refuse to accept a document.(174) Page 156 (after line 25), at the end of Part 11, add:Division 5—Publication of information relating to assessments170A Publication of information relating to assessments The Secretary must publish on the Internet every week notice of the following: (a) the publication in the immediately preceding week by the Minister under section 45 of a notice of the Minister's intention to develop a draft bilateral agreement; (b) each referral (if any) of an action received by the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 in the immediately preceding week; (c) each decision (if any) in the immediately preceding week under Division 2 of Part 7 that an action is a controlled action; (d) each decision (if any) in the immediately preceding week under Division 3 of Part 8 about which approach is to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of an action; (e) the information and invitations (if any) published in the immediately preceding week under Division 4 of Part 8 (about assessment on preliminary documentation); (f) each set of guidelines (if any) prepared in the immediately preceding week by the Minister under Division 5 or 6 of Part 8 for a report or statement; (g) each public invitation (if any) issued in the immediately preceding week by the Minister to comment on a draft of guidelines under Division 5 or 6 of Part 8 for a report or statement; (h) each draft or finalised report or statement published in the immediately preceding week under Division 5 or 6 of Part 8 by a designated proponent; (i) the availability of each assessment report given to the Minister under Division 4, 5 or 6 of Part 8 in the immediately preceding week; (j) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendment No. 72. The question is that clause 37 stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no. I have not heard a voice. I put that one again. The question is that clause 37 stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye. Could someone at least call, please. I am getting very confusing calls. If you are opposing a clause, you have to say no. The question is that clause 37 stand as printed—that is, stay in the bill. Those of that opinion say aye.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Aye.Honourable senators interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, the Senate is suffering the humiliation of the Government Whip calling aye on a question before the chair on which the Leader of the Government calls no. The Government Whip obviously has the numbers, because more people are calling aye than no. My point of order is this, Madam Chair: I will be insisting that you apply the standing orders and demand that senators vote the way they call.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will put the question again. I hope that senators understand—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I did not complete the previous call, Senator Ray. The question is that clause 37 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I now move to government item No. 147 which relates to clause 141. The question is that clause 141 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—If the minor parties or the opposition require leave to move amendments, I will take that now.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 31.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Is that is what is going to happen—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Is leave granted?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Faulkner!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You had better not seek leave for anything. Sit down!10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order!BH4HILLSenator Hill—Stop being so hysterical. You are not in the bloody Sydney Town Hall now.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Faulkner and Senator Hill, if you wish to have that sort of discussion, go outside and do it.BH4HILLSenator Hill—All right, leave is not granted.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Chair, I seek your guidance on this. Pursuant to the standing order in the name of Senator Faulkner—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You can't get away with that.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I cannot get away with this? I have been told I cannot get away with it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are in committee.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. He is denying leave and at the same time these people are voting different ways on amendments. You're kidding!Senator Hill interjecting—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Ray and Senator Hill, this behaviour is unbecoming. Senator Bolkus, you were seeking to raise a point of order?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On the basis of your previous ruling, I do not know that we actually need to get leave from anyone to move this amendment. This is an amendment which has been put to the Senate and which appears on the running sheet. Pursuant to your previous ruling, I put to you that the opposition believes this amendment should be put separately because we anticipate that people will be voting for this amendment whereas they will not be voting for other opposition amendments. I believe it should be put and I do not know that you should be asking Senator Hill to give us leave to move this particular amendment. There is nothing in the running sheet that indicates that this should be put collectively with other amendments.Honourable senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, Senator Bolkus, but there was too much noise from your leader and I missed you last point.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I was saying that there is nothing in the running sheet that indicates that this should be put conjointly with other amendments. As a consequence, I put it to you that it is a right of a senator to ask for this amendment to be put separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It cannot be put at all if leave is not granted; and leave was not granted. On the previous night, leave was implied to have been granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are pretty well clearly divided on a lot of matters here, but I want to appeal for at least some decency which is going to help the rest of the day proceed. This specific opposition amendment is to include a trigger on greenhouse matters, which is something that the Democrats want. I would ask that the Democrats use their leverage with the government—which is total, in this situation—to ensure that this amendment is put to carry out their own wishes that there be a greenhouse trigger in this legislation.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What your point of order, Senator Brown?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The point of order is that we are going to have a much better process for the rest of the day if the Democrats will ask the minister to withdraw his refusal of leave, otherwise they become complicit in this specific bombing of their own policy.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. Please resume your seat.11:56:006094Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I seek leave to move amendment 31 in the name of the opposition as circulated. We have had this morning quite—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is still not granted.Honourable senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Hill and Senator Ray, please maintain some decorum. Senator Bolkus, are you seeking the call?11:57:006094Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Chairman, I seek leave to move amendments 30, 31 and 34.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Amendment 31 has been refused leave.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am seeking leave en bloc, Madam Chair. 10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted for opposition amendments 30, 31 and 34 to be moved?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.11:58:006094Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I again appeal to the Democrats to use their power to change this situation.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order, Senator Brown?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I ask that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments 4 to 18 be moved separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Are you seeking leave to move them, firstly? Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I seek leave of the Senate and the Democrats to have Greens amendment 23 put to the vote.Honourable senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! There is too much noise in the chamber. Order, Senator Ian Macdonald and Senator Ray! The request raised by Senator Brown was that leave be granted for the Greens (WA) and Australian Greens to move amendment No. 23. Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I ask for leave from the Democrats and the government for the amendments which have been put to us from the conservation movement to be put to the Senate—and I refer here to amendments Nos 25 to 30—so that at least they can be tested on a vote in this place.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I also ask on behalf of the community that has submitted these amendments that amendments Nos 33 and 34, which would put some environmental teeth back into this legislation, be put to a vote and I ask for the Democrats to ensure that the government approves that leave.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I ask that leave be given for Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendment No. 19 to be put to a vote in this place.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is actually not an amendment; it is a motion that the clause stand as printed. Is leave granted to put that motion?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.11:59:006094Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave for Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendment No. 20 to be put to a vote, as would be the proper function of a representative parliament.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I want it recorded that leave is being serially denied here by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, backed by the lap-dog Democrats. I seek leave for Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendment No. 24 to be put separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—To which clause does that refer? Is it 32?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Well, it is on the running sheet. I have a point of order. When we have amendments listed here, which I am referring to, if the chair does not know what clauses they refer to, how is this chamber supposed to know? What a farce of a process this is.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are the person who put up the amendments.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I asked leave for amendment No. 24 to be put. It is up to the chair—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is not an amendment; it actually means that the particular clause stand as printed. Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:01:006095Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to put amendment Nos 31 and 32 on sheet 1443. These are vital improvements to this legislation coming from the Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens on behalf of the conservation movement. I ask the Democrats to use their leverage, which is total, on this minister for the environment to ensure that leave is given for that to be put to a vote.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Brown! Is leave granted to put the question that 83 and 84 stand as printed?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:01:006095Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I refer now to Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 1445. This is the important overriding clause that ensures the minister for the environment retains the power to override states that are doing destructive things to the environment, including to the forests. This amendment pre-empts a Democrat amendment coming down the line which will have no teeth; this one does. I ask that leave be given for this amendment to be put to this chamber.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—First of all, is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, you are testing the patience of the chair and the prerogative of the chair—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe it is reasonable for the chair presiding to suggest that their patience is being tested. It is proper—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—We are not interested in what you believe.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—With respect, it is proper for non-government senators, who do not have the advantage that operates under the guillotine of automatically having their amendments put, to seek leave in the way that non-government senators are. It might be a bit repetitious—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order is that the issues are important, and it does not matter what side of the chamber senators are on or what party they come from—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If they represent a political party they are entitled to seek leave to ask that a question be put to the committee. It may be—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is not the problem, Senator. I can give you a ruling.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, it may cause you personally some concerns but I must say that it is an entitlement of the chamber to do so. I am not in—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order is that I am not in the business of defending Senator Brown, but he is entitled to seek leave on these questions and that is the point I would make to you or any other chair of the committee presiding.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Faulkner. He is entitled to seek leave but he is not entitled to make a comment and to go into further debate. I will only tolerate these resolutions being moved if they are moved precisely and leave is sought, without extraneous comment and debate on what the issue is.12:04:006096Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 9, which relates to doing away with bilateral agreements—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, you are seeking leave for opposition amendment No. 9. Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:05:006096Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 11, with respect to world heritage values—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Just tell me which numbers.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I note that the Australian Democrats are sitting there like sideshow dummies saying absolutely nothing this morning.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! You are out of order. Just tell me which item you are seeking leave to have put and I will deal with that.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to tell the committee what standing order prevents a senator from explaining in a simple term like that what amendment we are dealing with, not to speak of listeners right around this country trying to make sense out of this debate.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Standing order 142 indicates that the time for debate has expired. Therefore, all you are entitled to do is stand to seek leave for the particular number of the amendment you wish to have considered. That is the way I am ruling.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Chair, on a point of clarification—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Margetts has the call.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, she is taking a point of clarification, whatever that is.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I thought that was probably the equivalent of it. Senator Margetts is seeking the call and I have given her the call.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Good ruling!10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Macdonald, I do not need any comments. Thank you.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Chair, we have our amendments down as amendments. Earlier you demanded that we explain which clauses they referred to. Now you are saying we should not explain what they refer to. You did two things: firstly, you demanded we explain what our amendments were and, secondly, you said we cannot. I am sure which one—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry if you misunderstood. I am demanding just the number of the amendment that you wish to put.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—Senator Hill interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Ray and Senator Hill, there is enough noise in here without you two contributing further.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I do not think you should have recognised Senator Margetts. She took what was a point of clarification—I mean, it is reasonable that she take a point of order, but I do not know about a point of clarification.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That there is no such thing as a point of clarification and she should not have been given the call.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is a spurious point of order. There is no point of order.12:07:006096Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 11, protecting world heritage matters.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I don't need that; just tell me the number.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Chair, on a point of order. Earlier in this debate you said to the Senate that if a senator believed that there would be a different vote taken in respect of an amendment as opposed to the rest of the block of the amendments, then leave would be given. I suggest to you, Madam Chair, that, given the fact that we have got some 300 amendments to go through in one block, it does assist the Senate if we were to, in one sentence, explain what subject area—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, all I require you—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Sorry, I have not finished my point of order. It would assist the Senate if we could explain, even by way of general description, where this amendment attached to the bill. Senator Hill has spat the dummy this morning. He should be given a chance to change his mind. I do not think we can do this properly without some explanation.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, Senator Bolkus. All I wish senators to do if they are seeking leave is to state the number and the sheet that it appears on, and that is as much debate as I will take because the time for the debate has expired.12:08:006097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Under standing order 142(4) I draw your attention to the proposition that Senator Bolkus, Senator Faulkner and I have sought to get before this chamber, that is, the consideration of what are important issues, for which the government is attempting to deny leave. Not content to deprive the chamber of the opportunity to evaluate this proposition, the government is now seeking to protect the Democrats from what is quite clearly a miserable effort to prevent consideration of these important questions.Madam Chair, what I would seek to do is to encourage the opportunities for opposition senators to have these matters put before the Senate. I ask you: under what standing order are they prevented from seeking leave to do that?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Standing order 142(4) requires that, at the expiration of the time allotted for the consideration of the bill, the chair shall put any amendments circulated by the government at least two hours before that time. That is all that I am required to put. The remainder may be put if you seek leave and are given leave, but if you do not seek leave for a particular amendment, then we are going to have problems. Is leave being sought for opposition amendment No. 11?12:09:006097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I already have one request before me, and that is opposition amendment No. 11. Is leave granted?12:09:006097Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Chair, I refer to standing order 195:A senator may require the question to be read by the Clerk at any time—any time—during a debate, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking.I ask therefore that the question be read so that we can understand what the Senate is dealing with.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no question before the chair at the moment, Senator Brown.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Ray is correct. Leave has been denied. There is no question before the chair; therefore, I cannot read anything out.12:10:006097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam Chair, I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, how about I deal with Senator Bolkus's request for leave for opposition amendment No. 11? Is leave granted?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Leave has been denied already.BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Leave has just now been denied.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You asked leave for which amendments?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—For 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave for amendment No. 11 has been denied.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am seeking for them to be debated in cognate form.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Carr, they cannot be debated cognately because the time for the debate has expired. You are seeking leave for Nos 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—And No. 14.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:11:006098Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 15 and 16 cognately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 20, 23 and 24 relating to critical habitat.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:12:006098Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I seek to move separately opposition amendments Nos 15 and 16.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. There was no verbal response.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I did.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—No, you shook your head. You didn't say no at all.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I certainly heard leave denied.12:12:006098Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 26, which relates to nuclear actions.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 34, inserting the race power.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 39 and 40 relating to declarations.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 35 to 38, 41 and 42 as well as opposition amendments Nos 10, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 all relating to intention to commit damage.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—A number of those have already been refused leave. For those remaining that have not been refused leave, is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would acknowledge that, given the circumstances we are operating in under the guillotine, it is possible that the government, though refusing leave for questions to be put separately, might well give leave for amendments to be put grouped.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—For what?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—To put amendments grouped.Senator Hill interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, I gave an incorrect—Senator Carr interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Carr!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The point of order I was taking was the technical point of order that it is competent for a senator to seek leave for a different grouping of amendments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes. I did give an incorrect ruling then.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And I note your comment—I think it was your comment—that leave had been refused for some of the questions that leave had been sought for.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, and I have just said that I gave an incorrect ruling. Therefore, for all of those that Senator Bolkus was seeking leave for in a group, is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 39 and 40, 43 to 45 and 47 to 49, all relating to ministerial declarations.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 46 and particularly opposition amendment No. 52, amendments which do away with bilateral agreements.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question has to be divided in relation to No. 46, because the question there would have to be that a clause stand as printed. Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 52, which does away with bilateral agreements.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Opposition amendments Nos 55 and 57 involve public participation. I seek leave to move those.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will now move to—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I have got a few more, you may have noticed. In fact I have probably got another 50 or so. I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 71.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment Nos 76 and 77, which provide for documentation to be published.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 80, which, together with a previous amendment which I did not move, controls nuclear actions.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted.BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 82 and 88, which relate to disagreements with states.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You will have to put No. 82 separately. Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted for No. 88?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 92, which ensures commercial-in-confidence cannot be used as an excuse.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment Nos 94 to 96, relating to EISs.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 99.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. I did not hear that. Who denied leave, please?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The minister.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The minister for the environment?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Thank you.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I have got to say this is a bit like doing aerobics. I seek leave to move opposition amendment Nos 100 to 103, which do away with all these processes of exemption.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 104, Senator Allison, which does away with limits on publication.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. I believe I heard leave being denied by the Democrats. Could you please ascertain if that is so, and put it on the record?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I heard one voice saying that leave was not granted. That is all I have to hear. I do not have to identify whose voice it is.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Let that be on the record.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. Let it be on the record that Senator Brown is once again misleading the Senate by trying to suggest that it was the Democrats.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—The point of order is that Senator Brown is trying to mislead the Senate by suggesting it is the Democrats that are denying leave.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam Chairman, on a separate point of order, can I also ask: I have already indicated that Senator Brown was misleading the Senate by doing that. If he wishes to continue to try to falsely accuse us of doing something we did not do, then I will continue to—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam Chairman, I also raise a point of order in relation to the operation of the guillotine. This process of deliberately drawing out the time available, as the opposition is doing at the moment: does that actually mean that the time that is allocated for debating forestry issues, which is up next, is being reduced by this process?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The time for debating clauses 38 to 42 will complete at 1.30 p.m. or after 1½ hours, whichever occurs first.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Bartlett has used the device of a point of order, contrary to standing orders, to make a—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Spurious.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—A spurious political speech, but—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order is this: you have not entertained anyone else doing it; why did you entertain him?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Excuse me, Senator Faulkner. That has come very close to reflecting upon the chair. There have been many spurious points of order raised today. There is no point of order.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Bartlett asked the chair if the forestry matters, which are coming up next, were having time taken away from them by the Democrats' application of the guillotine. I did not hear your ruling on that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Brown, once again you are misleading the Senate by totally and utterly misrepresenting what is happening. Under standing orders, when I am misrepresented I have a right to indicate that I am being misrepresented—and obviously deliberately misrepresented.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is a debating point. I now move to the consideration of clauses 38 to 42.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 105 and 109, protecting world heritage.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.12:20:006101Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 110 to 113.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 110 to 113.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 114 and 115 which, together with Nos 110 and 113, would have protected against international obligations.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move opposition amendment No. 116, to better protect the environment.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. I wonder if the Clerk could provide for the Senate details of the number of occasions on which Senator Hill has denied leave this morning.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is not an appropriate request. I am sure you will be able to find out from the Hansard . We will now move to clauses 38 to 42.12:21:006101Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move opposition amendments en bloc.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You can only do that by leave.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to move them en bloc.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—No.Leave not granted.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam Chair: is it a fact that the government is now denying opposition parties leave to move any of their amendments to this legislation?BH4HILLSenator Hill—You wait till the next lot.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is not my responsibility whether leave is granted or not, Senator.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I draw your attention to the comment made by Senator Hill, which was, `You wait till the next lot.'10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Which standing order are you taking a point of order on?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I am taking as a threat to the processes of the Senate that Senator Hill has basically said to us that we will have as much luck moving them next time, and that does pre-empt your ruling, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. I am moving to clauses 38 to 42.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. When the Leader of the Opposition asked if the government was using the guillotine mechanism to deny the opposition's amendments be put, Senator Allison interjected and said, `Yes, that is the case,' in the compliant way the Democrats have with this government process.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The point is that I wanted that on the record.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are now trying to move clauses 38 to 42 to which the government has an amendment.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. Standing order 142 quite specifically outlines the operations of the guillotine. Draconian as they are, they also refer to the question of amendments which have been circulated two hours at least before the expiration of the allotted time.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, that is only for government amendments.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Madam Chair, it indicates by reference to government amendments `any other question requisite to dispose of the business before the Senate or the committee'. I put it to you, Madam Chair, that that allows Senator Bolkus to move the amendments on behalf of the opposition en bloc. If it is not the case, Madam Chair, can we have the reasons spelt out?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is only the government amendments, and the wording that you read out relates to machinery matters such as `That the bill, as amended, be agreed to'.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. Then you would not even be able to put government amendments, because—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, if you read the standing order—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I have not completed my point of order, Madam Chair. I have not even started my point of order. The guillotine that was moved and passed this morning—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, what is your point of order, please?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I am explaining it, Madam Chair. I do not think you can make a ruling on it unless you hear me explaining it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I would like you to quickly get to the point of order and not debate it.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I may actually need 60 seconds to do this. It follows on from Senator Carr's point of order, and that is that, if one was to take guidance from the actual guillotine resolution passed this morning, then there is no reference even to government amendments. If we include government amendments in terms of the guillotine then you have to also include any other amendment that was circulated and is before the chamber.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is what it says.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is exactly what it said. But if you are going to take this literal interpretation of the guillotine and say that it deals only with the bill, then we have no capacity within the format of the guillotine to actually deal with Senator Hill's amendments. We either deal with one lot or we deal with the whole lot.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The guillotine relates to the allotment of time and standing order 142(4) requires that at the end of that time allotted the chair will put any amendments circulated by the government at least two hours before that time. If you disagree with my rulings, then you take the appropriate action.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam Chair: the government actually moved its amendments after the allotted period of time—after 11.30 a.m. If they can move their amendments after the allotted period of time, then so can the opposition.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry; it does not say that. The advice that I have received is that the chair shall put any amendments circulated—and that means that they end up on your desks—by the government at least two hours before that time. These amendments have been circulated by the government more than two hours ago. Therefore, that is all that I am required to put. The remaining ones can be put by leave, and leave to date has not been granted. I therefore wish to move—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Chair, on a point of order in regard to your ruling—is it possible then for the opposition to move amendments in the later periods of debate, or do we do that by leave as well?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—If leave is granted.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—So basically Senator Hill can act as dictator in terms of what is before the Senate this afternoon?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator, if somebody has not granted leave—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It is outrageous, Robert, you don't want to review your position, do you?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—If leave is not granted, then people cannot move anything. We shall now move to clauses 38 to 42. I understand that, on the running sheet, the government has some amendments to clauses 38 to 42. Would the government like to move their amendments, please?12:27:006103Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Can I move the amendments standing in my name to clauses 38 to 42?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are seeking leave, are you, to move amendments 73 and 74 together?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Yes.Leave not granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I move government amendment No. 73:(73) Clause 41, page 42 (line 2) to page 43 (line 17), omit subclause (1), substitute:Regions that are RFA regions (1) Each of the following is an RFA region : (a) the area delineated as the Eden RFA Region on the map of that New South Wales Region dated 13 May 1999 and published by the Bureau of Resource Sciences; (b) the area delineated as the Lower North East RFA Region on the map of that New South Wales Region dated 13 May 1999 and published by the Bureau of Resource Sciences; (c) the area delineated as the Upper North East RFA Region on the map of that New South Wales Region dated 13 May 1999 and published by the Bureau of Resource Sciences; (d) the area delineated as the South Region on the map of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment South CRA Region dated August 1997 and published by the State Forests GIS Branch of the organisation known as State Forests of New South Wales; (e) the area delineated as the Gippsland Region in the map of that Region dated 11 March 1998 and published by the Forest Information Section of the De partment of Natural Resources and Environment of Victoria; (f) the area delineated as the North East RFA Region in the map of that Region dated 11 March 1998 and published by the Forest Information Section of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Victoria; (g) the area delineated as the West Region in the map of that Region dated 3 March 1999 and published by the Forest Information Section of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Victoria; (h) the area delineated as the South East Queensland RFA Region on the map of that Region dated 21 August 1998 and published by the Bureau of Resource Sciences.12:27:006103Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Can the minister please explain what that amendment does?12:27:006103Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am quite happy to talk for some time on the subject of forestry, because it is an important issue and it should be clarified. The government has taken the view that the process of regional forest agreements is outside of this legislation because they have been in themselves a most comprehensive process—I think one can fairly say the most comprehensive assessment of Australian forests in our national history. The government chose to take that course of action—which, I concede, was to adopt a national strategy that had been negotiated between the previous Labor government and the states—because it, for the first time, set out a framework within which there could be some certainty for forest industries but with a background of protecting a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and also to ensure that the forestry that was to take place in relation to native forests, on the balance—that is, that which is outside the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system—had to be conducted in both an ecologically and economically sustainable way.The precedent of that structure is regarded as world best practice. I can recall two years ago, for example, attending a CSD meeting in New York when WWF International held up the Australian precedent as the example that they would like to be achieved globally, because the reserve system was of course of a higher composition than the recommendations that they were putting down internationally. Also just as important is to ensure that the forest that is to be harvested is harvested, as I said, not only in an economic way—which is what has been considered in the past—but also in an ecologically sustainable way.We went about the task of conducting those assessments. I would be the first to acknowledge just how difficult that process has been. Nevertheless, those RFAs that have been agreed—the RFA for Tasmania, the RFA in Western Australia and two RFAs in Victoria, in Central Highlands and East Gippsland—I think have achieved the goals that Labor actually had set down for us in the National Forest Strategy. I am pleased to say that we are very close to completion of the agreement for the Eden region in New South Wales. We are close to another agreement in Victoria. We are finally making some progress on the balance of regions in New South Wales and with regard to the Queensland proposal. Whilst it has been politically difficult and it has been difficult in practice to implement, we are achieving those goals.After such a comprehensive assessment as that it makes no sense, to the government in any event, to then come back through this legislation and seek to achieve another path for assessment. That is why we have chosen to take the course of action of leaving the RFAs outside of the bill as such. I can see that there are others in the chamber who would argue that that is not the best course of action to have taken. We have a difference of view in this particular matter, but that is the basis on which we have taken this action.I make the point because I want to demonstrate, in case it is misrepresented by some, such as Senator Brown, as an attempt to avoid the responsibility for assessment and for making proper decisions in relation to natural forests, that it is quite the contrary. It is in recognition that there has been a parallel process of a comprehensive nature to carry out those assessments and to achieve the best possible outcomes both environmentally and economically. That is the reason we have moved in this direction.12:32:006104Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Here we get to the heart of this terrible business. The minister has just tried to say that the forests are outside of this legislation. If any honourable senators turn to pages 40 and 41, they will see that division 4 is given over to forestry operations. I want you to remember, Chair, throughout my delivery in the next 15 minutes, that everything I refer to here has changed since last week. Last week the Democrats were the defenders of the environment and the forests. Now they have become not only part of the problem but also the pivotal vote in cementing into place the destruction of forests around this country for the next 20 years.I read earlier from a letter from world noted scientist Dr Aila Keto of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, who is also representing another dozen conservation groups in Queensland. In this heartfelt letter that she sent to Senator Lees yesterday, the fourth paragraph reads:The legislation will entrench Regional Forest Agreements, locking in ongoing threats that have put so many forests and their wildlife on the brink of extinction, and it will be nearly impossible or too late to do anything about it for the next 20 years.In that 20 years, under this Democrat approved process, more than one million hectares of Australia's wild forests, ancient ecosystems and wildlife—the bird life, the possums, the bats, the insects, and the fish and the platypuses in the rivers draining from those places—will be threatened with extinction because of this dark Democrat deed being done today. This legislation would not be going through—this imprimatur of the Democrats on the regional forest agreements, as laid out in this legislation—except for their going to the Howard table last week to gain a little bit of power and, in the process, as entry to that table, dropping all of their past principles. Let me read from section 39 on page 40:The purpose of this Subdivision— Chair, you will understand if I interpret this now by saying that it is the purpose of this now Democrat approved subdivision—is to ensure that an approval—that is, a ministerial approval before something dastardly is done to the environment—under Part 9 is not required for forestry operations in a region for which—a regional forest agreement is in place. What we have here, with the approval of the Democrats, is the minister washing his hands, for 20 years at a national level, of responsibility for the great forests of Western Australia; the wild forests and their wildlife in Victoria and New South Wales; the forests of south-east Queensland; and the forests of world heritage value in such places as the Sticks, Huon, Weld and Picton valleys in Tasmania, the Great Western Tiers, the Tarkine, the North-East and the Tasman Peninsula, just to name some of them.Democrat approved chainsaws are now moving in on these forests, these ecosystems and this wildlife. When the Democrat approved chainsaws have gone in and felled the forests which the woodchippers want to take—and they are taking 90 per cent of the trees; Senator Murphy might have something to say about what an economic and resource abuse that is—and have sent those trees through the paper mills of Kyoto and Tokyo to the rubbish dumps of the Northern Hemisphere, now approved by the Democrats, the next thing is that the incendiaries will move in.We have before this Senate at the moment a change in civil aviation regulations to reduce the qualifications required for those pilots who take helicopters or light planes over these ancient forests—once they have been felled and the woodchippers have taken out what they want—and drop thousands of incendiaries to create a firestorm. This is happening at the end of every season in Tasmania. Thousands of hectares of these ancient forests have been felled—rainforests included. Indeed, the Democrat purpose here has become, through those incendiaries, to kill the cotyledons—the little growth opportunities for new rainforest trees—the root systems and any living fur, feather or flower left in this recently ancient ecosystem so that genetically manipulated eucalypts, fast growing for the woodchippers' purposes, will replace them. That is what the Democrats are giving their approval to.The Democrats have now, through their imprimatur on this legislation, approved the bringing in of 1080 to these wild forests to be sprinkled through the fire holocaust area. Any marsupials—wallabies, potoroos or possums—which hop in from adjacent forests to forage on these genetically manipulated little eucalypt seedlings will be poisoned—murdered by this Democrat action. Senator Bartlett from Queensland, who has been something of an advocate for Animal Liberation but is now a 1080 poisoner, is going to get up here in a minute and tell us that the Democrats have an amendment which they expect the Labor Party and the Greens to join with them in putting through here that will overturn this particular part of the legislation. But it is utter deception, and it is knowing deception, by the Democrats and they will not get away with it.Let me explain. They went to the table and said to the government, `We want different provisions for the forests. We don't want to be seen as responsible for the 20 years of destruction that Dr Aila Keto has referred to as coming down the line for the forests, with no federal powers to stop it.' This legislation removes all federal powers to stop it. But the government said no. These Democrat puppies, these poodles of Liberal politics, put their tails between their legs and accepted that. But they thought, `We must greenwash. Senator Hill greenwashes all the time and it seems successful. We'll try it. We'll bring in an amendment here which we will get the numbers for if the Independents agree,' knowing that it has no effect. That amendment is not going to go through the House of Representatives, and they know it.What the Democrats are doing here is giving their stamp of approval to the destruction of the forests for the next 20 years. I cannot accept this pathetic little effort to try to cover up their tracks and deceive their membership, conservationists or anybody else out there—and 87 per cent of people, according to recent West Australian polls, do not want this Democrat destruction of the forests. I cannot accept their little effort to try to deceive people into thinking that they really do care.Every tree in those forests that dies, every owl's nesting place, every possum, every endangered species—like the great Tasmanian wedgetail, which is bigger than the mainland species, or the white goshawk, which is down to 200 breeding pairs, as I told the Senate two days ago—is now pushed closer to extinction because of Senator Allison, who laughs over there in her seat; because of Senator Bartlett; because of Senator Stott Despoja, who stayed absent from this debate but put her signature on the bottom of this death warrant for forests; because of Senator Lees; because of Senator Murray from Western Australia; and because of Senator Woodley from Queensland. These are the environmental sell-out people.Senator Bartlett interjecting—Senator Allison interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—They are yabbering now—the poodles have been activated. They are down off the Howard lap for a moment while they try to bark at somebody else before they jump into another environmentally destructive lap somewhere further down the line. The trouble with their yabbering is that this is so serious. This is so dreadful for those forests. This is so awesome. And the Democrats have put their stamp of approval on it and have turned their back on the environment which, in the past, they have said they stood for.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—And the Tasmanian Conservation Trust? What a bunch of possums.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Bartlett intervenes with, `What about a bunch of possums?' I thought he would know better than that. This is a serious matter. But these people do not treat it seriously anymore, because the livelihood of ecosystems and the livelihood of grand forests right round this country was expendable to them to get a place at the table of power.Senator Bartlett interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—`Yep,' says Senator Bartlett. He agrees with that analysis because he knows it is true.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam Temporary Chair, I raise a point of order. Senator Brown is obviously willing to misrepresent what is in the legislation, but he is not entitled to misrepresent my statements.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Senator Bartlett, that is not a point of order. Would you please resume your seat.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—It is inappropriate for him to try to mislead the Senate and put things like that on the record.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, you know that is disorderly. You will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the debate if you believe you have been misrepresented, but it is not a point of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. You know that reaction underscores the guilt that Senator Bartlett, Senator Allison—still grinning at the back of the chamber—and the absent senators have about this matter. This is environmental perfidy. We all get involved in political cut and thrust but this is a core issue as far as we Greens are concerned. The Democrats have ostensibly been an environmental party and they have used that kudos right down the line. That is now dead. The Democrats are now part of the environmental problem of this country for decades to come. They now have their hands on the chainsaws. They are now in the cockpit of the bulldozers.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Driven by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—They are trying to blame the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. Let them answer for themselves. They cannot answer for themselves.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—They have already done it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—This interjecting and, I might add, environmentally despicable senator from Queensland is not going to be able to answer for himself. The people listen ing to this broadcast and the people of Australia can know this: the Democrats will guillotine this debate on forests as well, just the same as they will now chainsaw down forests everywhere that they exist in this country. The Democrats will try to say, `Well, we had one or two individuals in the conservation movement who were looking at specific clauses and lost their view of the wider environmental good,' but they are going to live to regret this day. The problem is that that is now what counts; the problem is that it is the forests of this country that count here.We have in this legislation at page 41 the death warrant for those forests, and it has now been signed by Senator Lees, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Murray, Senator Woodley, Senator Bartlett and Senator Vicki Bourne from New South Wales. They have personally signed the death warrant of millions of hectares of Australia's forests in the next 20 years with only this `out': if a federal government should move in those 20 years to do anything to protect those forests, the big woodchip corporations—to whom the Democrats now appeal for funds; they want to be part of the funding from the corporate sector—will be compensated out of the taxpayers' purse. That is what the Democrats have given their seal of approval to in this very anti-environmental measure.12:47:006107Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—A number of times during that last contribution—if you can call it that—there were frequent comments as to the laughter coming from the Democrats benches. I guess it is a bit hard not to laugh at such a joke, and it is a bit of a shame that someone that did have such credibility on environmental issues in the past has allowed himself to be reduced to that. As I said yesterday, it seems that it can happen occasionally in politics—people have been in it for so long that they forget what they are in it for. I guess that, as Senator Brown has been a politician for around 18 years or so, obviously he now sees his role as a politician as trying to out-compete people like Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray with vitriol, abuse and gross distortions. If that is the way that he wants to perform his role, that is fine. But it is a bit of a shame that someone who does have the opportunity to—and is seen as someone who previously was able to—put forward arguments on behalf of the environment is willing to sacrifice credibility for the sake of what he obviously sees as nothing more than a political opportunity to bash the Democrats.That, I suppose, demonstrates how much, sadly, he has just simply become a politician that is interested in nothing else but ignoring what he was originally there for—to try and protect the environment—and has simply turned into someone that is willing to seize a political opportunity to attack other political parties that he sees as his opponents. In doing so of course—as highlighted throughout his previous contribution—he is quite willing to misrepresent the facts, distort the facts and completely ignore the facts for the basis of what he sees as his own political campaign. He has obviously chosen to take on that role, and that is a shame, from my point of view, because I would rather see as many credible voices as possible in the parliament promoting and trying to save the environment. It is a bit of an unfortunate situation that he has chosen to ignore that role.I would make a plea to the conservation groups who work so hard for so little recognition in such a dedicated manner throughout the country to think carefully about this issue. There are clearly differences of opinion amongst conservation groups at the moment. Some of them are still reacting to the significant concerns that the Democrats identified, in conjunction with them during the committee process, with the original bill and have not yet been able to recognise that what the Democrats have achieved here is a major advance for the environment. If they wish to simply take a role of attacking the legislation as a whole and trying to knock off those advances, whether they like to or not they will be associating themselves with the sort of nonsense that Senator Brown is willing to go on with—that, somehow or other, the Democrats are responsible for clear-felling Tasmanian forests.Of course, for every mention of the word `Democrats' in his previous contribution—how we have now got our hands on the chainsaw and all of that sort of nonsense—you could go through that speech, cross out `Democrats' and put in `Tasmanian Conservation Trust', who have approved the amendments that the Democrats have managed to gain to this legislation as a significant advance for the environment. So he may as well be criticising the Tasmanian Conservation Trust—and all of those people in the environment movement who have praised this agreement—as equally having their hands on the chainsaws and as equally gleefully staffing the bulldozers.If he wants to try and divide the environment movement that he as a person has done so much to build up in the past, it is a bit sad. He has now got to a stage where he is willing to use his position as a politician to try and divide and weaken the environment movement that previously he has contributed so much to. That is a shame, but the real problem is in relation to an issue for the environment groups, and I would urge them to consider that. Certainly, as Democrats we have no problem with them calling it as they see it. I know that some of those who have concerns with this amended legislation are doing so. They are going through it and are willing to call it as they see it—as they understand it—as they try to avoid some of the absurd statements that Senator Brown makes. But they do need to be careful that their credibility as environmental advocates is not tarnished if they allow themselves to be associated with such nonsense. It is a shame that for political purposes that sort of risk and that sort of threat is being put to the environment movement.The issue that we are debating at the moment concerns forests. It is one of the areas where the Democrats, as much as anybody else, have highlighted that there is a failing in this bill. It is an issue on which the Democrats, as much as anybody else, have pledged to continue to fight to protect our forests. But the obvious fact, which has been confirmed by Senator Brown's speech, is that the destruction to the forests is happening now—it is happening now under existing laws—and this parliament is powerless to do anything about it. What we are doing in this legislation in many areas is providing opportunities, for the first time, for the parliament to do something about it. Senator Brown wants to prevent that opportunity and that extra avenue of activity from being able to occur. The Democrats will not ignore the advances that have been achieved in so many areas in protecting the environment through this overall set of amendments simply because we will not be able to ensure that the forests are protected. But we will continue to try and do that. As indicated, we will be moving amendments to put forests back into the bill and to include forests as a trigger.One of the useful aspects of this debate has been that it has served to rekindle the interests of the Australian Labor Party in the environment. Many Labor Party members who were in the chamber earlier today—not so many are in here now—were suddenly playing the role of being major supporters of the environment. Given that there has been such a lack of any policy position from the Labor Party on the environment since the last election, hopefully this will serve as an opportunity for them to develop a policy on the environment and to put forward indications about what they would do if they were in government. This debate gives them a chance to indicate their policy and to give public statements on how they would protect the environment if they were in government. They have spoken previously about greenhouse. This debate gives them a chance to get their state Labor colleagues in Queensland to come out and say, `We will support greenhouse being put in place as an environment trigger.' The Democrats would welcome them on board because it would give us an opportunity to put that into the legislation, adding to the other gains that have already been made in this area.As I have said previously, the Democrats do not say that the bill is perfect. As amended, we see it as a significant advance. It is equally important that we highlight the gaps that still exist. The issue of forests is one of those gaps that still exist and where improvements desperately need to be made. Attempts are being made to put around a big fabrication that the inability to address that issue some how leads us to a situation where the forests have even less protection than they have now. That is false. There are any number of indications and explanations that you could give to outline why so many aspects of this legislation are an improvement, but this was probably summarised quite well by Stephen Lunn in today's Australian with the simple headline, `New laws an improvement, but major concerns remain'. That would just about be an assessment of the Democrats' view: this legislation is a significant improvement, but we still have major concerns that we will continue to work on.The initial comment by Stephen Lunn, leading into his article, was, `The system was broke and needed fixing.' There is still some fixing work to be done, but at least we have a vehicle that will provide us with a better opportunity to make further advances in those areas where there are still significant concerns. This aspect of the legislation that we are debating at the moment deals with the issue of forests. It is an area where the Democrats will be moving amendments to take out the exemption clauses for forests in the bill. I have not seen any amendments put forward by the Labor Party in that regard but, given their new-found concern for the environment, I am sure they will be supporting us in our amendments.It is equally important, when looking at the whole issue of how we address the legislation and the issue of forests in future, to look at how we can best ensure that mechanisms are in place and that we have a legislative vehicle to make further improvements. This forests section that we are dealing with is a significant problem and it needs to be removed from the bill, because our forests are being destroyed. That is something that is recognised by all conservation groups, including all of those that have supported the amendments and the improvements that the Democrats have managed to achieve.We have had a lot of involvement through the committee process with conservation groups in the process of developing our amendments. Again, we have heard a lot today about the lack of ability to examine issues because of the need to ensure that these achievements are passed by the parliament before it rises. However, this bill has been subject to a significant number of committee hearings over a long period and the concerns addressed in the amendments that the Democrats have gained support for are based on all of the input from conservation and indigenous groups during the inquiry.Despite all the noise from Senator Brown, when we look at what he does in his role as a parliamentarian to try to advance the environment, and when we ask how many times he turned up to any of the committee hearings on the environment legislation to hear what the concerns of environment groups were, to ask questions and to try to put the government on the spot about what it was doing, the answer is zero. Senator Brown is quite able to come in here, be the politician and see how he can compete with Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray in the abuse stakes but, when it comes to doing anything other than abusing the Democrats and significant proportions of the environment movement throughout Australia, there is nothing else there; there is nothing else to fall back on.Let us actually look at what has been achieved by Senator Brown in his role in the Senate on environment issues and at how many amendments he has actually had passed in respect of environment legislation in his time here. Having examined his record on improving things for the environment, I can say that he has had one amendment passed in respect of environment legislation, back in 1997. All seven disallowance motions he has moved have been negatived, the urgency motion has been negatived, and the two references to committees have been negatived. His sole contribution, in terms of a concrete outcome, has been one amendment. Obviously, he makes frequent contributions in terms of hurling abuse at the Democrats, trying to attack the Democrats for political purposes and trying to now split the environment movement to get them onside as an attack weapon against the Democrats for his own political purpose.I guess we can look at how successful he has been in that regard as well. The other day he was calling on myself and Senator Stott Despoja—as everybody knows, we have indicated our unwillingness to support the tax legislation—and saying, `You disagree with this legislation; you should quit the party if you are serious.' I suppose that shows the obvious consequence of that: if every time you disagreed with other people and your colleagues you split the party, you would end up with a pretty small party pretty quickly. Perhaps that is why Senator Brown is in a party of one, and perhaps why he has achieved only one amendment in his time here.We are quite willing to work through our differences, and I hope the conservation movement are willing and able to work through their differences constructively. We certainly look forward to working with them in an ongoing fashion constructively in lots of the opportunities that have been gained through passing this legislation as amended. We are quite happy to hear their concerns and to take their criticisms about the areas that still need work, and we will do that constructively. If we have concerns or disagreements about their assessments, we will discuss that with them. That is the measure of the Democrats' work and the approach we are going to take, and we are going to keep doing that because we are here to get gains for the environment.13:02:006110Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I wish to make a few comments in respect of both what Senator Bartlett has said and this part of the proceedings. It is quite understandable that Senator Bartlett would take the position he has taken. It is basically a very pathetic response to the arguments put forward by the opposition and the Greens this morning. But Senator Bartlett is basically, I think, working on the basis of ignorance. He comes in here and tries to pull on this stunt and in doing so tries to argue that the Democrats still have a compelling conviction and commitment to environmental issues. As part of that, he says that they have achieved improvements.Senator Bartlett, you can quote any journalist you want, but you have had direct advice this morning from Associate Professor Robert Fowler, Director of the Australian Centre for Environmental Law, and he has put it to you that your deal does not deliver; your deal does not enhance protection. In fact, he put this to you:I reluctantly conclude that the amended bill is still inferior to the existing scheme of adhockery triggers for Commonwealth assessment and approval in relation to environmental matters.He has asked you to reconsider this particular aspect of the bill. This is a person who has been a guru to the green movement and to the Democrats. This is a person whom Senator Allison praised lavishly in hearings, and he has put direct to you that you have failed and that the pretence you are putting to the Senate and to the Australian public is a fraud. You do not understand constitutional law, Senator Bartlett. If you did understand constitutional law, you would have acknowledged that over 20 years from 1970—30 years—because of the environment movement, because of Labor in government, because of activities of people like Senator Brown and Senator Margetts, we have actually enhanced the scope for Commonwealth interest, activity and legislative capacity.Those cases that were fought through Tasmania and through Queensland have given the Commonwealth an enhanced role and capacity to act in respect of the environment. It is that law that you are now unwinding. It is that law that you are winding back. You have failed, Senator Bartlett, and you cannot run away from that. Unfortunately for the environment, for the whole morning the record will show that, while the debate has raged on in this place, the Democrats have sat there like dummies in a sideshow, like those clowns that you see with heads moving, nothing coming out of them—absolutely nothing of any relevance. That has been your role now and that, I must say, has been your role in terms of negotiating outcomes.You come here now and say, `Well, we would have considered a greenhouse trigger.' You had the chance to vote for one. You sat there compliantly while Senator Hill refused us leave to move it. There was a greenhouse trigger moved this morning. I sought leave to move it separately to the rest. Where was your voice, Senator Bartlett? Where was Senator Allison? Where was Senator Lees? Nowhere to be heard. Now, having sold out on the constitutional basis for Commonwealth action, having sold out on greenhouse triggers, what do you do? You come in here and move a stunt.Why wasn't this issue—if you are so committed to it—a core issue in your discussions with Senator Hill? Why do you raise it now as an afterthought? You know full well that the only way you could have organised delivery on this, that you could have delivered anything on this, was to have put it on the table with the government. The numbers in this place are not sufficient to deliver.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—They wimped.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Of course they wimped. They were not brave enough. I pay tribute to Senator Hill. He has conned them. He has conned them superbly. They might have lost, but the environment is the loser as well. Senator Hill can walk away with his legislation. He has set up a couple of committees and a couple of processes—he is happy. That is all he has had to give, a bit of embroidery. But you have been conned and you have sold out on everything that you have believed in.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senator Bolkus, would you please address your remarks through the chair.Senator Hill interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting they were conned. So you come in here and raise this as an afterthought. As I say, if it is a fundamental issue, you should have organised an outcome with the government. Why not recognise that the numbers are not in this place sufficient to force this on the government? Now you try and cover up your sell-out. That is all this is about: `let us try a bit of fluff in the air and let us see if we can divert people's attention and let us see if, through that, we can put the heat on Senator Brown and on the Labor Party and so on.'But just think of what you are doing. Firstly, you are imposing a guillotine on this debate. Secondly, you know that the only way it could have got up was through the government. But by imposing the guillotine on this bill, do you know what you are doing? You are ensuring that there is time for the RFA legislation to be debated in this place and to go through. That is the direct result of your complicity in the most undemocratic manoeuvre taken in this place for the 18 years that I have been here. You will ensure, through your complicity in the guillotine, that we will get RFA legislation. It does not matter what you do; it does not matter what we or the Democrats do.We have got amendments, and the amendments that we will move to the RFA legislation represent an advance on what you have agreed to in this legislation. You have signed up to this bill—all seven of you. You have signed up to a regime that we are still trying to improve and which we will move amendments to improve, in terms of linking it to national forest policy, in terms of tighter definitions and in terms of accountability in this place. Where were those amendments in your discussions with the government? They were nowhere to be seen.So do not come in here now, at the end of this debate, having sold out, having signed up, having not got anything out of the process with Senator Hill on the forests, and say to the world, `We're greener than the Greens and we're better than the Labor Party.' You were probably a kid when the Labor Party was pursuing constitutional cases in the High Court to expand Commonwealth power. When Senator Hill, amongst others, was out there belting the cause for states rights, promoting and protecting Joh Bjelke-Petersen whenever he wanted to use a bulldozer to go through anything, we had those debates in here. We had those attacks on the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans. We actually fought the hard fight. We do know about environmental issues, Senator Bartlett, but we also know about the complexity of them. We are not conned like kids in a creche in respect of this, as you have been.You should lift your standard. In lifting your standard, could I give you a bit of advice: it does you no service to go out there and say of the peak environmental movement, `We can't trust them,' as your leader said this morning. They cannot trust you, and with good cause. You reinforce that distrust by coming in here after the event, facilitating debate, facilitating the bringing on of the RFA legislation, having achieved absolutely nothing. We will try to enhance the government's position, but we will do that in the RFA legislation. We will not fall for your stunt here.13:10:006112Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The issue that we are dealing with here is in relation to forests. The reason that we are dealing with it is because it is one of the triggers that do not exist under this new legislation. The quite clear information that was provided in the report that was signed by the Greens and the Democrats in relation to this bill indicated that the original bill was abysmal in terms of how it was to be a vehicle to wind back the Commonwealth's responsibilities. That was clear, and there was a solid bank of opinion.The government and Democrat amendments barely change this abysmal situation. The only changes are those at the margin in terms of ensuring adequate and effective Commonwealth roles. They are marginal. It is in fact mere tinkering. I heard Senator Hill yesterday, in a comment by way of an aside, explaining about the number of amendments. He said, `Most of these are merely technical.' Basically, the minister, if I overheard him correctly, does not consider these amendments to be particularly significant. That is why he said it is okay to have them in large chunks. So the minister did not think they were particularly significant.The bill remains a major step backwards. There is no way of getting around this. There may be some groups who think that, for a particular issue, they might get better coverage than they have got now. But the overall picture involves a massive step backwards. To borrow the words of Senator Stott Despoja regarding the Reith-Kernot agreement in relation to industrial relations, it is draconian legislation only marginally improved. That goes for this legislation as well. Quantity should not be confused with quality. There may be 400 or so amendments that the Demo crats have achieved, but in terms of overall substance, they are inadequate. Maybe 20 per cent of those are what is needed for good environmental legislation and have been achieved, not the 80 per cent that has been claimed. The numbers do not actually relate to the quality of the concerns that people have.Make no mistake: the government still have a number of triggers—that is, a mere six—and it will not be hard to give them exemptions for every one of these. When we are talking about endangered species, if the issue focuses on the clearance of their habitat, the government will weasel out of it if they can.There is an urgent need, as many people have said, for a greenhouse trigger. Where are the commitments by the government to do other than consult with the states? I have not seen a single promise from the government about doing anything other than consult. With respect to land clearance and water, what do the Democrats claim? Merely that land clearing may be regulated if it affects a matter of national environmental significance. I cannot find a single amendment that relates to land clearing, water or the stating of the obvious situation—that something may be regulated if it affects the NES matter about which they are claiming to have achieved a partial result, even if the probability of significant land clearance being stopped is minuscule.As for the forests, which is what this bunch of amendments is about, the Democrats have not achieved anything. They have not even consulted with the Greens on the matter, despite knowing how concerned we are about the exemption of forests from the bill. This lack of consultation is now par for the course. Just consulting with a few select groups, when it should have been possible to consult all in the process, illustrates the tactics that the Democrats have learnt from the government—that is, pick off the groups that you think may be easily scared. If we are talking about threats, the major threat, as has been mentioned, comes out in this Democrat release, which says:It was clear to the Democrats that the ALP-Greens strategy was an extremely risky one. If Senators Harradine and Colston supported the bill, the Democrats would have had to start to argue for the very substantial amendments required on the floor of the chamber.Shock, horror! The release continues:Clearly, this would have exposed the environment to unacceptable risk. There was much to lose and the potential for real gains was ignored.The government said their priority in this section of the parliamentary program was the tax package. The government said that again and again and again. For public credibility, the agreement should have been that, if the government's priority was the tax package, the time priority should also have been for the tax package.We are not in a situation where this Senate has been debating the committee stage of this bill for days on end, even though it is important enough to have done so and the number of amendments and the complexity would warrant that happening. We are not in that situation. The gag was imposed before we even started on the committee stage of an environment bill. So, here we are dealing with, in my understanding, an unprecedented situation where a minor party in this case is using a gag in a situation where they themselves have argued in the opposite direction in the past. Where is the logic? I have thought and thought to see where that logic is. The only answer I can get is about as unkind as I can be at this stage, which is that in the recent past there has been a situation where the Democrats wanted to regain a seat in Western Australia. Of course, they have won that—to my loss, to the green network's loss and, I believe, now obviously to the wider network's loss because we know what they will do with that power. They have already signed up to it. With that loss of competition, temporarily, from Western Australia—hey, there is no need to be put down as the true green party and no need to appeal to that electorate because they think they have got it sewn up.I do not usually make statements like this but this is all I can think of that must have been in the minds of the Australian Democrats in reaching this decision. We saw yesterday quite clearly that they did not have to be pushed at this time. We saw they had a golden opportunity to say, `Let's listen to what Aboriginal groups, peak conservation groups and the wider community are saying and let's leave this committee stage until the August sittings. Let's make sure that the new bill'—which it is—`is then given a chance for consultation.' No, not good enough. The opportunity was here. It was not taken. So, it was a nonsense to suggest—and I believe it was an unfair threat to the environment movement in Australia to do so—that they had to make a decision then because otherwise something worse would happen. Unfortunately, the worse thing that is going to happen is that after the end of June we are not even going to have a say. I am certainly not going to have a say on these issues. There won't even be this concern by the Democrats that there might be someone else around from Western Australia at least to show where they are wrong in their statements and where they are not representing their electorates, which they promised to do. All of the statements, all of those leaflets, about protection of the forest are now clearly shown to be false because they have let down that community, let down that electorate, unnecessarily.The Democrats assert that the disallowable nature of the management plans will ensure stringency. I can only foreshadow that exactly the same thing could happen with any disastrous plans of management as is happening with this bill. We do not know now that the Democrats will not be thrown some crumbs in order to pass it because, when nobody that I know of can understand why this decision is being made now and rushed on and pushed on without debate and gagged, I cannot guarantee—and I do not think anyone can guarantee—what would happen if those disallowances come to the Senate. Since the plans of management can only be disallowed and not amended, those crumbs will be in some totally different area and the Australian people will be left with bilateral agreements that give the Commonwealth power.Note that the Democrats and government did not support the Greens' amendment to retain even a Commonwealth reserve power so that the Commonwealth can intervene in, say, a development project if state processes are totally inadequate. Madam Chair, as I say, the reasons behind this deal originally escaped me, but I do recall that Senator Lees went through a `pick me, pick me' stage in relation to the consultation and sell-out in relation to tax. The only thing that I can suggest is that after the `pick me, pick me' it became very hard to move away from the table. There are also people, I admit, from the environment movement who were attracted to that feeling of power at the table. It is very difficult for people in that situation not to see how badly they are being done over—and unfortunately they were.The environment movement, yes, has been divided in this process. It has not been the Greens dividing that movement. The movement was very clear and has put in hours of work. And I know because I have seen people in my office from environmental defenders and we have put in many hours. I have had a volunteer worker working with me day in, day out for months on this issue. You cannot talk to me about the work that has been done, because I know that that work has now been betrayed for the sake of the Democrats and some people from the environment movement who thought it would be good to be at the table, despite the fact there was no need for them to be forced to be there.If Senator Harradine or Senator Colston had considered that they wanted to pass this bill, the indications were not here yesterday. But even if they had, if I were in that situation I would not want my name on that bill. The government are laughing all the way to the bank. They cannot believe that the Democrats have put themselves in this situation of taking the heat for what in fact is the government's abysmal bill; and that is what has happened. The government cannot believe their luck. If this deal had been made, carried on and debated after the 30 June, there would be no clearer indication that it was a Democrat deal. At the moment the Democrats can pretend that they had to do it because something worse might happen if they had not. After 30 June there would have been no excuse and that is the reason why we are being forced to vote on this now; that is the reason why our forests will get no further protection and that is the reason why we are being restricted to six matters in a very narrow way that is worse than what exists now.The minister and other ministers in this government have clearly said they do not want people asking about wider issues if there was an export power involved. They do not want people, for legitimate reasons, questioning very bad decisions by state governments. The federal government do not want to deal with it and this is what has been achieved in this bill. It is no wonder it is being rushed through now. It is no wonder that the amendments by non-government parties have not even been allowed to be put. I have been here six years and I have never seen that situation in the Senate before. Okay, lots of things happen in the House of Representatives, but this is supposed to be the states' house. This is supposed to be the people's house. I have never seen a situation like this where cross benchers, in a party that is supposed to be about the environment, have denied the right of minor parties to put their amendments.Was this part of the original agreement and, if it was not, I believe the Democrats would have had the right to say to the government, `All bets are off unless you give other people the chance to put their amendments. This is not part of our agreement and all bets are off.' There is still the opportunity for the Democrats to say that all bets are off unless we have a proper debate; that all bets are off unless we have the chance to scrutinise these bills in a democratic way so that people can see what we have agreed to.But no, I have not seen this. Even if we voted on them all at the end of the time, all in a lump, how meaningless that process has become. I believe that the people from my own state of Western Australia will be feeling very betrayed as a result of what has gone on in the last couple of days. Some people thought there would be some deals associated, but I do not think very many people realised how bad this would be in relation to the forests, which is what these amendments are. In my state I know that people have very, very long memories.13:24:006115Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I just wanted to respond in relation to the forests and point out that the Greens have had so many opportunities in this place to make a difference on matters of forest protection and have taken up none of them. What I find so extraordinary is that, when the government brings forward environmental reform legislation which is designed to achieve better national environmental outcomes, it gets damned by the Greens without any willingness to contribute to developing a process to achieve a better outcome.We offered the Greens, as we offered the Australian Labor Party, the opportunity to work with us towards better environmental outcomes. I know that as a matter of principle Senator Bob Brown will not work with the government, no matter what the consequence. No matter what benefit he could get for the environment, he still will not work with the government to achieve that benefit. I do not understand it. I presume it is just something to do with his past when he made his name as a confrontationist and became a hero to the green movement as it then was. He is concerned that by now moving on and being prepared to negotiate better environmental outcomes would in some way put him at risk with his very small remaining constituency. I can only assume that that is what this is all about. I regret that. When we look back at the opportunities that Senator Brown has had over the past few years to achieve better environmental outcomes in this place we see that he has wasted the whole lot. I just cannot understand why the remainder of his green constituency stands by him.When I look at the advantages—and I see nothing wrong with this at all—that Senator Harradine, for example, has been able to achieve for Tasmania, I would have thought that Senator Brown, also being a Tasmanian senator and one who claims to be here representing an environment constituency, would have recognised that he had the opportunity to win some real gains for the environment. But has he ever come to our door and said, `I want a better green outcome and this is my proposition'? Of course not. When we come to him and say, `Do you want to participate in a process to achieve a better green outcome?', he washes his hands of us. In other words, to preserve his political stature with what remains of his constituency, he sacrifices the opportunity to achieve a better environmental outcome.I know that is Senator Brown and there is nothing much we can do about it, but I would have thought Senator Margetts, who I know has a genuine interest in the forests of Western Australia, would have approached this matter differently. I would have thought she would say, `If the government is going to embark upon a major environmental reform, this is a wonderful opportunity for the green parties to become involved in the process to seek to achieve some of our aspirations.' Is that not logical? Is there some major flaw in my logic? But of course they will not do so. In other words, she has been wedded to the Bob Brown style of politics which is not to work with governments to achieve better outcomes but to go out there and run the old battles of the past and to try to achieve what? Notoriety, personal notoriety. That is the aspiration of Senator Bob Brown and it is very much a regret to me that Senator Margetts is prepared to lock herself into the same political mentality and sacrifice the opportunities that she has had to achieve better green outcomes.How could negotiating with the government to achieve a better green outcome be described as selling out her principle? How does Senator Margetts know if she has never tried, if she refuses to participate in a process? How can she assume that the outcome would not have achieved any of her goals? That is the fundamental flaw in the position of both the green members of this Senate, and I think it is very much a matter of regret, not for me of course but for the environment, because there are people out there that have elected Senator Brown and Senator Margetts because they actually thought that they would make a difference. But as has been demonstrated today, they have not made a difference at all. They have wasted their time in this place. They certainly have looked for political notoriety, particularly in the case of Senator Brown, but they have achieved no outcomes for their constituency.They can stand up and say `We've fought the good fight, we belt the government every day', but that does not get a better environmental outcome. Why don't they join with the 4,000-odd Landcare groups and conservation groups and get out there into the forest and do something worth while for the forests.Senator Margetts interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Pull a few weeds, Senator Margetts. Get into a bit of revegetation. (Time expired)10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that amendment No. 73 moved by the government be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now automatically put amendment No. 74. The question is that the following amendment be agreed to:Clause 41, page 43 (line 19), omit "(3)", substitute "(1)".Question resolved in the affirmative.13:30:006116Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam Temporary Chairman, I seek leave to move Democrat amendments 1 to 3 and 6 to 10.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Temporary Chair, when I tried to move amendments after the expiry of time I was told I could not do so. I presume that same ruling applies now.Senator Hill interjecting—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I was told I could not seek leave after 1.30 p.m.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, I am advised that that is not the case; that because Senator Bartlett sought leave after 1.30 p.m., he is entitled to seek leave. Is leave granted?Leave granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—On a point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman: I want to have it recorded that I will be granting leave, despite the fact that this morning the Democrats have been complicit in blocking every Green and Labor amendment from getting the similar privilege of a vote.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—On a point of order, Madam Temporary Chairman: I want it recorded that once again Senator Brown has misled the Senate by implying that the Democrats blocked amendments previously.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, we must move on with the debate.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I move:(1) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 20 and 21), omit "taken in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements or".(2) Page 25 (after line 20), after Subdivision F, insert:Subdivision FA—Forestry operations24A Requirement for approval of forestry operations (1) A constitutional corporation, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not undertake forestry operations that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (2) A person must not, for the purposes of trade or commerce: (a) between Australia and another country; or (b) between 2 States; or (c) between a State and a Territory; or (d) between 2 Territories; undertake forestry operations that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (3) A person must not undertake in a Territory forestry operations that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to an action that is a forestry operation if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency, Commonwealth or person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency, Commonwealth or person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that: (i) the action is not a controlled action; or (ii) the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process), or the giving of an authorisation (however described) of such an action. 24B What are forestry operations ? In this Act: forest products means live or dead trees, ferns or shrubs, or parts thereof. forestry operations means any of the following done for commercial purposes: (a) the planting of trees; (b) the managing of trees before they are harvested; (c) the harvesting of forest products; and includes any related land clearing, land preparation and regeneration (including burning) and transport operations.(3) Clause 34, page 36 (after table item 13), insert:13Asection 24Athe environment(6) Clause 135, page 123 (after line 5), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) for the purposes of section 24A of forestry operations: (i) by a person for the purposes of trade or commerce between Australia and another country or between 2 States; or (ii) by a constitutional corporation; or(7) Clause 528, page 422 (line 1), omit "subsection 40(2)", substitute "section 24B".(8) Clause 528, page 427 (lines 5 and 6), omit the definition of regional forest agreement .(9) Clause 528, page 427 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of RFA forestry operations .(10) Clause 528, page 427 (line 11), omit the definition of RFA region .The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Bartlett be agreed to.13:37:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.48Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Coonan, H.* Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.13:41:006118Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Chair, I seek leave to move Greens (WA)-Australian Greens amendment No. 21 on sheet 1443, which returns to the minister the power to intervene to protect forest environments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question will be divided on that particular clause. Is there any objection?Leave granted.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Again I seek clarification. On the running sheet it seems that both the Australian Democrats and the Greens have put down the same amendments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is not an amendment. It is a request for it to be divided so that it can be voted on.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It is to oppose clauses 38 to 42.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes.BH4HILLSenator Hill—On my running sheet, the Australian Democrats have been listed before the Greens.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It makes no difference; it was whoever took the call first. Senator Bartlett ceded to Senator Brown. Is leave granted for clauses 38 to 42 to be divided?Leave granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that clauses 38 to 42 stand as printed.13:47:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)48Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Coonan, H.*Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—That now completes consideration of clauses 38 to 42. We shall move to chapter 5, which deals with diversity. 13:50:006118Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I seek leave to take amendments Nos 175 to 445 together, as on sheet DT218.Leave not granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I move government amendment No. 175:(175) Clause 176, page 160 (line 5), at the end of subclause (1), add "In preparing the plan, the Minister must carry out public consultation on a draft of the plan in accordance with the regulations.".I wanted to make a few comments on this chapter of the bill because it is the first conservation of biodiversity law at a federal level in Australia's history. We have had a situation where Australia is a party to the International Convention on the Protection of Biodiversity, and some years ago there was in fact a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states. Regrettably, the last Labor government did not take the one extra step and set up a legal framework at the Commonwealth level to implement its commitments under that strategy. We are very pleased that the Howard government has been prepared to take the initiative and provide for Australia its first law for the conservation of biodiversity.The amendments to the chapter improve the provisions for management of species and ecological communities and of protected areas, and also they continue the statutory office of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which I will come back to in a minute. The amendments provide for increased recognition of the important role of indigenous peoples in conserving biodiversity and managing jointly managed Commonwealth reserves. In particular, representatives of the traditional owners will have the power to withhold consent, within reason, to the appointment to the joint management board of a person nominated by the Northern Territory. The amendments provide increased transparency for listing species and ecological communities and for decisions about permits relating to them. Strict liability is applied to some offences or elements of offences. It will now be possible to list key threatening processes purely on the basis of scientific criteria. Whilst I mention key threatening processes, it also overcomes the technical deficiency in the previous legislation which meant that a process could not be listed if it crossed the boundary between state and Commonwealth jurisdictions. So some of those matters that were not listed on a technical basis could be reconsidered in the future.I would also take the opportunity to thank the volunteers, really, within the scientific community who have given us advice, and so much sound advice, in endangered species areas. In fact, the men and women on the advisory bodies that we have in this area—the biodiversity advisory body, our threatened species scientific body and threatened species advisory body—do play a very important part in the conservation of our biodiversity through the assistance that they give to government and in the community leadership that they provide. It is not sufficiently or often enough recognised, and I am pleased to do so today. Also, the capacity to proclaim conservation zones to afford interim protection to the areas while their values are assessed will be retained.I said I wanted to come back to the matter of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Although there has been much comment about the number of amendments before the chamber, in fact many of those amendments simply relate to reinstatement of that position. It is no secret that we in the government believe that there was opportunity within this legislation to streamline administrative structures in relation to environmental protection and as such to remove what some would say is simply another tier in the structure—that is, the position of the director as a statutory officer—and then have a more clearly defined line of command and responsibility between government and the decision making process in relation to national parks.That policy preference was consistent with the stand this government has taken across portfolios—that where possible separate statutory authorities should be removed. Regrettably, in the past so many have been created really as a cushion for government, and in particular for ministers, to avoid having to take direct responsibility. That is not the view of this government. This government believes that ministers should take responsibility for decisions that are made and not pass that responsibility off to third parties in the form of statutory authorities. Having said that, and still believing that it would be sound administrative restructuring, it was strongly objected to by the joint boards, to which we are a party, for, in particular, Kakadu National Park and Uluru.After sitting down with the traditional owners on a number of occasions—it is interesting, because I have heard in this debate those on the other side asserting that there was no consultation on this issue with indigenous people—I have not been able to convince them that the removal of the position would not be seen as some symbolic downgrading of the relationship. Of course, it was the director who signed the leases. Out of respect to the traditional owners, I therefore took the decision to not proceed with that proposed reform. Of course, to reinstate the position of director has meant that many clauses have had to be re-amended, and that makes up a large block of the amendments that are before us today. That is why we revised our opinion on this matter. It does in fact demonstrate that consultation does work and that this government is prepared to listen. Where a decision is going to cause distress, even though we might think it is sound administrative practice, we will vote to avoid distress.In relation to the Northern Territory representative, we are not moving from our strong commitment that the administration of both parks would be enhanced by a Northern Territory representative. But I would like to stress, contrary to what was asserted in the Senate yesterday, that we are talking about one person, one representative, on boards that have a majority of traditional owners. Furthermore, what we are providing through these amendments is that the nominated representative must be approved by the traditional owners—in other words, it will be with the consent of the traditional owners. We have provided that that consent will not be unreasonably withheld, because unfortunately in my experience third parties, including the ALP, put considerable pressure upon traditional owners in these matters. I listened to the ALP's presentation yesterday in relation to the Northern Territory, and it was a totally unjustified and unreasonable condemnation of the Northern Territory government. I have to say that, based on my dealings with the new Chief Minister in the Northern Territory, he is somebody who wants to build a good working relationship with indigenous Territorians, as they were called in the debate yesterday. I say that that is something that should be recognised and applauded.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice612061206120Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. When did Mr Entsch raise with the minister the issue of acid sulphate soils at East Trinity near Cairns? In what context did he raise this? Was the minister aware at the time Mr Entsch raised these issues with him that Mr Entsch had a substantial stake in the development at East Trinity going ahead? Was he aware that the proposed development would boost the value of Mr Entsch's nearby land holdings by up to 1,000 per cent?6120Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In many ways, yesterday was a sad day in Australian politics. The Australian Labor Party again tried to drag an individual through the gutter in circumstances where it seems that what he, a parliamentary representative, was doing was trying to enhance the environmental outlook of his home city, or near home city, of Cairns. It is true that Mr Entsch has taken an interest in the acid sulphate issue in the Trinity Inlet and I commend him for doing so. I would have thought that that would be the minimum that one would expect of a local representative. As I tried to indicate on radio this morning, the difference between Mr Entsch and some other representatives—I hasten to say, on the other side of the chamber—is that he actually gets out there and seeks to get done what he is complaining about. In other words, rather than just saying that there is an acid sulphate problem in Trinity Inlet, he was interested in helping to take remedial action. Again, I would have thought that he should be applauded for that.He has mentioned an acid sulphate problem to me on a couple of occasions—the occasions that I can recall were of an informal nature; I am not saying that there may not have been others. On the last occasion that I can recall, I was actually doing a joint press conference with Mr Entsch in Cairns, at a venue which coincidently overlooked the port area. I might say that the press conference was on a different subject matter. It was on marine conservation, which is a matter of great interest to the Howard government, but was of little interest to the previous Labor government. And I can recall Mr Entsch on that occasion waving his hands and talking about the acid sulphate problem. As well, I can remember him on a previous occasion, when we were walking to a party meeting in this building, talking about acid sulphate problems in the Trinity Inlet. As I said after question time yesterday, he in fact asked my department in the first instance whether we would support CSIRO officers attending a community based meeting on the subject in the Cairns area, and we were prepared to do so.I have not seen anything that would cause me to do anything other than commend Mr Entsch for his interest in a significant environmental issue and his willingness to get out there and seek to do something about it. If we can solve the issues of acid sulphate along the Queensland coast, we will be making a significant difference towards achieving a better environmental outcome. Those people, such as Mr Entsch, who are prepared to contribute to achieving that better environmental outcome, I commend for doing so and I only wish a few others would join them in that task.6121Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you failed to address the question: did you know, when the issue was raised with you by Mr Entsch, that he had a substantial stake in the development at East Trinity going ahead? Secondly, do you believe it is appropriate and in accordance with the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct that a government frontbencher should involve himself actively and publicly, including using the facilities of his public office, in promoting a development from which he will derive substantial financial gain?6121Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I still do not know that he has a substantial interest in this development going ahead. I did not know it yesterday and I do not know it at all. In relation to Mr Entsch working to achieve a better environmental outcome in Cairns by addressing the acid sulphate problem, I commend him for doing so, as I said a few minutes ago.61216121Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question is directed to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. With the passage through the Senate of the bill to allow a further 16 per cent tranche of Telstra to be privatised, will the minister outline some of the particular benefits that honouring this commitment will bring to people living in rural and regional Australia?6121Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Parer raises a couple of very important issues: one, of course, is honouring commitments and the other is helping people who live in country Australia. People who lived in country Australia were in decline for 13 years under the Labor government. The Labor government had no interest whatsoever in rural and regional Australia—services declined and people's businesses went down. But in that time, the Labor Party did sell some Australian icon assets. They sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, and good luck to them for doing it. But when they sold things, they used the proceeds for recurrent expenditure. They did not reinvest it at all.I am pleased to say, as Senator Parer has raised, that we have sold a further 16 per cent of Telstra and that money is going back into Australia. First of all, we are paying off the huge debt that Labor ran up in government. That debt did more than anything to increase interest rates and make life unbearable for people in the bush. So that is the first thing we are doing with it. But, in addition to that, we are spending about a billion dollars on tangible, positive assets, on positive things for people in rural and regional Australia. I am saddened that some of the media in my state and, particularly, the Premier, Mr Beattie—either he is lazy or not competent to understand—have not been able to comprehend just what this deal, the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra, will do for Queensland. On top of the original benefits from the social bonus, a new sum of $36 million will be available to Queenslanders as a result of the sale of Telstra. That will include some specifically identified initiatives, such as a further $20 million for the private sector incubators under the Building on IT Strengths program—something that will be great news for Queenslanders; a further $10 million for an enhanced telecommunications network under the Building Additional Rural Networks program; and, in my own area, a further $6 million to Queensland councils for the Local Government Online program. As well, Queensland communities will bid for some of the funds in the national programs, like the additional $250 million going to the Natural Heritage Trust, the $25 million that will extend mobile phone coverage along the national highways—and there are a lot of them in Queensland—and the $70 million for the Rural Transactions Centre program, which I am proud to be involved in.In relation to that RTC program, I am pleased to say that that is up and running with the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. The members on the advisory panel met in Canberra this week in fact and actually saw the historic vote, when additional moneys were provided for that program. That will be great news for country people; it delivers basic banking and telecommunications services. The benefits that we have initiated will also provide for SBS coverage in areas of Queensland, and Australia as a whole, which currently do not get it. They will be doing a lot of things. I cannot understand why Queensland senators actually oppose that, while Mrs Kernot, a Queenslander, said that `it was not good news' for Queenslanders to share another billion dollars worth of effort. Mrs Kernot said that it was not good news that Queenslanders could participate in that 500-branch rural transaction network. I cannot understand why that has happened. (Time expired)61226122Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. On what basis did the Prime Minister's office state, as reported on the news programs of the TV networks last night, that Mr Entsch's activities in relation to the proposed NatWest development at East Trinity in Cairns were a response to the concerns of Mr Entsch's constituents rather than an attempt to further his own interests? How can such an assertion be made with any confidence? Isn't this precisely the problem which the Prime Minister's code of conduct is meant to address—that is, to provide absolute assurance to the electorate that office holders are not pursuing private interests under the guise of their public responsibilities? Isn't that why the Prime Minister must demand Mr Entsch's resignation immediately?6122Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Anyone would think, from what they have heard from the Labor Party in the last 24 hours, that Mr Entsch did not disclose these properties. In actual fact, he did.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Oh, it was the directorships he did not disclose?BH4Senator HILL—No, you have moved on from the directorships, Senator. I am sorry; you are a week out of date. You have failed on that, so you have tried to dig up a bit more dirt. I must say that I have not trawled through his statements but it would seem, although it wasn't stated in a premise to the questions that were asked by Labor yesterday, that he did in fact disclose his interests in these properties. What is the purpose of disclosure at a parliamentary level? It is so that any apparent conflict of interest is obvious and political pressure can be applied, and similarly at an executive level. So it would seem that in fact Mr Entsch did what he was supposed to do.What has happened is that the Labor Party, in their attempts to drag him down, have noted the properties, have seen that he has been working with the community to try to reduce the consequences of acid sulphate in the region and they have said, `If the community benefits, Mr Entsch must benefit and therefore he should resign.' What a nonsense! But the failure to mention that he had disclosed the properties was not the only misrepresentation that we heard from the Labor Party yesterday. Implied in the question was that he had bought the property cheap—you know, a secret deal. I heard this morning that in fact he bought the property at a public auction. So where is the secret deal? Was that said? Furthermore, yesterday we were told the value of the property, a fairly substantial sum of money, and we were told the price of his purchase, and the implication was—and there was a huge disparity between the two—that there was some wrongdoing. In actual fact, I understand that he bought the leasehold, for which I am told he pays $10,000 a year, but the valuation that was referred to by Labor was for the freehold. All of this was not to disclose the truth; it was to muddy the truth. And they succeeded of course. What did they get on the television last night? They got what they wanted—suggestions that there must be something improper, because the journalists did not ask the Labor Party the full story.The Labor Party would obviously know all these things, because they have been into it in such depth. But did they put the full picture on the table when they made their accusations? Of course not, because that would spoil the story. It is time the Labor Party got out of the gutter and started developing a better policy, started trying to turn themselves into a real opposition, started trying to look just a touch like an alternative government. I know that in the first term you are frustrated and you go through these things, but it is now the second term in opposition. Sooner or later the Labor Party have to start looking at themselves. What do they want to be in the future? Oh, they are silent now, aren't they! Do they want to spend all their time in the gutter trawling for muck? Is that all the once great Australian Labor Party want to be? That is all they are demonstrating at the moment. (Time expired)6123Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that the question was about Mr Entsch's conflict of interest. Isn't it true, Minister, that even you have admitted Mr Entsch's failure to disclose his full interests in relation to Vervale and Cape York Concrete? Isn't it true that it is reasonable for any senator to raise the issue of conflict of interest here because Mr Entsch was using the responsibilities and the entitlements of his office as a parliamentary secretary to advocate a development in which he had a substantial interest and which would bring him a substantial financial gain?6123Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The assertion is that Mr Entsch has a substantial interest in the development. Is that the assertion?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You know what the assertion is.BH4Senator HILL—I did not hear that yesterday. Is that today's assertion?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If it goes ahead, he gets a substantial financial gain. That is quite clear.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill has the call to answer the supplementary question. Senator Faulkner, you should not be interjecting continuously.BH4Senator HILL—This Labor Party does not worry about the facts. It does not worry about the truth. For the first time, Senator Faulkner talks today about a development in which Mr Entsch has a substantial interest.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is true.BH4Senator HILL—I did not know he had a substantial interest in this development.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He has substantial financial interests. If it goes ahead, he has even greater financial interests.BH4Senator HILL—Does he have an interest?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Of course he does. That is the conflict of interest.BH4Senator HILL—What I know is that he wanted support from CSIRO in favour—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Of course he does, and you know it. Stop covering up!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are out of order behaving as you are at present.BH4Senator HILL—When Senator Faulkner has a weak argument he shouts. And the weaker his argument, the louder he shouts. Today he is shouting louder than ever. I know that Mr Entsch worked with a community group to address the issue of acid sulphate. That is what I know. And for that I commend him. (Time expired)61246124Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. The coalition government has demonstrated a considerable commitment to support for families and relationship support. Will the minister inform the Senate of the latest initiative of the government to assist Australian families?6124Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Coonan for the question, because this morning I had the pleasure, with the Prime Minister, of jointly launching the government's response to a parliamentary report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled To have and to hold . The committee looked at government funded family relationship services and talked to a variety of experts and stakeholders about how to improve them.What was unique about the report's recommendations was their attention to education and prevention strategies—that is, how can we help families stay together rather than just provide assistance after the families break up? Putting fences at the top of the cliff rather than only ambulances at the bottom is the way I would describe it. That focus on prevention rather than cure is one that we have endorsed wholeheartedly for some time, and we have been moving in that direction in a number of policy areas.The pilot voucher scheme which the Prime Minister announced today will enable couples who have notified of their intention to marry with a marriage celebrant to access pre-marriage education services. The pilot program will be for vouchers in a couple of areas of Australia, I think. In addition, a relationship kit will be developed which will assist people, particularly those in rural and regional areas, where they may not have ready access to pre-marriage education services. This initiative builds on the $15 million announced in the budget for marriage and relationship education services and also for the men in relationship education services.The administrative arrangements the Prime Minister has put together have brought the major policy areas for families and the programs into one portfolio, the Department of Family and Community Services. So the government is in the best possible position to develop a comprehensive response such as we have seen today in the government's announcements. Of course we believe that all families and strong families are crucial in maintaining a stable, cohesive and compassionate society. But, as the Prime Minister said today, we cannot legislate to make people be nice to each other. It would be really nice if he could legislate that—we might get a bit of better behaviour from the people sitting opposite us in the Senate, but the relationships there seem to be permanently fractured. Our challenge as a nation—not just as governments but as communities, families and individuals—is to try as much as possible to prevent family breakdown happening. We have a very important obligation to help families nurture, enrich and enjoy their relationships.Since we came to office, our government has delivered on its promises and increased significantly funding and services designed to strengthen and support families. That includes a mix of financial help through the tax and social security systems for around two million families with children. Our tax reforms will provide $11.9 billion in personal income tax cuts and $2.5 billion in additional family assistance. But government is not just about dollars and statistics; it is also about providing substantial support services to help families when they reach critical times in their lives, such as: marriage—getting used to living together and supporting each other; the birth of children—certainly the first child; young people going through adolescence, which is often a difficult time for families; finding a job. The services are for crucial times in families' lives.The education and prevention approach is not new to us. We are already moving in that direction by introducing programs in preven tion of youth homelessness, of youth suicide and of domestic violence. It is now supported across the political spectrum and accepted by most experts as a sound investment in the future of any country. (Time expired)61256125Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I direct my question to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister support the Prime Minister's rationalisation of Mr Entsch's breach of the code of ministerial conduct—that is, that his failure to declare his directorship in Cape York Concrete does not matter in view of the fact that he declared his beneficial interest in that company? Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that, had he not disclosed his beneficial interest, `then he would be in trouble—and he ought to be in trouble' and that `that would have actually been worse in my view because the real thing that matters is the dough you get out of it'? Does he agree with that statement by the Prime Minister?Honourable senators interjecting—6125Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There were some interjections in the last part of the question and I missed—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—From your side.BH4Senator HILL—I would not want to say from which side. I do not totally understand the first part of the question, because the Prime Minister accepts that Mr Entsch should have disclosed the fact that he was a director. That was a mistake. It was an inadvertent error that was made by Mr Entsch, and it has been made by others, including by a number from the Australian Labor Party in relation to their disclosures. What he has said is that, in the case of an inadvertent error, in all the circumstances he did not regard it as a hanging offence. If he had not disclosed his beneficial interest, then that would have clearly been another factor to take into account.6125Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Minister, what you are saying to the Senate is that, if Mr Entsch had not declared his beneficial interest, he would have been—according to the Prime Minister—in a lot more problems and that declaring his beneficial interest explains the fact that his failure to declare his directorship was not deliberate.6125Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is what is known as leading the witness, I think—particularly when the witness is not the Prime Minister. Anyway, to try to read the Prime Minister's mind, the Prime Minister has accepted that it was an inadvertent mistake. There is lots of evidence to support that. Is the Labor Party even suggesting that it was a deliberate omission designed to mislead?AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is no Rhodes scholar: that is what he said.BH4Senator HILL—That is right: he said that he is no Rhodes scholar. He is not lucky like you, Senator Carr—just because you are so smart! Or perhaps not so smart, now that I think about it: I will withdraw that, Madam President. I would not even embarrass Senator Carr in that way.AW5CARRSenator Carr—And you are defending him? A dope like that!BH4Senator HILL—It did not take long to abandon yesterday's accusations, did it? We seem to be back on the ones from a fortnight ago. (Time expired)61256125Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, my question is addressed to the Minister for Justice and Customs. In view of recent media discussion and the government's continued promotion of the proposed national DNA database, could the minister explain the privacy safeguards and the guarantees that will accompany this proposal? I am wondering whether the government has studied the implications of the widespread collection of personal genetic information in our society.6125Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for her question. It is true that the government does promote the benefits of a national DNA database as a part of its election commitment, which has subsequently been confirmed in the budget, to establish a system called CrimTrac. It is a system which will, by computer, link the databases of police forces around Australia and will therefore enable police, in pretty close to real time, to access the information they need to fight crime. One aspect of that—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—The Democrats are asking dorothys now, are they?7E4Senator VANSTONE—No, Senator Mackay; it is not a dorothy. I have a passionate interest in this matter. It is my policy area. I have a great interest in CrimTrac and I welcome your former government's support of it. It is important to note that the opposition has welcomed the development of CrimTrac and have been supportive of it. Part of CrimTrac is the national DNA database about which Senator Stott Despoja asks. She asked about the privacy safeguards in relation to that. The safeguards in place at the moment would be those in the forensic procedures bill which was passed just before the last election.Senator Stott Despoja may be aware that there is a Model Criminal Code Officers Committee report dealing with these matters and trying to shift towards a uniform approach around Australia for dealing with this. That report will be referred to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Anybody—and that, of course, includes the Democrats—is welcome to participate in discussions on that final report. The report deals with a range of things: the types or categories of persons from whom DNA should be able to be collected; the mechanisms for protection, and the appropriate mechanisms for disposal once the DNA has been used for the purpose for which it was collected; and the restriction of it to the use for which it was collected. I am happy to send Senator Stott Despoja some copies of that report if she does not already have them.The last thing that I want to point out in relation to this is that the DNA that the Commonwealth is looking at collecting will come from 10 sites. One of those sites will identify the gender of the person from whom the DNA comes. The other sites are, I am told, referred to as `junk' sites—that is, they tell you nothing about the person from whom the DNA comes. They do not tell you their hair colour, eye colour, height, weight or anything. In that sense they are far more impersonal than a description that might be distributed over the radio: `Watch out for someone six feet five and weighing this much, with blond hair and brown eyes.' They do not tell you that kind of information.What these sites will tell you is that it is a particular person. If you can then match that DNA with another piece of DNA all you can say is that this DNA is from the same person. In a sense, it is a very up-market fingerprint that gives the police much wider opportunities than fingerprints do to access information as to who was at the scene of a crime. It will be particularly useful for local police in fighting crime. In the case of, for example, burglaries, the United Kingdom have more than doubled their clear-up rate of home burglaries. That is because, instead of having five police stations investigating a burglary in which the same person was involved, they suddenly know the same person was involved and those investigations can be put together. Of course, when you put all of the resources together, you often find you are much more efficient. Of particular interest to women is that the DNA database will be particularly useful in sexual offences. That will be of interest to men as well because there are numerous examples where men have been improperly charged with rape or accused of rape or a sexual offence and DNA has proven they were not the perpetrator—(Time expired)6126Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister mentioned a standing committee. I am wondering whether the minister or the government has had the opportunity to review the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 . I would be curious as to the minister's response to that bill and its recommendations. Can I assume from the minister's answer that she believes it is now time that the government supports and introduces comprehensive legislation to protect genetic privacy—that is, to protect people's personal genetic information?6126Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I do not have much more than a passing familiarity with the bill that Senator Stott Despoja introduced in the last parliament. I have not been able to ascertain whether she has reintroduced that in this one; she may have. I understand that, in the first bill, in the sections dealing with privacy, storage and collection, it provided `unless otherwise provided by law'. In that case, the bill that Senator Stott Despoja was proposing would stand but would not in itself prevent a national DNA database taking place. Of course, that is providing it had parliamentary support, and it would not get that unless appropriate safeguards were there. As to the matter whether further legislation is needed, I will refer that to the Attorney because I suspect that would fall in his portfolio responsibilities under the arrangements we have.61276127Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Hill representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, has failed to declare his 50 per cent shareholding in Sestial Pty Ltd? Can he explain why, given that Senator Heffernan has been a director of the company since it was established in June 1997, he did not declare his directorship until January this year? And why, in a notification of alteration lodged two days after Mr Entsch's problems, he again declared his directorship in his Sestial Pty Ltd but failed to declare his beneficial interest? Is this another case for the Rhodes scholar defence?6127Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It will not surprise the Senate that I know little about Senator Heffernan's personal affairs, but I expect there would probably be just as valid an explanation as I have given in relation to Mr Entsch. What I am surprised about, seeing Senator Ray asked me whether I am aware of things, is that Senator Ray was not aware that this property of Mr Entsch's was some 10 kilometres by road away from what he refers to as the development site. Was he aware of the suburbs in between and was he aware that it is not in fact a current development at all?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Hill will have an opportunity, if he requires after question time, to add to his answer—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Good, you will have the opportunity to apologise.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Alston!UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—He was not asked specifically about Mr Entsch—and I find the information both erroneous and inaccurate but nevertheless interesting—but he was asked about another specific topic. There is not much point in answering previous questions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I draw your attention to the question that Senator Ray has asked.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, the point I was making, which I think is relevant to the question, is there have been so many misrepresentations and so many inaccuracies, in an effort to drag reputations through the gutter, by Senator Ray. It is what he excels at. In fact, it seems to be his devoted purpose in the ALP these days. Apart from pulling the puppet strings of Senator Faulkner from time to time, all he does is engage in muckraking. That is all he is here for in this place and, what's more, he is proud of it. If he came in here with accurately based accusations occasionally, we might take him more seriously. But, on the little I know about the Entsch matter, he obviously knew a lot more yesterday than he disclosed to this chamber. He deliberately withheld the information that was relevant because that would have demonstrated that he did not have a case. In such circumstances, he ought to give this game away.61276127Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Minister, what action is the government taking to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people in custody and incarceration?6127Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Crane for his question and for his continued interest in my portfolio. This is a very serious issue for which vigilant approach is necessary to overcome the potential tragic consequences highlighted by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I have read in today's media the reported comments of ATSIC commissioner Colin Dillon, the commissioner with portfolio responsibilities for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Madam President, you will recall that I appointed Commissioner Dillon, then Inspector Dillon, to the ATSIC board in 1996 because of his background as a Queensland police officer and the valuable experience he could bring to the job as ATSIC commissioner. I share his reported concern. He said:So much was spent in financial resources to set up the royal commission and we have very little to show for it today.It is now 10 years after the royal commission. It was established under the then Labor government, which spent $400 million implementing the recommendations. More than three-quarters of this funding went to ATSIC. The rest went to the states and territories and other agencies to implement strategies and programs which would overcome deaths in custody. Tragically, despite this expenditure, deaths in custody continued to rise, from nine in 1992 to 21 in 1995. The coalition government has taken a different approach in working with states, territories and indigenous communities to overcome the problems which lead to deaths in custody.Any death in custody is a tragedy. No-one likes to talk about statistics when they represent people's lives and the effect on their extended families. However, it is interesting to note that in the past three years the figures have started to decline. While it is too early to be conclusive, the figures are certainly encouraging. It is also worth noting that in 1997-98 the rate of deaths among indigenous prisoners per 1,000 was 3.72, which was lower than the rate of non-indigenous prisoners, at 4.59 per 1,000.The issue of indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system was a focus of the 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody convened by the Commonwealth government. The summit involved the states and territories, which are responsible for the administration of the criminal justice system. Initiatives agreed to by the states, territories and indigenous organisations arising out of the summit included the development of targets in each jurisdiction for reducing this overrepresentation. These initiatives will be revisited at the next Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs meeting, scheduled to be held in September this year.While the state and territory governments are primarily responsible for the criminal justice system, the federal government is committed to addressing the underlying causes of incarceration because that, after all, is the basic reason for this occurrence. The royal commission found that the underlying cause of indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is the social and economically disadvantaged position of indigenous people.The Australian government remains committed to addressing this disadvantage and enabling indigenous people to participate fully in Australian social and economic life. The Australian government funding of indigenous specific programs is now the highest on record, with $2.2 billion programmed to be spent in 1999-2000. The government's policy focuses on improving basic services such as housing and infrastructure, access to education, training and employment opportunities, health care and economic empowerment. We believe, by doing this over the next few years, we will enable indigenous Australians to share in the economic opportunities that this government has presented for every Australian.61286128Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister explain why the latest available information from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission shows the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, to be a shareholder and director of Cooba Pastoral Company, yet Senator Heffernan's declaration of pecuniary interests makes no mention of this company? Is it true that the Cooba Pastoral Company owns five properties in the Junee area which, based on current property values in that area, would be worth approximately $1.8 million? Will the minister seek an urgent explanation from Senator Heffernan about what appears to be a flagrant breach of the Senate's disclosure requirements and the Prime Minister's code of conduct?6129Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—All the signs of a desperate political party opposite are here today—all the signs of a party that is failing in opposition and unable to develop policies and, as Senator Sherry said, is not even entitled to develop policies but has to refer that to the party conference for guidance from the faceless men and women; all the signs of a leaderless party; and all the signs of a party frustrated by the fact that there is a government in Australia now that is responsible for the best environmental outcomes and economic outcomes for decades.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Yes, as I said, environmental outcomes. What am I talking about? The NHT—the largest reinvestment in the natural capital of Australia.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. You would probably be aware that I did not ask a question about environmental outcomes. I wonder whether you could direct the minister to answer the question I did ask.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will draw the minister's attention to the question, but I would point out that there are so many interjections that it is probably difficult for him to concentrate on the question and not get distracted.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I was turning my mind to the motive for the muckraking—to the motive for the Labor Party having declined to this gutter level after its once proud history. I can only put it down to the fact that it is embarrassed by the success of the Howard government. I was talking about the environmental successes in terms of the largest reinvestment in our natural capital in Australia's history—now to be the largest investment in air quality in Australian cities in Australia's history—and a recent decision to treble the investment in greenhouse abatement measures. Of course, the economy is better known—an economy that is the envy of the world. The opposition is frustrated by the Howard government being able to put before this parliament a new taxation system.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not even attempting to answer the question I asked of him. If he cannot answer it, he should take it on notice and sit down, and we will get on with question time. But you should not allow him to ramble and rave like this about totally extraneous matters.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, your answer should be more relevant to the question that was put to you, and I draw your attention to it.BH4Senator HILL—I am sorry, Madam President, I thought that I had answered this question when I answered the previous question, so Senator Faulkner clearly was not looking for a serious answer. It occurred to me, therefore, that I should look to his motive, and his motive is the embarrassment of the failure of his party. It is reasonable, therefore, for me to drive that home a little. If I were in the Labor Party looking at the success of the Howard government, I would feel uncomfortable as well, but at least I would look at my own deficiencies and I would start trying to develop some policies—start turning myself into a proper opposition, start looking like an alternative government. When there is some real leadership in the Australian Labor Party, they will be some of the issues that you will start to address.6129Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Given the minister did not even attempt to answer the question, perhaps he could take the question on notice. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister also seek an explanation from Senator Heffernan as to why, if his directorship of Cooba goes back to 1977, he failed to mention his interests in Cooba not only in his original declaration of interests on 14 October 1996 but also in his two subsequent notifications of alterations—in January this year and as recently as 9 June this year—after Mr Entsch's affairs were made public? Also, Minister, given your earlier statements and those of the Prime Minister, how does Senator Heffernan stand if he has a beneficial interest in Cooba?6129Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have said that I know nothing about Senator Heffernan's personal affairs—surprise, surprise!RF4COOKSenator Cook—Find out! Find out!BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, the Labor Party do not want me to find out. What they hope is that the accusation will appear on tonight's television and that it will damage the reputation of Senator Heffernan. If they wanted to know the truth, they would find out the truth. If they find it so easy to establish untruths, it is not so hard to establish the truth occasionally. But of course the truth could spoil the politics and, when you are an opposition capable of no alternative role in opposition but muckraking, then we get the sort of questioning that we are getting today.61306130Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I refer to the launch today of Towards a National Family Strategy. I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: what action is proposed for marriage education in schools?6130Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. I am looking in my brief and I do not see anything from the Attorney-General giving me any detail of what proposals, if any, there are. I will refer your question to him and get an answer for you today.6130Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Thank you. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I congratulate the government on its response to the Andrews report, which was a bipartisan and unanimous report. Could you also take on notice how the amounts of money will be distributed in respect of the various states and territories?6130Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Yes, Senator.61306130Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Is the minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, who likes to be known as the Prime Minister's cardinal and his eyes and ears in the New South Wales Liberal Party, has been actively assisting National Party members to agitate against the government's announced crackdown on the abuse of trusts by taxing them as companies? Can the minister confirm that Senator Heffernan himself is the named beneficiary of no less than six family trusts and one unit trust, in addition to being a director or shareholder of three trustee companies? Isn't there a serious conflict of interest for a holder of significant interests in, and a beneficiary of, a network of trusts to use his position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet to lobby against the government's policy to tax trusts as companies?6130Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Two questions ago, I said that I know nothing about Senator Heffernan's personal affairs. But what I can tell the senator is that Senator Heffernan is an excellent representative of New South Wales and he has been a fine contributor in this chamber. He is highly respected within Liberal circles in New South Wales, he is doing a wonderful job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet, and we are proud to have him as one of the team.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Labor senators should note that one of their own senators is seeking the call.6130Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question to Senator Hill. Two answers ago, you declined to find out anything about Senator Heffernan. Could you find out the answer to this question and report it back to the chamber as quickly as possible: has Senator Heffernan lobbied the Prime Minister about the government's intention to tax trusts as companies with a view to watering down this important crackdown on the abuse of trusts?6130Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No.61306130Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of recent DETYA figures which reveal that more than a third of undergraduates enrolled in 1992 had dropped out by 1997—one of the highest non-completion rates in the world? Is he also aware of similar findings that reveal postgraduate students are not completing their studies, with as many as 90 per cent of postgraduates dropping out? Is he also aware of a study this week that argues that the failure rates in Australia's higher education institutions may indicate that some students need greater support services and structures? If so, why is the government persisting with its voluntary student unionism legislation, which will result in a dramatic decline in student support infrastructure?6131Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can say that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs did conduct a survey in relation to 1992 students and found that the overall drop-out rate was 33.9 per cent. This is a problem which has been around for some time and is of concern to the government. There are a number of reasons why tertiary students are not completing their courses. I might say at the outset that the federal government is working with state governments at the MCEETYA level to investigate what is being done in relation to careers information—because that is the first thing to look at: are students embarking on the right courses? That is a very important thing indeed.One of the steps forward in this regard has been in the vocational education and training sector, where we now have a record number of students involved—I think somewhere in the region of 114,000 students.AW5CARRSenator Carr—A regular drop-out rate as well.9X5Senator ELLISON—What that is doing—and Senator Carr might want to listen to this—is addressing students into the areas where they are best suited. One thing that the study did find was that the top 10 per cent of the TER students had a higher completion rate than the lowest 10 per cent. I think that could well tell us something.There is also the question of the overall job market, I would suggest, where we have the lowest unemployment in this country since 1990 and greater opportunities for those young people who are studying to enter the work force; and they might well make the decision that they will switch to work rather than complete their studies.As to the student support services, the experience in my state has been that voluntary student union fees have not seen any diminution in the sorts of services that Senator Stott Despoja is talking about. Just this year I was at the orientation day for the University of Western Australia and saw there services provided by the Guild of Undergraduates offering counselling and support services, which has been referred to by Senator Stott Despoja. It does not necessarily follow that voluntary student union fees will see a diminution in these sorts of services. In fact, some of the guilds in Western Australia are doing quite well with the membership because they are offering their students tangible benefits for being a member rather than compelling them to join.The non-completion rate is of concern to the government, and it is one that the federal government is reviewing and working with the state and territory governments to address. There are a number of issues that impact on non-completion. I think the prime cause of that is perhaps students leaving school and going into the wrong sorts of courses, and we have to look particularly at the careers guidance that is offered to younger students. That study did find that younger students are more likely to complete their courses than older students, and I think we also—not to forget them—have to address our attention to older students and the sort of guidance they get before they embark on the relevant course.6131Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Is the minister aware that careers counselling is one of the services provided by student organisations which the legislation will completely emasculate? Is the government, or particularly the minister, also aware of the Dobson and Sharma report that actually talks about what a lack of support structures means for students? Is the minister also aware that these very institutions to which he referred in Western Australia are the very institutions that provided evidence to the Senate committee looking at this legislation that concluded that there was a diminution in the services that are provided as a result of VSU? When will the government and the minister ensure that real equity and access are in our higher institu tions by restoring sustainable funding and allowing student representation and services to continue?6132Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The careers guidance counselling that Senator Stott Despoja refers to is that offered on the campuses. I think it is very important to look at that sort of counselling taking place before people go to university—before they are enrolled. Whilst I acknowledge that careers guidance counselling has a role on the campus, it is a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. My experience in Western Australia is not one of seeing any decline in student support and services, and that relates to career guidance counselling.I think that what we have to look at in that particular area is what is being done in the schools, because that is where you really do have to give the concrete guidance that is needed to young people, and that of course also includes the vocational education sector. We have seen that growing. Some 30 per cent go on to tertiary education; 70 per cent do not. We have to make sure that we do not have an inordinate percentage going on to higher education who are not suited for it.61326132Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that amongst the very few duties that the Prime Minister has seen fit to allocate to the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, is that he `approves legislation prior to introduction into parliament'? Can the minister assure the Senate that there is no instance of a conflict of interest between Senator Heffernan's approval of any piece of legislation in his role as Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet and any of Senator Heffernan's private financial interests, either those which he has disclosed or those that he may have failed to disclose to the parliament?6132Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I am sorry; I was distracted by the press release from the Mayor of the Cairns City Council in relation to Mr Entsch. He said:As a life member of the Labor Party, I find it refreshing that a man from the other side of the political fence is prepared to put everything else aside and work in the best interests of the people he serves.That is the answer to yesterday's attack on Mr Entsch, and I suspect tomorrow—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. If, in effect, it is an answer to one of yesterday's questions, so be it. There is an opportunity, as you know, for the minister to provide, in accordance with standing orders, any further information he would like to provide, which may or may not be interesting. But I did not ask a question about any local government official in Cairns or even about Mr Entsch; I asked a question about the duties of Senator Heffernan. I think you would agree, Madam President, that the minister ought to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the question, Senator Hill.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I was making the point that yesterday's muckraking has failed, and I was demonstrating that through the evidence of the Mayor of Cairns, who, I might add, also says that Mr Entsch's property is more than 10 kilometres from the NatWest site and is a—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I would think, Madam President, that you would agree that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is treating the chair with contempt. You have directed him to answer the question. He is flagrantly ignoring your ruling. I think you ought to direct him to answer the question. If he cannot answer it, he has an opportunity to take the question on notice and seek an answer from someone who can provide it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, there are other matters that you may deal with at the end of question time, but this particular question is the one that you should have before you at present.BH4Senator HILL—I am sorry, Madam President. I was just attempting to point out that the muckraking of yesterday did not work and I am equally confident that the muckraking in relation to Senator Heffernan today will not work either.6133Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister is unwilling or unable to answer the question, I would ask him to take the question on notice and provide an answer. I would particularly like the minister to draw his attention to informing the Senate as to whether Senator Heffernan approved pieces of legislation prior to their introduction into parliament like A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 , A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 and Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I would like the minister to specifically assure the Senate that any approval—if there was an approval by Senator Heffernan—of those bills does not constitute any conflict of interest affecting Senator Heffernan's substantial business affairs or his myriad of family trusts. That is the assurance I am seeking.6133Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thought that I had already indicated my confidence in Senator Heffernan. I am sure that, if he were in the position to ask questions, he would not ask them on the basis of half-truths. I do not think today has been a day that the Labor Party would want to reflect on for long. With pleasure, I will put them out of their misery. Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous61336133The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Earlier today, Senator West made a ruling on the requirement under standing order 142(4) that government amendments be put at the expiration of allotted time and the discretion of the chair under standing order 84(3) to divide a question. She undertook to refer that ruling to me. I have considered the ruling and I uphold it. The chair has indicated in the past that the chair's discretion to divide a question will be exercised for the purpose of allowing senators to vote differently on different parts of a question. The chair may decline to exercise that discretion unless satisfied that it is necessary to protect that right of senators.Questions Without Notice6133613315:04:006133Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, yesterday I gave an answer to a question and I promised Senator Woodley that if there was more I could add I would. Yesterday in question time Senator Woodley asked me a number of questions about the Albury-Wodonga Freeway. The answers are in the same order as the questions were asked yesterday. In relation to question (1), the costs of the project are being refined, including the impact of final project design. The final project designs are to be put on public display and there may be some further refinement of the costs as a result of the consultation process.In relation to question (2), the answer is yes. The economic analysis carried out during the EIS process took account of the social and health costs and impacts. In relation to question (3), in conjunction with the refining of costs of the internal route, a review of the external route costings is being undertaken. The results of this review are being finalised now and the New South Wales government is to provide the Commonwealth with a report on this.In relation to questions (4) and (5), Senator Woodley, I think I dealt with them yesterday. However, I can add that, while you were suggesting that the majority of your Albury residents are opposed to the internal route, with respect there is also very strong evidence to support the opposite claim. I note two articles in the Border Mail dated 18 and 19 June in which a couple of independent community groups and the state member for Benambra, Mr Tony Plowman MLA, whom I omitted yesterday in my list of the elected representatives who support the internal route, are indicated as strongly supporting the internal route.613315:05:006133Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked by Senators Ray, Faulkner and Cook today, relating to the financial interests of the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet (Senator Heffernan).We had Senator Hill really squealing in question time today because the opposition thought it appropriate to scrutinise the executive. Senator Hill finds it very offensive when the opposition exercises its responsibility to hold the government accountable and to scrutinise the executive. I must say, to be fair to Senator Hill, that he is not as bad as Senator Heffernan who, true to form today, has scurried from the chamber, not willing to respond to the serious issues that have been raised.This is the way Senator Heffernan operates in politics. I respect most senators in this chamber for at least having a go. Nearly all of the 76 senators in this chamber have a go; they are willing to defend themselves, they are willing to argue their case and they are willing to put up and argue matters of public policy that they believe in or that their party believes in. There is one very noticeable exception to that: Senator Heffernan.What the opposition were doing today was asking questions. We were asking questions about whether Senator Heffernan failed to disclose his 50 per cent shareholding in Sestial Pty Ltd, which of course is a beneficial interest according to the Prime Minister's criteria. We were asking whether Senator Heffernan's shareholding in Cooba Pastoral Company Pty Ltd was disclosed. That is a beneficial interest according to the Prime Minister's criteria. We were asking if Senator Heffernan failed to disclose his directorship in Cooba Pastoral Company Pty Ltd. We want answers to those questions. We want to know whether Senator Heffernan has also failed to disclose 1,972 hectares of land under perpetual lease in the Balranald area, the title of which is in Senator Heffernan's own name. Of course, this is all contrary to the Senate's disclosure requirements, and it is contrary to the Prime Minister's code of conduct.We also want to know whether Senator Heffernan, as a parliamentary secretary, has been lobbying for changes to the current government policy on taxing trusts the same as companies, which would substantially disadvantage persons with trust structures, like Senator Heffernan, who would obviously much prefer to return to the present treatment. It does appear from Senator Heffernan's disclosure of his pecuniary interests that he has a beneficial interest in some seven family trusts. Again, this behaviour is, at a minimum, contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's much devalued code of conduct.We want to know whether Senator Heffernan's public lobbying in relation to the capital gains tax proposals at the last election, which would have affected Senator Heffernan's extensive pre-1985 purchased properties, worth millions of dollars, was driven by that position of self-interest. Again, it is, at a minimum, contrary to the spirit of the code of conduct. We want to know about Senator Heffernan's responsibilities as a parliamentary secretary. If he is responsible for giving final approval to the introduction of legislation into parliament, as we have been told, has he signed off on bills that are relevant to issues such as taxation relating to trusts or any other issue that might conflict with his own private interests?These are fair questions to ask. This is what question time is about. It is reasonable to hold a government accountable. It is reasonable to apply that level of scrutiny to a government, and the opposition is entitled to answers, not the sort of response we received today from Senator Hill. I make this absolutely clear: if Senator Heffernan does have a shareholding and a directorship in the Cooba Pastoral Company Pty Ltd then the same basis on which Mr Howard let Mr Entsch off the hook serves to completely ensnare Senator Heffernan. Senator Heffernan must go. The Senate is entitled to answers on these questions. (Time expired)15:10:006134O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—This motion is the No. 2 motion for the opposition today. It is not their preferred motion; their preferred motion was to do yet another character assassination on Mr Entsch. Unfortunately for the opposition, all the questions, slime and sleaze that they have worked themselves into over Mr Entsch failed today. It failed the moment that Senator Faulkner asked in this place whether it was the case that Mr Entsch had a substantial financial interest in a development on the eastern side of Trinity Inlet in Cairns. The reason it failed was that he did not have an interest in that development. That development was in fact many miles from the land which Mr Entsch has. They could not get their facts right.Having worked themselves up and having worked up everybody in the press gallery and told them that they were going to make a major attack on the government and all this sort of nonsense, they then had to look around for another victim. The first victim was proved to be innocent of the charges laid by the opposition so they had to find another victim. At the end of question time, after all that grubbing around about Mr Entsch, they suddenly decided to have an attack on Senator Heffernan this time.Have they proved anything against Senator Heffernan? No. I was listening very carefully to the contribution, meagre though it was, from Senator Faulkner. It was a very meagre contribution which basically ran along the lines of, `We want to know this, we want to know that. We want to know if this is the case, we want to know if that is the case.' But for the benefit of the media it ended with, `We believe Senator Heffernan should stand aside.' He has not even got the facts, yet he believes Senator Heffernan should stand aside. That is how paltry this case from the opposition is. It is a really feeble, brain numbing case—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—A brain dead case.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—It is a brain dead case from the opposition because they cannot even prove an allegation. Notwithstanding the fact that they have not proved one single thing in this chamber—all they have done is come up with a litany of questions, with no basis for even asking the questions, as is apparent from Senator Faulkner's contribution—they end up with the statement, `Senator Heffernan should resign.' If anyone should resign, it should be Senator Faulkner who should resign out of embarrassment over how pathetic this day has been for the opposition in question time.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—The real leader should resign, too. The real leader on the backbench.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—Senator Boswell interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray and Senator Boswell, interjections are unruly and even more so when you are not in your seat, Senator Boswell.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—As Senator Boswell says, the person who should also resign is the dark hand behind the throne—the person over there who worked Senator Faulkner up into asking all these stupid questions—Senator Ray, the great tactical genius of the opposition. He failed as well because he did not even know the answers to the questions that were asked. As Senator Ray well knows, there is a golden rule in politics and that is that you never ask a question unless you know the answer. If Senator Faulkner knew the answer he would not need to ask all these questions, would he? It is clear proof of the fact that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray are just grubbing about in the dark. That is all it is.What is the essence of this? Can we find anything in the speech that Senator Faulkner made against Senator Heffernan? The essence of Senator Faulkner's contribution was this: Senator Heffernan is a farmer and therefore they attacked him because they believed—surprise, surprise—that he might have an interest in some land. Of course you cannot be a farmer unless you have some land, by definition. You need to farm something, you need to plough something, you need to put the sheep or the cattle on something. You cannot be a farmer in a suburban backyard, although I am sure that some of the financial geniuses of the Labor Party tried that in their tax avoidance days. We know all about their tax avoidance and their involvement in farming. (Time expired)15:15:006135Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Today at question time we saw Senator Hill knock down a lot of straw men. Let me deal with them. First of all, Senator Hill said the Labor Party somehow conspired to say that Mr Entsch achieved his property secretly. YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—You told half the story.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—In my speech here yesterday I mentioned the auction, Senator Macdonald—through you, Madam Deputy President. I said that this land went at auction—straw man number one gone. Second straw man: Senator Hill says we distorted where Mr Entsch's property is in relation to where the NatWest thing is going to go ahead. We released to the press a scale map showing where it is! There was no attempt by us to distort the relationship between where Mr Entsch's property is and where the major development is going to occur. But the relevant point of course is: the major development can only go ahead if the environmental matters are dealt with. Once they are dealt with, the bridge gets built—and the bridge not only serves NatWest but also serves Mr Entsch's property. There is the conflict of interest, and it is unassailably a conflict of interest. It is Mr Entsch that takes the CSIRO report, distorts it and says the only solution to this area is development, when the report clearly shows there are other options. Therein lies the conflict of interest.In terms of Senator Heffernan, Senator O'Chee runs a defence that Senator Heffernan is entitled to own land because he is a farmer. Of course he is. Senator Heffernan has declared his directorship of a number of companies. Senator Heffernan has declared his beneficial interest in a number of companies. Senator Heffernan has declared his beneficial interest, in addition, to six family trusts and one unit trust. Senator Heffernan has declared property and house ownership, but what he failed to declare was his directorship in Sestial Pty Ltd. When he gets around to correcting the record after two years—remembering that it is a matter of privilege in this place if you do not adjust your pecuniary interest form within 28 days, and it takes him almost a year and a half to get that directorship right—he then does not declare his shares in that particular company. We are entitled to ask why. Senator O'Chee says we do not know the answers. Of course we have done the company searches, of course we have done the land title searches and of course we know the answers; what we want to know is whether there was knowledge in the government about this or not.That was a reasonably serious matter, but I have to say Sestial Pty Ltd equals the Entsch position in reverse. Mr Entsch declares a beneficial interest but not a directorship; Senator Heffernan declares a directorship but not a beneficial interest. So, if we were to try to convict Senator Heffernan on the Prime Minister's interpretation, then he would get off on the Prime Minister's interpretation. But when you come to Cooba then Senator Heffernan actually gets hung on the Prime Minister's interpretation because he neither declares his directorship nor his beneficial interest.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—It doesn't exist, that's why.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I see, it does not exist. You say that it does not exist, Senator. Why haven't the records been corrected if it has been wound up? It is always possible that these things have been wound up or disposed of or otherwise, but you wonder why the director has not corrected the record. So for the moment we have to go on the assumption that it continues to exist and it has not gone into another entity or otherwise. But Senator Heffernan has a form there. You wonder why he cannot fill out a form properly—and this comes from the individual that gets to sight all cabinet documents. This comes from the individual that is running around at the moment trying to stir up the National Party and others to oppose the proper tax reform of trusts. Why? Because he has six trusts himself plus one; he has a beneficial interest in these particular matters.How many trusts, incidentally, do you need as a farmer? The usual argument is you need one or two to protect your interests and your succession. Why do you need six? But there are six plus a unit trust. So it comes down to this: these matters are more properly resolved by Senator Heffernan having the courage to come in here and explain himself. He broke the world 100-metres record to get out of here at 3 o'clock, like he always does. The typical modus operandi of Senator Heffernan is to sit here, snipe at individuals, sleaze around the press gallery and blackguard them but never get to his feet—(Time expired)15:20:006137Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Forgive me, Madam Deputy President, I am just trying to look at yesterday's Hansard where Senator Ray says that he mentioned that Mr Entsch bought the land at auction. I see he says:. . . he got it cheap—most people know. Most people know what the auction process was on this occasion.But I do not see where he says that they acknowledged that he bought it at auction.Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I only raise that to say that this is yet another example of some of the mud being thrown in the hope that the press, without proper scrutiny—as regrettably seems to be the case more often than not these days—will simply pick up what Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner say and run the mud. That is what this is all about: make a little bit of mud, scatter it around as widely as you can and be completely oblivious to whether it is truthful or not. Regrettably, that is what the Labor Party has come down to these days. I am at least pleased to alert any listeners there might be to the fact that most of the Labor senators will not have a bar of this muckraking. There are now two Labor senators in the whole chamber and no Democrats—and I have to say that there are only three of us on this side because we cannot get away. Nobody is interested in this muckraking, and most of the Labor senators are as embarrassed as hell about it. You only have to look behind Senator Faulkner at question time to see that the decent Labor senators are embarrassed about this and do not want this sort of thing to happen.Who could say that more clearly than a genuine, honest, dinky-di good bloke—not a Rhodes scholar that Senator Carr would sneer at, as he did with Mr Entsch—that is, the mayor of Cairns? He is a lifelong and life member of the Labor Party—a good, decent man who is one of the Labor people of the old school, a fighter for his own areas. This is what he said in the first paragraph of a press release he issued:Cairns mayor Cr Tom Pyne has slated some Federal politicians who have attempted to drag the city's name through the contaminated mud of the NatWest project—He was talking obviously about the Labor senators, Mr Crean and the Labor apparatchiks over the other side. Councillor Pyne went on to have another serve at his Labor Senate colleagues when he said:`But for those in far away Canberra who are unfamiliar with Cairns's geography, this site is only one parcel of a large area of land across the inlet which is known as East Trinity . . . `Mr Entsch's property is more than 10 km away from NatWest's site and is a restrained parcel bounded by national parks and with no identified urban potential under that DCP—that is, the development control plan—`We will continue to work with Mr Entsch in the best interests of all residents across the inlet . . . I raise this only to show that the Labor Party, a party bereft of any policy whatsoever, simply has to get down to these tactics to make itself relevant. I expect this from Senator Carr and I expect it from Senator Faulkner. Madam Deputy President, you know what a bullyboy Senator Faulkner was from the way he treated you with contempt this morning. I just mention that as an aside.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Macdonald, would you please not reflect upon any members here.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I do not want to embarrass you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are not embarrassing me. Just do not reflect upon other members.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I did feel for you, that Senator Faulkner could adopt with you in your official role the sorts of bullyboy tactics that he uses in the union movement. But I expect that from Senator Faulkner and Senator Carr. It is of regret that Senator Ray stoops to these levels. I wanted to say today what a great member Mr Entsch is for his constituency. He is not a Rhodes scholar. He is not terribly formally well-educated but he is an intelligent, caring and very active representative of his constitu ents—something the Labor senators would not understand. Senator Carr, you would not understand about getting out there and supporting the area you come from.What Labor senators have tried to do with Mr Entsch has failed and they now try with Senator Heffernan. I know nothing about Senator Heffernan's interests—I am not very interested—but I can be sure that, as they are wrong about Mr Entsch, as they throw the mud and hope that a little bit sticks, that is what they will be with Senator Heffernan. Senator Heffernan, again, is a man who is concerned about his community. He wants to promote his community, as Mr Entsch does, and it is a pity that the Labor Party does not—(Time expired)15:25:006138Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—It was Mr Entsch's claim himself, as Senator Macdonald has indicated to us today, that he was not `a bloody Rhodes scholar, not a lawyer'. His defence for his failure to fill in his pecuniary interests form was that, essentially, he was too thick; he was not capable of filling in a very simple form.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do not reflect upon a member of the other house.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—We see yet another member of this government, another parliamentary secretary, presumably claiming the `not a Rhodes scholar, not a lawyer' defence. I might add that one of the very few members of the government who are not lawyers has been able to argue again today, presumably, that this is yet another oversight, another mistake. What we have been able to establish after just a casual perusal of the public record is that, in this government, not being a Rhodes scholar is a matter of pride. The use of complex business trusts, the use of quite extensive legal frameworks, to avoid one's responsibilities in regard to taxation and a range of other matters is a hallmark of this government and something in which most of its frontbench are currently involved.Senator Heffernan, in his role as cabinet secretary, has undertaken to set upon a review of the impact of the proposed business taxation treatments on the use of discretionary trusts. This might be humorous in normal circumstances, until we appreciate that he is the holder of six family trusts.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—How many?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Six family trusts, Senator Bolkus, and one unit trust. We also read about his intervention in the last federal election campaign and some of his activities in Queanbeyan. He was described in the Australian of 1 October 1998 as involving himself in a `chest-poking showdown with Mr Beazley'. The article stated:Rangy NSW Senator Bill Heffernan wasn't quite the sinister sharpshooter of heroic secret service dreams, but the chest-poking stoush—which of course began with his ambush of Mr Beazley. He shouted at the top of his voice that he felt Mr Beazley was about a `great tax robbery' of farm owners. He would know, of course. He would have a great interest in farm owners, being the controller of six family trusts and one unit trust. He went on to say:You're going to take 47 cents in the dollar away from these guys as their property values improve.Again, he would know a great deal about property values since he is the owner of such an extensive range of properties in New South Wales. Unfortunately, you would not know that from an examination of his pecuniary interests, because he finds it difficult—not being a Rhodes scholar—to fill in a simple form. He finds it difficult to follow the advice that is contained in the standing orders of this parliament and to follow the instructions involved in filling in a form on pecuniary interests. Yet he has the responsibility for checking legislation that goes before the cabinet of this country.Senator Heffernan is to instigate a review of these business taxation treatments and the use of discretionary family trusts. I can only presume that the Prime Minister, putting him in that position, knows all the details of his affairs, given that he now has in place new arrangements that ensure that Max Moore-Wilton checks the public statements, the pecuniary interest statements, put before this parliament against the various records of ASIC and so on to ensure that they are accurate. One can only presume, therefore, that the Prime Minister understood what the details were of this parliamentary secretary's involvement in family trusts when he set him the task of reviewing the business taxation treatments and the use of discretionary family trusts. I can only presume from the public record, after solicitors Cleary and Horne—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—It is Hoare: H-o-a-r-e.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Hoare, is it? That might be appropriate. This is a case where the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of 200 farmers, has taken it upon himself to lobby behind closed doors the various measures that are needed to protect the interests of those holders of family trusts.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired. Under the allocation of time agreed to under the guillotine today, the debate is concluded at 3.30 p.m.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6139s1826139Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering government amendment 175 on sheet FDT218 moved by Senator Hill. The question is that that amendment be agreed to.15:30:006139Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I want to speak about indigenous issues because during the course of the day we have not as yet had a chance to address what is another important area of debate and concern in the community in respect of this legislation. One group of people who have been misled and done over by the final compromise between the Democrats and the Greens are indigenous Australians. This is an environment bill and a lot of people would be misled into thinking that maybe there are not enormous indigenous issues in respect of this legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are. Whether it is in respect of diversity, hunting and gathering rights, native title rights or the management of some pretty important national parks in Australia, indigenous Australians have a role by law and by social policy. Probably the most fundamental role is that if we as a parliament were to take more than token recognition of the concept of self-determination, we should involve indigenous Australians in decision making, particularly as it affects them directly, as is does in this legislation. In the last few hours there have been a number of press statements issued by indigenous organisations, including the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board of Management, the Kakadu Board of Management and the Central Land Council. The issue of self-determination is best summed up by the media release from the Central Land Council, where Tracker Tilmouth not only condemns the deal but makes the point that:The debate has been deliberately limited and has excluded many Aboriginal people who are still not fully across the issues.He goes on to say:Until there is a political process which is inclusive of Indigenous interests the question of our very basic right to self determination remains a myth.He calls his press statement, `Political process sends us back to the mission'. Later on, I will go to the press release from the Kakadu Board of Management, but it is also worth noting at the outset one of the comments that Mick Alderson, the Chairperson of the Kakadu Board of Management, makes in respect of the way they have been treated. He speaks on behalf of not only Aboriginal members but also the tourism representative of the Kakadu Board of Management. They express their concern and he says:We are tired of being treated like jacky-jackys, sitting on the sideline watching non-Aboriginal people making decisions about our land.These people raise these sorts of concerns because they have been misled, not just by the government but also by the Australian Democrats. It was this minister who wrote to the boards of management saying that there would not be a change in the management arrangements without the consent of the boards. The next thing they knew was that legislation had been introduced to change the structure of the boards of management. There was no consultation in between and no consent sought. The minister just comes in here and introduces legislation, and not only does he not consult but he breaks a commitment and a promise. Further down the track, this felony is compounded by the Australian Democrats, who not only sell them out but try to portray their sell out as a great win for indigenous Australians. That is adding insult to injury, Senator Allison.When you look at yesterday's press statement from the Australian Democrats, you see that they claim to have acted in the interests of indigenous Australians; they claim to have acted to stop the appointment of Northern Territory government representatives on the boards of the two Territory national parks—Ulura-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu. Big achievement! But if you read on in the documentation, you find that that achievement is not what it appears to be. Basically, they chose a deliberate course of deception and deceit, not just of indigenous Australians but of the broader Australian public. This is the mob who claimed victory on the environment legislation when the most eminent constitutional lawyers in the country told them that they had failed. So we should not be surprised about what they have done.They have told indigenous Australians, `Look, we have taken measures to ensure that there will not be a Territory rep on the board of management,' but when you go into the documentation, that is further redefined to mean that the appointment of a Northern Territory rep on the boards of Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta national parks is now subject to the consent of traditional owners, with the rider `which may not be withheld unreasonably'. If you go further into the documentation to try to work out what that means, you find that if they resist—if the boards of management do not like a Northern Territory rep on the board of management—the decision will be taken out of their hands and given to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.This is defence protection Australian Democrats style. This is the new wave of Australian Democrats social conscious and social policy: `Sell them out and try to make them feel good on the way through.' Senator Allison, this is the depths of deceit and you ought to be ashamed of yourself in respect of it. I have been with you when you have looked traditional owners, the elders of these communi ties, straight in the face and said, `I will not let you down.' Not only have you let them down but you have tried to con them on the way through. Your voice is worthless in that community from now on and that is depicted by the press statements, releases and letters from these boards of management.They write to Senator Meg Lees of their concerns about the proposed bill. They call on the Democrats to stall the debate. They want to have time to look at the amendments. These are not unreasonable things, given the fact that the sorts of people we are talking about and the sorts of management structures we are talking about are very successful examples of management by indigenous Australians. Kakadu was the first place in Australia to set up a joint management model. It has been internationally recognised and other parks, not just in Australia but around the world, have learned from us and have made stronger laws for joint management. That is the view of the Chair of the Kakadu Board of Management, Mick Alderson.But what do we do here? We have put poison in the well. We have put a Northern Territory government representative on the board of Kakadu, and of Uluru. Maybe not on day 1, but give it three months and it happens. Three months is not a long time to wait for the Northern Territory government; they have waited a long time. They are on record in their most recent statements on this matter as saying that they want to take over control of these national parks. These are things that you cannot avoid, that you cannot run away from, Senator Allison, because they were told to you directly. You were there in Darwin at the meetings, and I was sitting next to you, when the Northern Territory government representatives made it very clear that they wanted to take over. They still want to take over. There is distrust there.You have a great board of management structure that is working. So what do you do? You bow to the government again. Why? People have to ask themselves why you are doing this. These are the most fundamental rights. You know they are fundamental rights because, not only are they social rights, rights of decency and rights of recognition enshrined in international covenants, they are also rights enshrined in leases under our law.Those leases provide—and you yourself know full well they provide because, once again, we have had copies presented to us—that in circumstances such as this, even if legislation is introduced to disrupt or overturn the established management structures of those boards, whether it is Kakadu, Uluru or Wreck Bay, the traditional owners have a right to revoke those leases. It is a legal right of theirs. But, in total disregard for this—and we expect it from the government because the minister made his position clear from the start—you have traded away these legal and social rights in secret, without consultation, pretending to represent all these people.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—Outrageous!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It is outrageous, Senator Crossin. No wonder these people reckon that they are seen by the political process of Australia as `Jacky Jackys, sitting on the sideline'. As I said, there are major concerns. They have been spelt out in the two letters to Senator Lees and the press statement. The concerns as stated in the Central Land Council media release are that:The Bill. severely restricts traditional and subsistence use of wildlife by limiting use for traditional purposes as laid out in the Native Title Act 1994 and removes existing protection in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974We do not know to what extent this government is going to reinstate the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Director. But we do know that the independence of that position has been marginalised enormously over the last 12 to 18 months. I sat next to Senator Allison, hand-wringing and expressing concern about what had been happening, about how a public servant under the direction of the minister was now in that position. That concern does not filter through in terms of any outcome of the compromise in the agreement between the Democrats and the government. The next point in the press release expresses concern that the bill:. ignores native title and cultural heritage protection laws Your protection of existing native title rights, as agreed with the government, is not good enough; it is not adequate enough. You cannot hide behind incompetence on that one because you knew, and you continue to know, that that was an issue. But did you seek consultation with those who have actually defended Aboriginal Australians in respect of native title? Did you become aware of it? Did you let them come to the table as you were sitting there, cozy with the Prime Minister, Senator Hill and others from the government? There was no room for black people at the table of negotiation on this particular bill when it came to even their most fundamental rights. The deal does not protect the Native Title Act, which passed this place after a long debate less than a year ago. How do you reconcile that? How will you go back to your supporters in Victoria and explain to them that you have actually sold out on the protection of that Native Title Act? You are going to have to. The press release further states that the bill:. does not provide an effective framework for negotiation of indigenous land use agreements . . . That is another area in contradiction to the Native Title Act 1993. The next point states that the bill:. allows the Commonwealth to transfer responsibility to the States and Territories without sufficient accountabilityTo some extent, you have protected against bilaterals, but you have not protected against that list of myriad mechanisms that are available under legislation for this minister, this government, to basically flick-off responsibilities in that area. The second last point is that:. there is no requirement for consultation with indigenous stakeholdersYou would not want that, because you have not had it. You have not allowed them at the table, so it is no wonder that that does not find itself in the legislation. The last point states that this bill:. gives the Commonwealth Minister wide discretion in key areasThat is right; that is something that your minority report expressed concern about. So we do have here a sell-out of the Kakadu, Uluru—Kata Tjuta and Wreck Bay national parks and the destruction of their boards of management. But I suppose the most offensive thing about all this is that it has been done with absolutely no participation of indigenous Australians. Their view, as last expressed to us, is that they want more time. They do not want the Northern Territory rep. They reckon—not only do they reckon but the international bodies reckon—that they have a good board of management structure. You have sold out on that; you have done it in the dark and you have done it trying to mislead the people most directly affected.So I say to you: any time you put your head up, Senator Allison, and any time the Democrats put their heads up in the future pretending to be defenders of indigenous Australians, we will remind you of two things—the fact that you have sold out their rights and the fact that you have sold them out without even warning them and trying to deceive them.15:44:006142Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Since Senator Bolkus quotes so freely from press releases, I will do so as well. I quote from a press release put out yesterday by the Chairman of ATSIC, Gatjil Djerrkura. He said:The Federal Government and the Australian Democrats have negotiated a number of important concessions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in negotiations over proposed amendments to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Bill.Federal Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill and Australian Democrats Leader, Senator Meg Lees and Democrats Environment spokesperson, Senator Lyn Allison, have clearly listened and taken on board key Indigenous concerns about the proposed Bill in a series of meetings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, including ATSIC.This is reflected in a number of key changes they have negotiated to the proposed legislation before the Senate.We acknowledge that there are a number of Aboriginal groups who would like more time. Indeed, Mr Djerrkura says that he would too; that he would like to see another round of consultations with their constituents before the bill passes into law. We would like that too, but the fact of the matter is that this legisla tion has been around for 18 months; we have had a very extensive inquiry; and I have had meetings with Aboriginal groups both as part of that inquiry and outside there. What remains is that, once Aboriginal people are across the detail, they are—ATSIC tell us—not uncomfortable. I will just run through some of those indigenous benefits.The objects of the amended bill recognise the role and the knowledge of indigenous peoples in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity. Senator Bolkus cannot claim that any of his legislation has done that. The amended bill explicitly states that it does not affect the operation of native title or Aboriginal land rights legislation. In spite of all of the scaremongering, this bill does not affect native title or Aboriginal land rights legislation.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You don't know what you've agreed to.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—That has been written into the bill, Senator Bolkus, and you should have a look and acquaint yourself with that fact. In entering into a conservation agreement the minister must take into account obligations under biodiversity convention and the national biodiversity strategy relating to indigenous people's customary use of biodiversity and indigenous knowledge of biodiversity. Again, this is something Labor did not do. The minister must also have regard for the role and interest of indigenous peoples in the conservation of Australia's biodiversity in developing bilateral agreements, recovery plans and threat abatement plans.Existing provisions relating to indigenous people's rights to use Commonwealth reserves for hunting, food gathering or ceremonial and religious purposes have been reinstated. The Biological Diversity Advisory Committee will now include indigenous representation. So all that Jacky Jacky stuff is nonsense. Our amendments make sure that the voices of indigenous people are heard and that they will have representation on that advisory committee. An indigenous advisory committee will be established to advise the minister on the operation of the act, taking into account the significance of indigenous people's knowledge of the management of land, and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.The appointment of a Northern Territory representative, as you have already indicated, on the boards of Kakadu and Uluru national parks is subject to the consent of traditional owners. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for them to review that appointment and for them to, if necessary, replace that member on the board. So we are not talking here about the Northern Territory taking over control of those two boards of management—nobody has ever suggested that. In fact, as I recall, Senator Bolkus—and I think you were there at the time—a suggestion was put forward by the Kakadu Board of Management that they could live with a Northern Territory member on the board, provided that that statutory role of the National Parks and Wildlife position remained intact.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—And an expansion of the board? What have you done about that? Nothing.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Indeed, Senator Bolkus, but it is the judgment of indigenous people that they can live with a member of the board. We are not talking about a majority of Northern Territory members; we are talking about somebody who can demonstrate their ability to be cooperative with indigenous people—and that certainly would be my hope. I am persuaded by the government's arguments that, in terms of the future for relations between the boards and the Northern Territory government, there may well be some strong argument for there to be a Northern Territory rep on that board. We have judged, based on what we were told by the Kakadu Board of Management, that this is not the end of the world and that if it is one member it is not going to mean that indigenous people lose control of the board or anything of that sort.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—This is outrageous.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—So your criticisms, Senator Bolkus are really unfounded and, again, I draw your attention to what Mr Gatjil Djerrkura has said. He has indicated that we have clearly listened—not just slightly listened—and taken on board indigenous concerns. I think for the first time we are going to see legislation which really reflects the important role that indigenous people in this country have in biodiversity.On the general subject of biodiversity, we have negotiated a range of amendments under this section. I am very proud to say that this country now has the first national biodiversity legislation. We have upgraded the number of categories of threatened species and increased the types of communities listed. We have specified time lines for all the steps of the listing process. We have uncoupled the decision about listing a threatened species from the decision about the feasibility of a threat abatement plan. So that will stop a lot of existing problems where political decisions were used to stop listing threatened species. That listing will be made solely on the basis of scientific criteria. Recovery plans at present are required for only listed species occurring entirely or partly on Commonwealth areas. Now they are required for all listed species and ecological communities as well.We have registers of critical habitat, deeper safeguards for migratory species than ever before, strict liability in relation to threatened species, and we are banning the capture of dolphins for live display. Anyone who thinks that wild dolphins should be caught and put in a swimming pool for their life is obviously barbaric. Commonwealth fisheries will now be subject to strategic environmental assessment during the next five years. And there has never—I repeat never—been an environmental impact assessment on a Commonwealth fishery. The Democrats see this as a major positive step, with so many fisheries vulnerable to collapse from overexploitation. There will now be conservation agreements entered into for the protection and conservation of biodiversity anywhere in Australia. There will be identification and monitoring of biodiversity and preparation of bioregional plans.One of the most important agreements we have made with Senator Hill is that there will be a public inquiry into the use of and access to biological resources. Indigenous people will be specifically funded to make submissions and to participate. That will be an open and public inquiry, and it will feed into the regulation making process under this bill. Senator Bolkus will recall that indigenous people have been calling for this kind of inquiry for some long time.Another important measure is that all wildlife on Commonwealth land will be protected unless it is specifically exempted in a schedule. There will be a regulation making power to list invasive species—again, a first. It is a pity that Senator Bolkus and the Labor Party never thought of this while they were in government. Invasive species, as the Democrats know—Senator Brown probably does not know this—are a major ecological threat, and there are no provisions to deal with them in existing Commonwealth legislation. There is nothing here at present.This is yet another area in which the Democrats have made a difference and have made sure that this legislation is not only greatly amended from the original version but also a great improvement on the status quo. There are very many other ways in which biodiversity is protected as a result of this bill, and I am proud to say that the Democrats will be part of introducing the very first Commonwealth biodiversity act.15:53:006144Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I want to build upon the comments I was making before lunch on the indigenous issue. I noted that Senator Bolkus, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, repeated much of what Senator Crossin had said yesterday. It really is the politics of division, I am sad to say. It is an attempt to gain a short-term political advantage through dividing indigenous Australia from non-indigenous Australia, an attempt on Senator Crossin's part to bring the politics of the Northern Territory down here to Canberra to gain, I presume she believes, some short-term political benefit at home. It is a matter of great regret in relation to an issue of such consequence.I say that because Senator Crossin's contribution yesterday was principally an attack on the Northern Territory government. She cannot win an election in the Northern Territory and so she comes down here with her complaints when rather what she should be doing is addressing the indigenous issues as they relate to the bill. They are very important. The message I wanted to bring and the point I wanted to make—and it really is necessary because unfortunately, in relation to indigenous affairs as in other areas, the Labor Party wants to dwell in the past rather than move forward—Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I am proud of the joint management. I have said that many times publicly and, if we are talking about the Northern Territory parks, in relation to both Kakadu and Uluru.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—Then why change it?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Senator Crossin said yesterday that the Northern Territory wants to get rid of the indigenous representation on the board. That is wrong. Those they want to get rid of are us: they want to get Canberra out. That is an aspiration I understand from a territory that wishes to be a state. They wish their parks service to play the same role as parks services in the states, and they cannot really see why the Commonwealth still needs to be involved. But they are not against joint management between themselves and indigenous people. Senator Crossin would be aware of the Nitmiluk National Park and of Gurig. There are instances of joint management between indigenous people and the Northern Territory government. When I have visited those parks, particularly Nitmiluk, the indigenous people have told me that it works well.Be that as it may, we as a Commonwealth government are not going to walk away from either Kakadu or Uluru. We are pleased to be there, playing our part as one of the partners in joint management. We are pleased to bring the best practices in relation to park management and we also recognise the symbolism of those parks in relation to the aspirations of indigenous Australians. But we, in contrast to the Labor Party, also believe that you need to put the wars, battles and disappointments of the past behind and move forward. This idea that one representative of the Northern Territory government—one representative on a board on which it is prescribed that the indigenous people must be a majority—will in some way be a negative is simply a reflection of the disappointments of the past. It is obvious to me—and, I would have thought, to anybody who looked at this issue objectively—that, provided the Northern Territory representative was prepared to contribute in a constructive way, it must be an asset.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—Is that guaranteed in this legislation?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—If Senator Crossin has that assurance, does that mean that she will then support a Northern Territory representative? Of course she will not, because she wants to relive the battles of the past in the Northern Territory. It is a sensible progression in the interests of the parks and of the indigenous people that there be a Northern Territory representative—not, as she asserted yesterday, to give Northern Territory control but to have one Northern Territory representative who can bring the perspective of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory parks service. It can help in relation to transfers of staff and the building-up of employment opportunities—all of those things that cooperative relations can achieve.Senator Crossin says that, because they were not cooperative in the past, they cannot be so in the future. That is a negative, disappointing approach to this issue. What we need—and I would say this to Senator Crossin and to Senator Bolkus, who also seeks to win political points out of these issues—is to move forward. And a Northern Territory representative contributing constructively can be a significant step forward—without any threat, because it is only one representative. I accept that it should be somebody who is satisfactory to the indigenous people.That is a safeguard but, as we know, traditional owners are influenced by third parties and by people such as Senator Crossin who are much more interested in fighting the political battles than in the advancement of indigenous people. So they are influenced and decisions are not always made on the basis of what is the best outcome, but they get dragged into the political process of the Northern Territory. That is why we have put the provision in that consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Obviously, the person who would be found for these positions would be a person who is sensitive to indigenous issues. This provision will not come into effect for a 12-month period, and there will be no difficulty at all in finding a representative of the Northern Territory government who is sensitive to indigenous issues and can actually work to the betterment and improvement of the parks and of indigenous people who live in those parks. As I have said so many times, they are not just simply parks; they are also communities.On the same subject, I heard it said yesterday that the government has not consulted. The government has consulted. I have consulted on these issues since this process started in 1996. As I said this morning, I listened to the consultations and I abandoned what I thought would be a good administrative reform by reinstating the position of the director of national parks because that was the request of the indigenous people and of the traditional owners of those two parks. I have watered down the provision and added extra safeguards in relation to the position of a Northern Territory representative so that there can be no threat—and there was never any—or perceived threat. But will the Labor Party acknowledge that? Will Tracker Tilmouth acknowledge that? Of course not. If the Labor Party took Tracker Tilmouth seriously, they would have preselected him. They will not preselect him as a candidate but they come here and want to use his words to support their case.There are so many other aspects that have been built into this package to ensure a full contribution by indigenous Australia. I want to make particular mention of that which we agreed with ATSIC, that is, to establish an indigenous advisory body. We recognise that indigenous Australians bring to the table a different perspective, a unique perspective, in relation to biodiversity. It is important that that perspective is part of the debate.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Where is the funding coming from?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—What do you mean `where is the funding coming from'? We will fund it. The government will fund it.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Environment or ATSIC?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Environment will fund it.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Good.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—At least I got some acknowledgment from Senator Bolkus. That committee will ensure at the highest levels at the table an indigenous contribution to this broader environment debate, a contribution that has never been facilitated by such a structure in the past. I would have thought that that would be acknowledged by even the Labor Party. But no: because it would spoil a political point.There was not within the bill, and I have to acknowledge it was inadvertent, a specific place dedicated on the BDAC committee for an indigenous representative. That has been pointed out and it is now corrected, and it ought to be acknowledged. When I met with the board in Kakadu there were some misgivings about the quorum provisions imposed in the bill. Although I thought they were misconceived, I know they were repeated in submissions made by the Kakadu board and traditional owners to the Senate committee. We have taken steps to amend that so there can be no doubt—in other words, we listened to the indigenous representatives and we acted on their concerns.Within this bill we have protection for traditional use of land and water in Commonwealth reserves, something that ought to be acknowledged and recognised. We provide for conservation agreements to be entered into with indigenous communities, which is a positive step in the right direction. As was mentioned in the last contribution, there will be a special place for indigenous Australia within the proposed study of access to biological resources because, again, as I said, there is a unique indigenous perspective of these issues and it is important that that perspective is part of the debate.Consultation requirements have been expanded to address indigenous interests in relation to bilaterals and the recovery plans. That ought to be recognised and it certainly has been by those who take indigenous issues seriously. The objects of the bill have been expanded, also to address indigenous issues. Bilateral agreements will not apply to actions in relation to Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee, contrary, again, to what I recall Senator Crossin saying yesterday. A provision confirms that the bill does not affect the land rights act and the Native Title Act, contrary to what Tracker Tilmouth says in the document to which Senator Bolkus refers. All he has got to do is read the amendments and he would find that what he is asserting in that document is incorrect.So if you package all of that up, you must concede there have been real steps to ensure that indigenous Australia has a vital place in the whole perspective of how our country manages its natural assets and conserves them to the benefit of future generations. It is in fact an unprecedented opportunity from which all Australians will benefit. Getting full benefit from the Aboriginal perspective is not just to the benefit of Aboriginal Australians but to the benefit of all Australians, and that has been our philosophical approach to this particular act. I hope, as such, that in this year it will be recognised and recalled as a significant contribution to reconciliation as well.16:06:006146Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is remarkable, is it not, that the patronising can be so glib? The ultimate decision about who is on the boards of these great natural areas, which are indigenous people's areas and which, through their generosity of spirit, they have opened up to all Australians, is now being moved—by sleight of hand endorsed by the Democrats—into the hands of a non-Aboriginal officer appointed by the government. That is where this process has ended up.I want to briefly talk about biodiversity—because I know Senator Crossin wants to speak on the indigenous issues—and to follow up on what Senator Allison had to say about what a great deal the Democrats have got for biodiversity. Let me start by informing the Senate that half of the biodiversity in Australia—that is, half of the spectrum of wildlife and plant life—is in Australia's forests. We know that wildlife is concentrated in the forests of the world and, because of deforestation primarily, some 50 to 100 species of our fellow creatures on this planet are going to extinction every day.Here in Australia the count is not kept. For example, in the Tasmanian forests, which are very much affected by this Democrat endorsed bill, there are some 10,000 forest insects. We do not know their role in the forests. We do know by rule of thumb that at least some of these creatures with their ancient lineage will be very important to human health and survival further down the line. But they are not listed, they are not studied and they are not protected.The Democrats' process today involves endorsing what the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill—with his reputation as the worst minister for the environment in this nation's history—has done in the Regional Forest Agreement process, which says that all the unprotected forests of Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland will in future be out of reach of any federal minister. With that goes the wildlife and the plant life, and now with that comes the Democrats' endorsement. Senator Allison gets up and speaks glibly about what she is doing to protect things, but she is selling out half the wildlife species range in Australia in this one fell move.Not only is she selling it out with her fellow Democrats—in the lap of the government, because they put their place at the Howard table ahead of Australia's biodiversity—but she is saying, `We are going to pass this legislation'—they will vote later today for the third reading—which means that for the next 20 years half the biodiversity of Australia is going to be unprotectable by the minister for the environment, because there is a bilateral agreement in place, unless a state government wants to come to the party. The states will have the control.What we do know is that in Tasmania the governments are far from taking up that role. In the north-east highlands, beyond Ben Lomond and towards Weldborough—if you can imagine the heart-shaped island of Tasmania, it is in the north-east corner—a forest is being pulverised by the big woodchip companies, with the authority of the Howard government and now with the authority of the Democrats. There has been turmoil in those forests, with people risking arrest not least because in the damper, more rainforested part of these highlands there are two species listed as endangered. The Simson stag beetle is a huge, magnificent, glistening forest floor forager. The north-east forest snail, Anoglypta Launcestonensis, is larger than the introduced garden snail with which most Australians are familiar. It is brilliant orange, and it has a magnificent carapace on its back. It is listed as endangered, but the loggers want its territory.So what has been happening while the minister for the environment and the Democrats bind their hands? Forestry Tasmania has got in a consultant. The consultant said, `Well, yes, this has been listed as vulnerable, endangered and on its way to extinction, but we guess'—because they cannot do better than that—`that if we leave some remnants of this to-be-pulverised forest along rivers and roadsides, which we were going to leave anyway, and we let the bulldozers, chainsaws and firebombers drop incendiaries at the end of the season to burn to death everything in the logged areas, including the north-east forest snail on the endangered list, that's okay.'Because this snail was getting in the way of logging, they have now gone so far as to move into a process of de-listing, Senator Allison. You do not know about this because you are not aware of the impact on the wellbeing of the biodiversity—the spectrum of wildlife in this country—of handing back power to state governments. We already know from the Regional Forest Agreement—honoured now by the Democrats—that when you hand Commonwealth responsibility for the nation's wildlife, its creatures and its diversity back to state governments, who are under pressure from corporate extractors, the corporate extractors win the day.So, very early, one creature on the list of threatened and endangered species will simply be removed from the list. It is no longer going to be on the list as endangered because it is no longer going to be allowed to get in the way of the bulldozers, the chainsaws and those people who, at the end of the wrecking of these forest ecosystems in the highlands of north-east Tasmania, come with the firebombers and the 1080—and the same for the rest of this country and the diversity in those forests.The Democrats today are endorsing the Robert Hill dictum that this embarrassing problem should be handed back to the loggers and the woodchippers. That is what this process is about, and that is why this is such a shameful day—as the Democrats turn their backs on all those years of tub-thumping and saying that they stood for the environment. Today they stand for the chainsaws and the diminution of this nation's environment. The things that Senator Allison read out ought to be part of any decent piece of legislation—but a minor part of it.What is notable here is how much Senator Allison, when she went to that polished Howard table, failed to get. What is also notable is that Senator Allison—so recently able to march the streets of Melbourne with conservationists for the protection of the forests of East Gippsland—is now endorsing the Regional Forest Agreement which is going to lead to the pulverisation of forests in East Gippsland and the threatening of species in East Gippsland. If you cross the border, breeding koala habitats are marked for destruction under the Regional Forest Agreement endorsed by this bill and about to be endorsed by Senator Allison, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Woodley, Senator Bartlett, Senator Lees, Senator Murray and Senator Bourne—these new friends of the government environmental wreckers—when they vote yes for this bill on the third reading later today. Let them live with it.16:16:006148Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Before I make some comments further to my speech yesterday, I want to say how terrific it is to see some young kids up in the public gallery—and young babies, at that. It is probably one of the very few places in this Parliament House where young children can go, and some of us live in hope for the day we have a child-care centre here that is as large as a gymnasium.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—A bit of relevance to the bill would be helpful, thank you, Senator Crossin.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—We cannot just let these opportunities go by, Madam Chairman. I want to take some arguments through about one particular aspect of this bill, and that is the proposal to change the arrangements for the management of the national parks at Kakadu and at Uluru. I do not want to raise my voice and get angry, but I must say that I am surprised, Senator Allison. Last week we sat together at an inquiry to look at Jabiluka and we met the traditional owners from that area. One of the things that you must not have failed to grasp when we talked to those people is that all of these arrangements—the lease arrangements and the idea of us passing laws in Canberra to change their lifestyle—are very complex issues for them. I have met with these people time and time again, and they have not ruled out having a Northern Territory representative on the board; in fact, they have said they would welcome further discussions and thinking about it. But at this point in time they have said no to that.One of the things that must have impressed you, as it has impressed me, is that they talk about Aboriginal law being constant. It does not change; it has been with them for many, many years. So if you are going to put changes and suggestions to these people, they need time to think about them and synthesise them. When I put it to them that a Northern Territory government representative on the board may be the way to go, they talked about it and said, `Maybe, but we would want an increase in our Aboriginal representation if that were the case.'In a letter from the Kakadu Board of Management which was sent on 18 June, they talk about perhaps being serious about having a Northern Territory representative on the board if the Kakadu Board of Management were to have statutory powers to run Kakadu National Park. So those are two suggestions that I have heard traditional owners in this area come forward with. In other words, they are prepared to negotiate and think about changes, but they are not prepared to tolerate people making decisions about the manage ment of the park without their being consulted—and by that I mean consulted in the last five, seven or 10 days—about these amendments. If there is one thing I would urge, Senator Allison, it is that this amendment be withdrawn while you take it back to Aboriginal people, get them to have a look at it, and bring it back in August. If nothing else is achieved today, perhaps this section of the bill could go away for further discussion with the people who matter.What we are talking about here is an arrangement between people who own the land being leased to the Commonwealth. They have an arrangement as to who is going to control the park. They know who sits on the board of management and they have agreed to that, but it does change. They have not agreed to a change in composition of the board. They have not even had a chance to discuss your amendment or your proposal. The worse thing is that nobody even bothered to make two phone calls to the chairperson at Uluru and the chairperson at Kakadu. When you talk about a Northern Territory representative being on the board unless their consent is unreasonably withheld, what does that mean? Have you taken the time to explain to these traditional owners what those words mean? Even for the sake of this parliament, what does that mean?Time and time again there have been a number of things that both this government and the Northern Territory government have done, things which Aboriginal people have not agreed with, but they have gone ahead anyway. The government has persisted. So I think at the end of the day the words `unreasonably withheld' will be shown to be meaningless.Senator Allison quoted a letter from ATSIC. The other thing she should have learnt from talking to Aboriginal people is that they respect the words of the traditional owners. Gatjil Djerrkura and ATSIC do not speak for the traditional owners of Uluru and Kakadu. If you asked Gatjil Djerrkura, he would verify that. He is a traditional owner from north-east Arnhem Land. He cannot make and would not make decisions about Uluru and Kakudu, and I am sure he would support the traditional owners of Uluru and Kakadu in this stance.Last week, in relation to the Jabiluka approval process, when we asked the traditional owners whether they had been consulted by this government and by this company, Yvonne Margarula said to all of us who were present, `They talked to the traditional owners in this area, but we are the ones who count; we own the land. Other traditional owners disagree with us, but they do agree in our right to say what we want to happen with our land.' If you ask Gatjil Djerrkura whether in fact he upheld the views of the boards of management at Uluru and Kakuda, and ask Mick Alderson and Joanne Willmot for their views, they would support the boards of management. I have no doubt on that. I think this view goes more to a general statement about the bill, as opposed to these specific areas. We have received a couple of letters from Kakadu in only the last 24 hours which talk about either stopping or slowing the process of this legislation. They go on to say:When the current government came to power, the way of doing business changed in Kakadu and joint management from the inside is now not so good.From Uluru, in a letter to Meg Lees, those people say:The traditional owners are asking you and other senators not to agree to amendments to do with their land but to delay the passage of the bill.They are not saying, `Don't pass it.' What they are saying is, `Delay it.' On behalf of the constituents whom I represent, who have control over these two parks, perhaps what I am saying to you is that this is one area that should just be set aside while you go back and ask them if this is what they want or whether there could be a compromise in order to achieve this. The letter from Uluru goes on to say:The minister has misled us by initially declaring that the proposed Bill would not affect the joint management arrangements at all.Senator Hill will say, `There is no change.' In the minds of the traditional owners there is a significant change. First of all, they have not been consulted about these changes in the last week. Secondly, they have an arrangement with the Commonwealth that does not involve a state or territory government representative on the board, and they do not understand the words `unreasonably withheld'. You need time to sit down and talk to the traditional owners about that. They go on further to say:The bill was then tabled in the House of Representatives before we were aware of its grave implications to existing arrangements.They also say:The Minister has not agreed to repeated requests for sufficient time to consult properly and negotiate what amounts to the future of joint management.I think in this case they are right. They have also raised the fact that they believe there are legal requirements which have not been fulfilled in the process of preparing these new bills. That is not a road which I want to go down, but I do want to impress on people here, particularly on the Democrats and on Senator Hill, that out of the blue we had amendments tabled on Monday night—it does not come as a surprise—where the traditional owners at Kakadu and Uluru know you have been thinking about expanding the membership of the board. They have not ruled it out. They have already put a couple of compromises to you about them having statutory powers to run the park or perhaps increasing their number of representatives. Those compromises are certainly in correspondence that I have received and they are certainly in correspondence that Meg Lees has received—both letters are in front of me.These people do not want to shut the gate; neither do these people want to be dictated to and told what the new arrangements are. It is not the way they operate, it is not the way they want to operate and it is not the way they should have to operate because they own that land. That area has been disregarded in all of this. It would be like you leasing your house to some person and a third party coming in to sit on your board of management to help you control that lease arrangement. Unless you had been consulted about that, I would have thought you would be pretty annoyed about it.I am trying to impress on you that there is no urgency about this section of the bill. There is no requirement to get this part of the bill through by midnight tonight. The tradi tional owners of these national parks have put their trust in the Commonwealth and have undertaken a lease with the government to run that park. They are now saying, simply, `You want to change our best practice arrangements and you want to change the way in which the park is managed. You want an additional person on that board, but we have not said yes to that.' Mind you, they have not said no outright either. As well, you have not offered them a complementary person, so you are not going to increase the numbers—BH4HILLSenator Hill—I did. They rejected it.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Maybe you need to go back and now put this proposal.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I did. It went back and back again.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Have you been back to them, Minister, since these amendments have been tabled? I would say that the answer to that is no. You could not possibly have done that since Monday when these amendments were tabled, or else these letters would reflect otherwise. These people are simply saying, `That's your proposal; let's think about it. Maybe we will reject it outright, but maybe we will sit down and think about it.' These people need time to digest the proposals you are putting. They own this land. I believe these people have the right to be able to sit down and come to a compromise with you. I am astounded that Senator Allison and even Senator Woodley have agreed to such arrangements without even taking that amendment on board and without undertaking to consult with these people about this specific amendment.There is no rush. You said earlier that there is a year before this will come into place. The boards of management of those national parks have established best practice, and have been internationally recognised for that. I am simply saying that you need to pull this off the agenda. You need to sit down and talk with these people. If it is something they are comfortable with, bring it back in August.16:29:006150Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There is a lot that could be said in answer to those comments. Firstly, I repeat that there has been consultation for nearly three years. Secondly, a whole range of concessions have been made as a result of those consultations, none of which were acknowledged by Senator Crossin. Thirdly, in relation to the prospect of a new structure for the two parks, perhaps more akin to that of Nitmiluk, which is an interesting precedent, we have said to the Aboriginal people we are prepared to look at that as well.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the time for debate on this section is completed. The question is that government amendment No. 175 on sheet DT218 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 176 to 445 on sheet DT215 be agreed to.16:30:006151Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Chair, I seek leave for the vote to be taken on amendment No. 180 separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Because you wish to vote in a different manner?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Yes.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendments Nos 176 to 179 and amendments Nos 181—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Madam Chair, could you indicate whether leave has been granted for amendment No. 180?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am exercising the chair's discretion. You are saying you want to vote differently—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I actually sought leave in the first instance.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You do not need leave.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I understand that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—So it is Nos 176 to 179 and Nos 181 to 445.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Can I just check with you: No. 175 has found favour with the committee, I understand.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Amendments Nos 176 to 445 are before us. I sought leave that amendment No. 180 be taken—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Be voted on separately.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Can I seek your guidance on this? I understand that amendments Nos 176 and 177 are related amendments to amendment No. 180. I seek your guidance on that. If so, I would obviously ask that they be dealt with cognately with amendment No. 180. I just seek your guidance on that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Certainly. I am unable to tell whether that is apparent from the amendments. Minister, are you able to indicate whether government amendments Nos 176 and 177 are related to government amendment No. 180? Are they consequential or related to one another?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am not suggesting they are consequential.BH4HILLSenator Hill—When I sought guidance this morning, you howled me down.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The old onion in the hanky again.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am seeking your guidance, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Well, I am seeking the guidance of the minister because I am unable to ascertain whether there is any relationship or linkage between No. 176 and the others.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Let me assure you that I am not seeking Senator Hill's guidance, I was seeking yours.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—From the amendments, we are unable to ascertain whether there is any relationship or not.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I appreciate that with the advice of the Clerk you have attempted to do that. I think it is better for me in the circumstances to seek that amendments Nos 176, 177 and 180 be taken separately. I think that might assist the committee, in the absence of further advice.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is Nos 176, 177 and 180 together, and the remainder are Nos 178 to 179 and Nos 181 to 445.16:34:006152Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I ask that amendment No. 178 be taken separately, please.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Do you plan to vote a different way?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, different to all the other clauses that will be before us.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Okay.16:35:006152Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Can I ask that amendments Nos 190 to 199 inclusive be put separately, as I wish to vote differently on those matters.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Two hours of Robert Ray's work and this is the best you can come up with. What a creative lot! How imaginative!16:35:006152Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam Chair, I ask that amendment No. 196 be dealt with separately, as I would like to indicate I will be voting in a different way.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Okay.16:36:006152O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam Chair, I ask that amendments No. 192 and Nos 202 to 204 inclusive be put separately, as I wish to vote a different way.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I hope that this is not spurious.BH4HILLSenator Hill—This is a stunt that would rival Bob Brown.16:36:006152Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam Chair, may I ask that amendments Nos 201 to 223 inclusive be taken separately? I want to indicate a different vote.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I don't take offence to much, but to `Pinochet' Hill I do.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I do not know who—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I have used it a few times before, but I withdraw it this time.16:37:006152Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I ask that amendment No. 204 be put separately as I wish to vote differently on this matter.16:37:006152Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam Chair, I ask that amend ment No. 361 be taken separately as I wish to vote differently on that matter.16:37:006152Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I ask, Madam Chair, that amendments 360 to 369 inclusive be put separately as I wish to vote differently on these matters.16:38:006152Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I ask that amendments 363 and 364 be put separately as I intend to vote differently on those matters.16:38:006152Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam Chair, I ask that amendments 358 to 361 inclusive and 377 be put separately because I wish to vote differently.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—This is looking very much like a spurious request.16:38:006152Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam Chair, I could not be more serious. I ask that amendments 375 to 384 inclusive be put separately as I wish to vote differently on these matters.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. As I understand it from what was said this morning, this is a practice that has been designed by the chair to facilitate a genuine situation where an individual senator wishes to take a different perspective. It is difficult for me to recall one occasion in the last 18 years in this place on which an individual Labor Party senator decided to take a different position to his or her colleagues. All of a sudden today the Australian Labor Party comes in here and has suddenly adopted a new liberalism.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I am speaking to a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, you are not making a point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What's the point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Make a point of order.BH4HILLSenator Hill—When I finish, you can have a go.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, you haven't started.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It is a point of order.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, what is your point of order?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Chair, it is that this is a stunt. It is spurious. There is no genuine difference, and you should not let the processes of the Senate be abused in this way. In other words, guidance that has been given to help genuine differences of view should be used for such circumstances, not to facilitate stunts.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order on the non-point of order. Of course, that was not a point of order from Senator Hill; it was just an attempt for him to use the guise of the standing orders of taking a point of order to make a speech, which he knows that he cannot do. Another political point: he does not refer to the Senate standing orders or rulings that have been made. I believe, Madam Chair, in this circumstance he ought to have been sat down after the first couple of sentences.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order, Madam Chair, is that it is a deliberate abuse of the standing orders for Senator Hill to stand up and make that sort of contribution under the guise of a point of order, and he should be sat down immediately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. I did not realise that my colleagues had so much choice.16:41:006153Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I ask that amendment 381 be put separately as I wish to vote differently on this matter.16:42:006153Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I ask that amendments Nos 383 and 388 be put separately as I definitely wish to vote differently on this matter.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I take it you have a running sheet on these, do you?16:42:006153Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I ask that amendments Nos 390, 393 and 397 be put separately as I intend to vote differently on those matters.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I think, given the very large number of motions that people wish to vote separately on—Opposition senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am not arguing about that. It would save time if we went through them seriatim now.16:43:006153McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam Chair, I ask that amendments Nos 396 and 399 be put separately as I wish to vote differently on those matters.16:43:006153Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam Chair, I wish that amendments Nos 400 to 405 inclusive be put separately because I intend to vote in a different way.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before I call Senator Gibbs, given the large number of people who, it would appear, wish to vote different ways on different amendments, I will put them seriatim individually, and if it becomes apparent that people's voting patterns are not according to their wishes and requests that we have seen to date, then I will have to presume that it is a spurious—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Are you impugning our motives?1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I heard your ruling. Could you enlighten the committee further by referring specifically—Senator Hill interjecting—Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Hill and Senator Faulkner, would you please conduct your conversations quietly or some place else, because I cannot hear other senators who are seeking the call.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order on the ruling that I suggest you are foreshadowing. I would ask that you further enlighten the committee by pointing out to the committee under what specific standing order you are going to make that particular ruling.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Standing order 84(3) gives me the discretion. There are a number of people who have requested variations to the orders because they want to vote differently from previous votes and may wish to change their vote on different amendments. I will now put the amendments individually.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 193(3), which states in part:. . . and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.I regard it as highly disorderly to have it suggested that my decision to vote in a particular way on a particular amendment before this committee has somehow an improper motive. I resent that and I believe that any such imputation or suggestion by Senator Hill or anyone else in this committee should be withdrawn.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No imputation is meant. A significant number of people have indicated that they wish to vote individually and in differing ways on different amendments. However, if, when we start to put those amendments, people vote the same way as others are voting and in a way that would indicate they have changed their minds in respect of what they have requested here, I will be left to draw no other conclusion than—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Is that imputing on the rest of them?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No. It relates to the individual.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I wanted to put clearly on the record that I do not wish to vote differently on those ones that have been dealt with previously. My matter of deep conscience relates to amendments Nos 429, 430 and 432. How am I going to indicate that to the chamber if you do not proceed in that way?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Because I will be putting them separately, Senator, and you will be able to vote on them.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I see.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am now going to put each of the government amendments individually. Be aware of which way you think you are going to vote, please.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We know.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is good. The question is that government amendment No. 176 be—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam Chair, I want to raise a point of order. It is not possible at this stage, now that we are under the guillotine, either for me or for anyone else to move a motion by way of leave. Is it open to the leader to move a motion by leave for the Senate to suspend its committee stages for 20 minutes and then come back and start putting these resolutions? I would indicate that I think leave would be granted if the leader were to seek that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—If a minister wishes to move a suspension, the minister has the power to do that.BH4HILLSenator Hill—What happens in relation to the time?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It will remain in place.16:50:006154Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is a novel suggestion, but this government is always cooperative and constructive, and generally trustworthy—Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Trusting—always trustworthy and generally trusting. I want to check a few of the technicalities.This is an unusual way to do business but, in this new era of flexibility, an alternative option would be that the second environment bill still requires a second reading, and I am sure at least Senator Bob Brown would like to spend 15 minutes bagging us again—notwithstanding that we have heard the speech 20 times already today. If we suspended this consideration whilst the second reading of the second bill, which is the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] , took place—I do not know whether the contents of the bill will be relevant to the speech, but anyway—that might facilitate the negotiation that has been suggested. That is put as a suggestion, in somewhat unusual circumstances, to provide a breakthrough.16:52:006154Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We are all committed to the declaration of urgency moved by the government which says that that matter cannot be dealt with until 5 p.m. So that does not help at all.16:53:006155Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I take it that in the absence of objection, even though we will not hear a speech from Senator Bob Brown, that is accepted as a reasonable way to provide a few minutes break for discussion.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No, this is your rule.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question before the chair would be that government amendment No. 176 be agreed to. Do you wish to move something, Minister?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I will move whatever process of suspension would be necessary.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. It is competent for the minister at the table to move whatever motion he cares to. There was a little hilarity when the minister proposed to move whatever motion was necessary to do whatever he wants to achieve. That may be perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the opposition, but I think you just have to clarify the motion, Minister. That is my point of order. I think there were a couple of guffaws, and it was most ungenerous of my colleagues to go for it in those circumstances, but I understand why they did.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am waiting for a motion contrary to the moving of government amendment No. 176.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—It is very difficult to work out whether you have an agreement around here. I will take a chance and move:That progress be reported.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ordered that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Bills6155s1976155Debate resumed from 10 December 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.16:56:006155Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—There are enormous concerns about this Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] as well as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . One of the main concerns emanates from the title. We are asked as a Senate to consider the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] , but that title is something which does not satisfactorily reflect the legislation. Once again we have a bodgying up of the process, once again we have an abuse of the rules and once again we have the government trying to conceal something in this legislation that they should really be more up-front about. Once again we have the Australian Democrats as the conspiratorial joint party to this particular deception.Let me read what the Parliamentary Library say about this legislation. They make some comments about the legislation and about how this bill is described as a `consequential amendment' bill. They say on page 22 of their report:The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that although there is no formal limitation on the content or scope of a `consequential amendments' Bill, such a Bill would usually contain provisions required to implement a new legislative scheme and would not normally contain provisions (technical or otherwise) that were unrelated to the scheme's establishment.This Bill implements a range of necessary amendments that are consequential to the implementation of the EP&BC Bill. However the Bill also makes a range of other amendments which can be interpreted as substantial new proposals which supplement, rather than arise from, the EP&BC Bill. This raises issues as to the adequacy of consultation and scrutiny of these substantive measures by all relevant stakeholders. On that point, it is notable that the current Bill was not included in the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee's inquiry into the EP&BC Bill 1998 until 24 March 1999. The Committee reported on 27 April 1999.They are the two primary concerns. First of all, you have misdescription. You have this legislation described as `consequential' when in essence it is more than consequential. In essence it raises other measures that are of enormous relevance and importance to stakeholders but about which those stakeholders have not had the normal advance notice. More importantly, this bill was sent to the committee late in the process—only three or four weeks before the committee reported.These are not minor amendments. They are also reflective of how this legislation has been handled by this government and this parliament. We have had amendments introduced to the major bill and amendments to the consequential bill. Those amendments have been discussed in secret but, in respect of this bill as well as the other, we have not had engagement with industry or with the states, I must say—and the states have an enormous stake in the management of operations under these two bills—and, extremely importantly in respect of this particular consequential provisions bill, we have had no engagement with indigenous Australians. We are not talking about inconsequential amendments; we are talking about consequential amendments. Yesterday Senator Hill said that, if we were serious, we would have given him notice in respect of certain matters before we came in here yesterday.Well, if he were serious in respect of this legislation, he would have given us—this parliament—notice as to his amendments before we came in yesterday. So, once again, this legislation is in the same category as the major piece of legislation—that is, there are amendments to it; amendments which have avoided public scrutiny and which have not had sufficient parliamentary scrutiny as well. When you are looking at the process, something like 20 seconds per amendment is totally inadequate parliamentary scrutiny.The best assessment of this legislation also comes from the library's Bills Digest. What does this legislation do? It does exactly the sorts of things that we have been talking about for some little while in this place. It affects indigenous people's interest in, stake in and rights on the boards of management of the Kakadu National Park, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community council. It appears that, although these issues were raised in the 1998 consultation paper, it was not indicated in the central aspects of the act that changes would be made. So you had indigenous Australians having to take last-minute mercy dashes to appear before the committee to try and defend their positions as to joint management and their concern in respect of the abolition of the position of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That is something that we are told has been wound back, but we have not been told the details of that. There were concerns in respect of what they thought would be a compulsory transfer of the lease from the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Commonwealth.These matters in themselves are important matters, not consequential on the other legislation, but they were thrown in here primarily, I suppose, because the government was thinking that we would believe it was an after-thought, but they were thrown in here in a way that did not give stakeholders sufficient notice. The concept of the addition of a Northern Territory board member also arises in this consequential legislation. This legislation also affects the traditional use of land and water by Aboriginals. Section 70 provides, in essence, a limitation of rights to those appearing in the current legislation, so we do have some concerns in respect of indigenous Australians.We also have concerns as to what this particular legislation does to the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Not having done enough damage in their primary legislation, the government then seeks to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. The Council of Australian Governments' 1997 heads of agreement provides the policy basis for the proposed EPBC act. It states that the Commonwealth and state heritage ministers would develop a cooperative national heritage protection strategy. The government's environment reform 1998 consultation paper proposed the introduction of a new heritage protection law at a date following the debate on the primary legislation.This new heritage legislation has not been introduced in the parliament. Given this, we would deem it inappropriate to remove the links between the Commonwealth environ ment minister and the Australian Heritage Commission in relation to actions that may impact on heritage areas. In order to avoid the creation of a regulatory vacuum on these issues, it may be—and we will be moving amendments to this effect—advisable to continue the operation of the EP(IP) Act in relation to heritage matters until a new heritage regime is introduced.We should save the operation of the Heritage Commission Act—our amendments will go to that. But, given the conduct of proceedings in the last 24 hours or so, there is absolutely no way that those substantive amendments will get up. We might get some mealy-mouthed alternative from the Democrats, we may get some promise of a committee or an inquiry down the track—all those sorts of things—but the substantive operation of the Australian Heritage Commission will be affected by this legislation, as will the operation of the world heritage protection act itself. We have in the government's legislation some incremental improvement in respect of the protection of world heritage areas but we also have some monumental wind-back from the currently prevailing law, and we are also seeking to protect those provisions that are about to be affected.There are other aspects. There are amendments to the Lands Acquisition Act and there is the repeal of the Biological Control Act 1984, all under the guise of consequential amendments. So we say the government stands condemned because this is not a consequential amendments bill; this does much more than that. We say the government and the Democrats stand condemned because they have entered into an arrangement which does over some substantive rights and some pretty substantial protections in terms of indigenous Australians, world heritage and the AHC. We also say they stand condemned because no-one in here, let alone anyone outside of here, has had enough opportunity to give this legislation adequate scrutiny.17:06:006157Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The previous speaker in this debate on the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] was absolutely right. Not only are we in the position where we are dealing with a bill which claims to be consequential on the major environment bill that has been debated for much of the day, but also we have been asked by the government to deal with this bill before that environment bill has gone through and before we even know how it is going to be amended. That is an extraordinary situation for the Senate to find itself in. It shows that the government and the Democrats are in a complete mess as far as the handling of this environment legislation is concerned. They do not know what their strategy is. They did bring in the guillotine. They thought that was the end of it and that all this stuff would be finished by half past five this evening, but now they are in a complete mess because people on this side of the house who think differently from the Democrats and the government about the environment have wanted the debate to go on.Let me just take up what Senator Bolkus said a moment ago about the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. The Australian Heritage Commission was established in the wake of the flooding of Lake Pedder in 1972. There was a national parliamentary inquiry into that disaster by the then Whitlam government in 1974. That inquiry found that never again should the Commonwealth be in the position of not intervening on the loss of heritage of national significance, that such places ought to be listed and that there ought to be a facility for warning the federal government when such heritage, be it natural heritage or cultural heritage, was at risk. As a result of that, the Australian Heritage Commission was established in 1975.The commission has had a major role in the defence of Australia's environment since then, even though in the last decade successive governments have tried to wind down its influence and power. I am very well aware that the Heritage Commission was central to the saving of the Franklin River. The Australian Democrats claim a role in that but their role pales into insignificance when compared with the active role of the Australian Heritage Commission at the time. In fact, the Australian Heritage Commission was so active at that stage in alerting politicians and the public to the threats to the Franklin River that no doubt in the collective political memory that was a reason for it being put under strangulating political repression in the years that have followed.The legislation that the Democrats and the government are railroading through the chamber today—we will get back onto that later at the committee stage—effectively gets rid of the Australian Heritage Commission and its relevance. But the agreement between the states and the Commonwealth has been that, instead of having the Heritage Commission, there be a joint arrangement. Let me outline how that arrangement would go. Following the meeting of the Council of Australian Government heads in 1997—that is, the state and federal heads—there was an agreement for the Commonwealth and state heritage ministers to develop a cooperative national heritage strategy. Let me interpret that. The arrangement was to get rid of the functions of the Australian Heritage Commission and replace it with ecowaffle—a passing of the buck between Commonwealth and state heritage ministers—which was going to do nothing in particular to protect heritage in the way the 1975 establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission was meant to do.The government's environment reform 1998 consultation paper proposed the introduction of a new heritage protection law following the environment bill which the Democrats are pushing through this place today at the behest of the government. This new heritage bill would be the replacement, essentially, for the Australian Heritage Commission and its past good works. But we do not have such a bill. Here we have legislation effectively getting rid of the Australian Heritage Commission on the promise that there will be a Commonwealth-state arrangement to replace it, but there is no replacement. We have a vacuum of that function. It has been abolished. We are back to the flooding of Lake Pedder, thanks to the Democrats supporting the government on this matter.We are being asked to support what is called a consequential bill which is nothing of the sort. It is a bill to abolish the Australian Heritage Commission's powers and replace them with nothing at all. I will not be part of that. The Democrats, of course, will be, because they do not even understand what is in this consequential bill. They are more interested in their moment of power at the Howard table of power. They are more interested in selling out any environmental principle that will get in the way of them keeping that seat at the table. They are more interested in trying to put a gloss on the environmental disaster that they are delivering through this parliament to the people of Australia in these terrible days for the environment. If an arrangement has been made between the states and the Commonwealth to look after matters of national heritage importance—if this cooperative national strategy has been established—I ask Senator Woodley, who is the only Democrat in the chamber, to get up and explain what it is.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You are the only Green.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Abetz intervenes from the other side of the chamber, but he does not know either. We could ask him to get up and explain this alternative that we are supposed to accept as coming into place which is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. It is a wing and a prayer, or at least a promise that we are supposed to accept coming from the chainsaw driven offices of the minister for the environment or, as we now have it, the subservient hand on the chainsaw gang of Democrat senators who have sold out so comprehensively on the environment these last few days. I know that no Democrat will explain to the Senate what they are doing, for the simple reason that they do not know. They have abrogated their policies; they have dumped their policies. In the vacuum that that leaves, they are simply reliant on Howard government environmental policies. That is the measure of their strength of commitment to the environment these days.The Democrats are prepared to guillotine this bill but they do not have the foggiest about how to explain why we should be voting for a situation where the Australian Heritage Commission goes west and the promised replacement is nowhere to be seen. We are in this extraordinary situation on another matter—biological control. We are being asked to deal with legislation which gets rid of the effects of the Biological Control Act 1984 because they are no longer appropriate, but we have not yet dealt with those amendments to the environment protection bill. We have this extraordinary situation, this remarkable failure of process by the Democrats. There is not even a Democrat adviser in the place. They have fled altogether to try to work out what this bill is about, because they were not ready for it.They were depending on the so-called environment protection bill—I would call it the environment wreckage bill—being passed. It has not been passed because they have been outmanoeuvred this afternoon by the people on this side of the chamber. The guillotine was not dropped on debate on that important environment legislation at 5 o'clock because, despite the combined brains of the government and the Democrats, they still did not see what was coming and they were outmanoeuvred. That outmanoeuvring means that the environment protection bill has not gone through. We do not know what the outcome is going to be, but here are the Democrats asking us to abolish the biological control provisions which the Commonwealth currently has in place. They have not replaced them with anything. They talk about how they want biodiversity protected in this country, but they are getting rid of control mechanisms and so far they have put nothing else in their place.That is why they are such environmental puppies. As I said yesterday, they have rushed around the room barking at everybody and then jumped onto the first lap available. They are political poodles. Of course, the first lap available was Senator Hill's. Last week on the GST it was the Prime Minister's, with room also on Mr Costello's. But the Democrats do not know what they are doing, except for this: they do know that there is an open door at the end of the green carpeted corridor, on the occasions when it suits the government, where they can sit and feel important. And they will trash any policy to keep that door open and they have trashed many a policy in the last few days. We have this extraordinary situation where, having got rid of protection mechanisms which have been developed over recent decades, as of this moment they have nothing to replace them with.We do not know whether or not the amendments to the environment protection bill are going to go through. We have no way of knowing that. It would be quite irresponsible of us to deal with this so-called consequential bill which abolishes the existing protection for the environment until we know what is going to happen with the major bill, which the Democrats are supporting the government to get through. That is the extraordinary tangle we have got into. Maybe it is worth recalling that time-honoured quote:Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.The Democrats have practised to deceive those people who voted for them—the environmentalists; a million Australians who thought that they would stand by the environment; people all across this country who thought that the Democrats' record would be good. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Democrats if their sell out over the last fortnight on their social and environmental principles had been known to the electorate last October? They would have been decimated. I have to admit to being one of the millions of Australians who is gobsmacked by the way in which they have dropped every founding principle of the party to get to the table of power. That is what they have done, but I am not going to be one who supports this piece of legislation and leaves a vacuum. There may be a vacuum of Democrat policy; there is now a vacuum of Democrat principle.There is now a failure to understand the almighty consequences of what they have done by Senator Lees, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Bourne from New South Wales, Senator Woodley and Senator Bartlett from Queensland, and Senator Murray from Western Australia. There is a vacuum of appreciation of what they have done, but they are sticking with it because they want to be counted as one of the big players. As one of those senators said to a business lunch, as reported in the national media a couple of weeks ago, they are flushed not only with the new sense of power but also with the prospect now of getting some of the kick-backs—that is, donations—that come from the corporate sector when you do the right thing, as far as vested interests are concerned in this place. The Democrats are moving from being a party of the people and the environment to being creatures of the big end of town. That is what this is all about.However, when such revolutions in process occur, there are glitches and one is occurring right now. I note that Senator Lees has come into the chamber and therefore I expect that we are going to have a clearing of the air by Senator Lees as to what has happened to the Australian Heritage Commission's powers; why there is no replacement; and why she is asking the Senate to effectively abolish the powers of the Australian Heritage Commission and replace them with nothing else at this particular juncture on this Wednesday afternoon in June 1999.17:22:006160Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—We have just listened for about 20 minutes to an assault on the Australian Democrats by the sole Tasmanian Green in this chamber. The reason that he had to devote all that time to assaulting the Australian Democrats is that it is quite clear he has not read the bill. He has not considered its provisions so he has embarked on an attack of the Democrats. But I would just kindly remind him that, on page 11 of the explanatory memorandum, he might find some of the answers to the questions that he posed in a rhetorical way. If he had spent more time studying the legislation and the explanatory memorandum, he might have been in a position of not having to devote so much of his 20 minutes to a wholesale assault on the Australian Democrats.The bill that we are considering is the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] . This bill continues the process of Commonwealth environmental legislation. Labor and the Greens used to talk big about the environment, but they failed to deliver. What they cannot abide is the fact that, since the Howard government was elected, there has been a program of environmental reform in this country not witnessed before. Of course, the Natural Heritage Trust is one of the examples of environmental reform in this country. It has delivered millions of dollars for repair to the environment—a project never thought of by Labor or the Greens but one that we were able to do because we were willing to forgo the public ownership of Telstra to ensure that something more important remained within our grasp; that is, the environment of this country. So the Natural Heritage Trust is part of our environment reform program, as is the Green Corps—a fantastic program that has delivered environmental repair throughout the breadth of this nation.But has Senator Brown acknowledged the wonderful work of the Natural Heritage Trust? Does he acknowledge the wonderful work of all those volunteers in the Green Corps, who actually do something for the environment? Absolutely not. Senator Brown locks himself away in his rooms and dreams up these speeches. I have to say that I think the dreaming has lapsed somewhat of late because it is the same speech repeated time and time again. It is becoming a bit boring. All we ever get to hear about is a chainsaw. In fact, he is starting to sound like a chainsaw—that repetitive buzz and the noise do not make much sense, except in Senator Brown's mind; most of his contributions these days are not to build up but to destroy.We have the Natural Heritage Trust and we have the Green Corps program. What else have we done for the environment? We have the wonderful Regional Forest Agreement that, for the first time in this country's history, has balanced conservation and the needs of the forest communities who get a living from the forests. Let us not forget that what we harvest from the forests is in fact a renewable resource. If you do not have the timber harvesting, what do you have? I suppose you have mining for building products instead—products which are not renewable. So the timber industry is vital.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—You still have mining products for building that are not renewable, but you need them.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Sorry, Senator Murphy? You are not making sense again—a bit like your contributions with Premier Jim Bacon. The regional forest agreements have been another wonderful example of this federal government getting to terms with the environmental problems of this nation and making a contribution in a way that will have lasting benefit. On top of that wonderful record, we now have this legislation and the bill that was just before us.This bill has three primary objectives. Firstly, it will provide for the repeal of the five acts to be replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . Those acts are: the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974; the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; the Whale Protection Act 1980; the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983; and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. It makes sense to have this reform of environmental legislation. Secondly, the bill puts in place savings and arrangements for a smooth transition from the processes that are in place under the existing acts, including environmental assessment and permitting arrangements to the new schemes established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] .Thirdly, the bill also amends Commonwealth government legislation that is affected either by the repeal of the five acts or by the content of the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . This bill, together with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, provides a new environmental law regime which enables the Commonwealth to join with the states in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, recognising our responsibility to not only this but also future generations.What this legislation is about is trying to ensure that we as a federation cooperate with the states on environmental issues, rather than taking the sledgehammer approach like Senator Brown, who could not win the debates in his home state of Tasmania and therefore had to seek federal intervention to win them. We say that, instead of having that `them and us' approach to environmental issues, it makes a lot more sense to cooperate with the states and ensure that we are able to work in a responsible, user-friendly way to deliver benefits to the environment and, as a result, to future generations.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. I therefore put the question that the bill now be read a second time. Question put.17:35:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J.* Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. West, S. M.Heffernan, W. Sherry, N.Macdonald, S. Hutchins, S.Newman, J. M. Lundy, K.Tambling, G. E. J. Forshaw, M. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration in committee be an order of the day for a later hour this day.Bills6162s1826162Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The time for the consideration of the committee stage of all the bill has concluded. I will therefore put all the government amendments.17:40:006162O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—In relation to the statement I made seeking to have certain parts of the bill moved separately, I have now been persuaded to reconsider my position. My colleagues have also been persuaded, given the forceful position put to us in the intervening period; that is, my colleagues and I will not be seeking to have the clauses dealt with in the way suggested earlier.17:41:006162Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—It should be unnecessary to say it, but the coalition will of course be reasonable in relation to opposition amendments, if the opposition wishes to put them in a number of groups.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I now proceed to chapter 5, government amendments 176 to 445. The question is that the following amendments be agreed to:(176) Clause 176, page 160 (line 22), omit "may", substitute "must".(177) Clause 181, page 164 (lines 3 to 7), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The list, as first established, must contain only the ecological communities listed in Schedule 2 to the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 immediately before the commencement of this Act, and they must be listed in the endangered category. (178) Clause 185, page 166 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Minister must decide whether to amend the list referred to in section 181 to include an ecological community that is described as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable in a list that is: (a) kept by: (i) a State; or (ii) a self-governing Territory; or (iii) the body known as the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council; and (b) identified by the Minister by a notice published in the Gazette .(179) Clause 188, page 169 (lines 9 and 10), omit "species included in the conservation dependent category", substitute "conservation dependent species".(180) Clause 188, page 169 (lines 12 to 14), omit all the words from and including "and" (first occurring) to the end of subclause (4).(181) Clause 188, page 169 (lines 15 to 24), omit subclauses (5) and (6).(182) Clause 189, page 170 (line 8), omit "or ecological community", substitute ", ecological community or threatening process".(183) Clause 191, page 171 (lines 15 and 16), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Minister must forward a nomination to the Scientific Committee within 10 business days of receiving the nomination. However, the Minister need not forward a nomination that the Minister rejects under subsection (6).(184) Clause 191, page 172 (lines 6 to 15), omit subclause (6), substitute: (6) The Minister may reject a nomination if satisfied that it is vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith.(185) Clause 196, page 173 (line 17) to page 174 (line 13), omit the clause, substitute:196 Recklessly killing or injuring member of listed threatened species or community (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and (c) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or of a listed threatened ecological community; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(186) Page 174 (after line 13), after clause 196, insert:196A Strict liability for killing or injuring member of listed threatened species or community (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and (c) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or of a listed threatened ecological community; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(187) Page 174, after clause 196A, insert:196B Recklessly taking etc. member of listed threatened species or community (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and (b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or a listed threatened ecological community; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .(3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(188) Page 174, after clause 196B, insert:196C Strict liability for taking etc. member of listed threatened species or community (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and (b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or a listed threatened ecological community; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units. (189) Page 174, after clause 196C, insert:196D Trading etc. member of listed threatened species or community taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and(b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or a listed threatened ecological community; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(190) Page 174, after clause 196D, insert:196E Strict liability for trading etc. member of listed threatened species or community taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a native species or a member of an ecological community; and (b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or a listed threatened ecological community; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(191) Heading to clause 197, page 174 (line 14), omit the heading, substitute:197 Certain actions are not offences[Species offences](192) Clause 197, page 174 (line 15), omit "Section 196 does", substitute "Sections 196, 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D, 196E and 207B do".(193) Clause 197, page 174 (line 16), after "that", insert "was issued under section 201 and".(194) Clause 197, page 174 (lines 18 and 19), omit "made or adopted under section 267 and that is in force", substitute "in force under Division 5".(195) Clause 197, page 174 (line 21), after "18", insert "or of section 18A".(196) Clause 197, page 174 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) an action that: (i) is one of a class of actions declared by the Minister under section 33 not to require an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of section 18 or 18A; and (ii) is taken in accordance with a management plan that is an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration; or(197) Heading to clause 198, page 175 (line 15), omit "section 18 ", substitute "sections 18 and 18A ".(198) Clause 198, page 175 (line 16), omit "For the avoidance of doubt, sections 196 and 197", substitute "To avoid doubt, sections 196, 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D, 196E and 197".(199) Clause 198, page 175 (line 17), at the end of the clause, add "or 18A".(200) Clause 199, page 175 (line 20) to page 176 (line 10), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (1) This section applies to an action taken by a person if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the person's action either: (i) results in the death or injury of a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation depend ent species), or a member of a listed threatened ecological community, that is in or on a Commonwealth area; or (ii) consists of, or involves, trading, taking, keeping or moving a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species), or a member of a listed threatened ecological community, that is in or on a Commonwealth area; (b) the person's action does not constitute an offence against section 196, 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D or 196E; (c) the person's action is not an action that the person was authorised by a permit to take. Note 1: Section 197 sets out most of the circumstances in which an action described in paragraph (1)(a) will not be an offence against section 196, 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D or 196E. Note 2: A person is authorised by a permit to take an action if the person is the holder of the permit or the person is given an authority under section 204 by the holder of the permit to take the action. Note 3: The conditions of a permit may require the holder of the permit to give certain notices. (2) Within 7 days of becoming aware of the action, the person must notify the Secretary in writing, by telephone or by use of any other electronic equipment: (a) that the action was taken; and (b) of other particulars (if any) about the action that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) An example of the particulars about the action that the regulations may prescribe is the time and place of taking the action. This does not limit the particulars the regulations may prescribe. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply to the person if he or she, or any other person or body, is required by or under a law of the Commonwealth to notify the Secretary of the action.(201) Clause 199, page 176 (line 15), omit "(3)", substitute "(2)".(202) Clause 200, page 176 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving the application, the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person and body registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications). (4) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons and bodies to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged. (5) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(203) Clause 201, page 176 (line 27), at the end of subclause (2), add ", 196A, 196B, 196C, 196D, 196E or 207B".(204) Clause 201, page 177 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add: (5) In making a decision on the application, the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications) to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in the notice under section 200.(205) Clause 202, page 178 (lines 4 and 5), omit "acts specified in the permit may be done", substitute "action specified in the permit may be taken".(206) Clause 204, page 178 (lines 14 and 15), omit "do for, or on behalf of, the holder any act", substitute "take for or on behalf of the holder any action".(207) Clause 204, page 178 (line 23), omit "doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act", substitute "taking of a particular action by a person if the taking of that action".(208) Clause 204, page 178 (line 26) to page 179 (line 3), omit "doing of any act" (wherever occurring), substitute "taking of any action".(209) Page 179 (after line 13), after clause 206, insert:206A Review of decisions about permits An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision: (a) to issue or refuse a permit; or (b) to specify, vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (c) to impose a further condition of a permit; or (d) to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit; or (e) to suspend or cancel a permit.(210) Page 179 (after line 19), after Subdivision B, insert:Subdivision BA—Protecting critical habitat207A Register of critical habitat (1) The Minister must cause to be kept in accordance with the regulations (if any) a register in which the Minister may list habitat identified by the Minister in accordance with the regulations as being critical to the survival of a listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological community. (2) The regulations must require the Minister to consider scientific advice in identifying the habitat. (3) The register must be made available for public inspection in accordance with the regulations (if any). (4) Habitat listed in the register in relation to a species or ecological community is critical habitat for the species or ecological community.207B Offence of knowingly damaging critical habitat (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the person knows that the action significantly damages or will significantly damage critical habitat for a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or of a listed threatened ecological community; and (c) the habitat is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both. (4) To avoid doubt, this section does not affect the operation of Division 2, 3 or 4.207C Sale or lease of Commonwealth land containing critical habitat (1) This section applies to a Commonwealth agency that executes a contract for the sale or lease to someone else of Commonwealth land that includes critical habitat for a listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological community. It does not matter whether the Commonwealth agency executes the contract for the Commonwealth or on its own behalf. (2) The Commonwealth agency must ensure that the contract includes a covenant the effect of which is to protect the critical habitat. (3) The Commonwealth agency must take reasonable steps to ensure as far as practicable that the covenant binds the successors in title of the buyer or lessee (as appropriate).(211) Clause 211, page 182 (lines 9 to 28), omit the clause, substitute:211 Recklessly killing or injuring member of listed migratory species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a migratory species; and (c) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both. (212) Page 182 (after line 28), after clause 211, insert:211A Strict liability for killing or injuring member of listed migratory species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a migratory species; and (c) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(213) Page 182, after clause 211A, insert:211B Recklessly taking etc. member of listed migratory species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a migratory species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(214) Page 182, after clause 211B, insert:211C Strict liability for taking etc. member of listed migratory species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a migratory species; and(b) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(215) Page 182, after clause 211C, insert:211D Trading etc. member of listed migratory species taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a migratory species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(216) Page 182, after clause 211D, insert:211E Strict liability for trading etc. member of listed migratory species taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a migratory species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed migratory species; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(217) Heading to clause 212, page 183 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:212 Certain actions are not offences[Species offences](218) Clause 212, page 183 (line 2), omit "Section 211 does", substitute "Sections 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D and 211E do".(219) Clause 212, page 183 (line 3), after "that", insert "was issued under section 216 and".(220) Clause 212, page 183 (line 8), after "20(1)", insert "or section 20A".(221) Clause 212, page 183 (lines 9 to 13), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) an action that: (i) is one of a class of actions declared by the Minister under section 33 not to require an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of section 20 or 20A; and (ii) is taken in accordance with a management plan that is an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration; or (222) Heading to clause 213, page 184 (line 1), omit "section 20 ", substitute "sections 20 and 20A ".(223) Clause 213, page 184 (line 2), omit "For the avoidance of doubt, sections 211 and 212", substitute "To avoid doubt, sections 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D, 211E and 212".(224) Clause 213, page 184 (line 3), at the end of the clause, add "or 20A".(225) Clause 214, page 184 (lines 5 to 24), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (1) This section applies to an action taken by a person if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the person's action either: (i) results in the death or injury of a member of a listed migratory species that is in or on a Commonwealth area; or (ii) consists of, or involves, trading, taking, keeping or moving a member of a listed migratory species that is in or on a Commonwealth area; (b) the person's action does not constitute an offence against section 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D or 211E; (c) the person's action is not an action that the person was authorised by a permit to take. Note 1: Section 212 sets out most of the circumstances in which an action described in paragraph (1)(a) will not be an offence against section 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D or 211E. Note 2: A person is authorised by a permit to take an action if the person is the holder of the permit or the person is given an authority under section 219 by the holder of the permit to take the action. Note 3: The conditions of a permit may require the holder of the permit to give certain notices. (2) Within 7 days of becoming aware of the action, the person must notify the Secretary in writing, by telephone or by use of any other electronic equipment: (a) that the action was taken; and (b) of other particulars (if any) about the action that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) An example of the particulars about the action that the regulations may prescribe is the time and place of taking the action. This does not limit the particulars the regulations may prescribe. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply to the person if he or she, or any other person or body, is required by or under a law of the Commonwealth to notify the Secretary of the action.(226) Clause 214, page 184 (line 29), omit "(3)", substitute "(2)".(227) Clause 215, page 185 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving the application, the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person and body registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications). (4) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons and bodies to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged. (5) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(228) Clause 216, page 185 (line 10), at the end of subclause (2), add ", 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D or 211E".(229) Clause 216, page 186 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (4) In making a decision on the application, the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications) to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in the notice under section 215.(230) Clause 219, page 186 (lines 19 and 20), omit "do for, or on behalf of, the holder any act", substitute "take for or on behalf of the holder any action".(231) Clause 219, page 186 (line 28), omit "doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act", substitute "taking of a particular action by a person if the taking of that action". (232) Clause 219, page 187 (lines 3 to 7), omit "doing of any act" (wherever occurring), substitute "taking of any action".(233) Page 187 (after line 17), after clause 221, insert:221A Review of decisions about permits An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision: (a) to issue or refuse a permit; or (b) to specify, vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (c) to impose a further condition of a permit; or (d) to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit; or (e) to suspend or cancel a permit.(234) Clause 229, page 191 (line 21) to page 192 (line 20), omit the clause, substitute:229 Recklessly killing or injuring a cetacean (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a cetacean; and (c) the cetacean is in: (i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the Northern Territory for which a declaration under section 228 is in force); or (ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 231. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(235) Page 192 (after line 20), after clause 229, insert:229A Strict liability for killing or injuring a cetacean (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a cetacean; and (c) the cetacean is in: (i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the Northern Territory for which a declaration under section 228 is in force); or (ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 231. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(236) Page 192, after clause 229A, insert:229B Intentionally taking etc. a cetacean (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps, moves or interferes with a cetacean; and (b) the cetacean is in: (i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the Northern Territory for which a declaration under section 228 is in force); or (ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 231. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both. (4) In this Act: interfere with a cetacean includes harass, chase, herd, tag, mark or brand the cetacean.(237) Page 192, after clause 229B, insert:229C Strict liability for taking etc. a cetacean (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps, moves or interferes with a cetacean; and (b) the cetacean is in: (i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the Northern Territory for which a declaration under section 228 is in force); or (ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 231. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(238) Page 192, after clause 229C, insert:229D Treating an illegally killed or taken cetacean (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person treats a cetacean; and (b) the cetacean has been: (i) killed in contravention of section 229 or 229A; or (ii) taken in contravention of section 229B or 229C. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 231. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both. (3) In this Act: treat a cetacean means divide or cut up, or extract any product from, the cetacean.(239) Clause 230, page 192 (lines 27 and 28), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the cetacean has been: (i) killed in contravention of section 229 or 229A; or (ii) taken in contravention of section 229B or 229C.(240) Heading to clause 231, page 193 (line 4), omit the heading, substitute:231 Certain actions are not offences(241) Clause 231, page 193 (line 5), after "229", insert ", 229A, 229B, 229C, 229D".(242) Clause 231, page 193 (line 6), after "that", insert "was issued under section 238 and".(243) Clause 232, page 193 (line 30) to page 194 (line 24), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (1) This section applies to an action taken by a person if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the person's action: (i) results in the injury or death of a cetacean, or consists of taking a cetacean, in the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal waters, or a part of the coastal waters of a State or the Northern Territory for which a declaration under section 228 is in force) or in waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale Sanctuary; or (ii) consists of treating a cetacean killed, injured or taken in contravention of section 229, 229A, 229B or 229C; (b) the person's action does not constitute an offence against section 229, 229A, 229B, 229C or 229D; (c) the person's action is not an action that the person was authorised by a permit to take. Note 1: Section 231 sets out most of the circumstances in which an action described in paragraph (1)(a) will not be an offence against section 229, 229A, 229B, 229C or 229D. Note 2: A person is authorised by a permit to take an action if the person is the holder of the permit or the person is given an authority under section 241 by the holder of the permit to take the action. Note 3: The conditions of a permit may require the holder of the permit to give certain notices. (2) Within 7 days of becoming aware of the action, the person must notify the Secretary in writing, by telephone or by use of any other electronic equipment: (a) that the action was taken; and (b) of other particulars (if any) about the action that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) An example of the particulars about the action that the regulations may prescribe is the time and place of taking the action. This does not limit the particulars the regulations may prescribe. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply to the person if he or she, or any other person or body, is required by or under a law of the Commonwealth to notify the Secretary of the action.(244) Clause 232, page 194 (line 29), omit "(3)", substitute "(2)".(245) Clause 235, page 195 (line 25), after "that", insert "was issued under section 238 and".(246) Clause 237, page 197 (after line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: The action to be covered by the permit will undergo assessment under Part 8 as it applies because of section 165.(247) Clause 237, page 197 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving the application, the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person and body registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications). (4) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons and bodies to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged. (5) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(248) Clause 238, page 197 (line 28), after "229,", insert "229A, 229B, 229C, 229D,".(249) Clause 238, page 198 (after line 17), at the end of subclause (3), add: Note: In deciding whether to issue the permit, the Minister must consider the assessment report that relates to the action to be covered by the permit and was prepared as a result of Part 8 applying because of section 165.(250) Clause 238, page 198 (after line 17), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) In making a decision on the application, the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications) to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in the notice under section 237.(251) Clause 241, page 199 (line 11), omit "do for or on behalf of the holder any act", substitute "take for or on behalf of the holder any action".(252) Clause 241, page 199 (line 20), omit "doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act", substitute "taking of a particular action by a person if the taking of that action".(253) Clause 241, page 199 (lines 23 to 27), omit "doing of any act" (wherever occurring), substitute "taking of any action".(254) Page 200 (after line 8), after clause 243, insert:243A Review of decisions about permits An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision: (a) to issue or refuse a permit; or (b) to specify, vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (c) to impose a further condition of a permit; or (d) to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit; or (e) to suspend or cancel a permit.(255) Clause 248, page 202 (lines 7 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The list, as first established, must contain only the following: (a) all species in the Family Hydrophiidae (sea-snakes); (b) all species in the Family Laticaudidae (sea-snakes); (c) all species in the Family Otariidae (eared seals); (d) all species in the Family Phocidae ("true" seals); (e) all species in the Genus Crocodylus (crocodiles); (f) all species in the Genus Dugong (dugong); (g) all species in the Family Cheloniidae (marine turtles); (h) the species Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback turtles); (i) all species in the Family Syngnathidae (seahorses, sea-dragons and pipefish); (j) all species in the Family Solenostomidae (ghost pipefish); (k) all species in the Class Aves (birds) that occur naturally in Commonwealth marine areas.(256) Clause 254, page 205 (lines 7 to 26), omit the clause, substitute:254 Recklessly killing or injuring member of listed marine species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a marine species; and (c) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both. (257) Page 205 (after line 26), after clause 254, insert:254A Strict liability for killing or injuring member of listed marine species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes an action; and (b) the action results in the death or injury of a member of a marine species; and (c) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and (d) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(258) Page 205, after clause 254A, insert:254B Recklessly taking etc. member of listed marine species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a marine species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(259) Page 205, after clause 254B, insert:254C Strict liability for taking etc. member of listed marine species (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes, trades, keeps or moves a member of a marine species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and (c) the member is in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(260) Page 205, after clause 254C, insert:254D Trading etc. member of listed marine species taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a marine species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.(261) Page 205, after clause 254D, insert:254E Strict liability for trading etc. member of listed marine species taken in Commonwealth area (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of a marine species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed marine species; and(c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. Note 2: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . (2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.(262) Heading to clause 255, page 205 (line 27), omit the heading, substitute:255 Certain actions are not offences(263) Clause 255, page 205 (line 28), omit "Section 254 does", substitute "Sections 254, 254A, 254B, 254C, 254D and 254E do".(264) Clause 255, page 206 (line 1), after "that", insert "was issued under section 258 and".(265) Clause 255, page 206 (lines 6 and 7), omit "or subsection 26(1) or (2)", substitute "24A(1), (2), (3) or (4), 26(1) or (2) or 27A(1), (2), (3) or (4)".(266) Clause 255, page 206 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) an action that: (i) is one of a class of actions declared by the Minister under section 33 not to require an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of subsection 23(1) or (2), 24A(1), (2), (3) or (4), 26(1) or (2) or 27A(1), (2), (3) or (4); and (ii) is taken in accordance with a management plan that is an accredited management plan for the purposes of the declaration; or (267) Clause 255, page 206 (line 29), omit "1975 .", substitute "1975 and in force; or".(268) Heading to clause 256, page 207 (line 1), omit "unintended taking ", substitute "taking etc. ".(269) Clause 256, page 207 (lines 2 to 21), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (1) This section applies to an action taken by a person if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the person's action either: (i) results in the death or injury of a member of a listed marine species that is in or on a Commonwealth area; or (ii) consists of, or involves, trading, taking, keeping or moving a member of a listed marine species that is in or on a Commonwealth area; (b) the person's action does not constitute an offence against section 254, 254A, 254B, 254C, 254D or 254E; (c) the person's action is not an action that the person was authorised by a permit to take. Note 1: Section 255 sets out most of the circumstances in which an action described in paragraph (1)(a) will not be an offence against section 254, 254A, 254B, 254C, 254D or 254E. Note 2: A person is authorised by a permit to take an action if the person is the holder of the permit or the person is given an authority under section 261 by the holder of the permit to take the action. Note 3: The conditions of a permit may require the holder of the permit to give certain notices. (2) Within 7 days of becoming aware of the action, the person must notify the Secretary in writing, by telephone or by use of any other electronic equipment: (a) that the action was taken; and (b) of other particulars (if any) about the action that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) An example of the particulars about the action that the regulations may prescribe is the time and place of taking the action. This does not limit the particulars the regulations may prescribe. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply to the person if he or she, or any other person or body, is required by or under a law of the Commonwealth to notify the Secretary of the action.(270) Clause 256, page 207 (line 26), omit "(3)", substitute "(2)".(271) Clause 257, page 208 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving the application, the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person and body registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications). (4) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons and bodies to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged. (5) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(272) Clause 258, page 208 (line 7), at the end of subclause (2), add ", 254A, 254B, 254C, 254D or 254E".(273) Clause 258, page 208 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (4) In making a decision on the application, the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under section 266A (about registration for consultation on permit applications) to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in the notice under section 257.(274) Clause 261, page 209 (line 15), omit "do for or on behalf of the holder any act", substitute "take for or on behalf of the holder any action".(275) Clause 261, page 209 (line 24), omit "doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act", substitute "taking of a particular action by a person if the taking of that action".(276) Clause 261, page 209 (line 27) to page 210 (line 3), omit "doing of any act" (wherever occurring), substitute "taking of any action".(277) Page 210 (after line 13), after clause 263, insert: 263A Review of decisions about permits An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision: (a) to issue or refuse a permit; or (b) to specify, vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (c) to impose a further condition of a permit; or (d) to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit; or (e) to suspend or cancel a permit.(278) Page 211 (after line 24), after Division 4, insert:Division 4A—Register for consultations about permits266A Register for consultation about permit applications (1) At intervals of not more than 12 months, the Minister must cause to be published a notice inviting applications from persons or bodies wishing to be registered for a specified period of at least 12 months to be told of each application for a permit under Division 1, 2, 3 or 4. The notice must be published: (a) in the Gazette ; and (b) in a daily newspaper that circulates generally in each State and self-governing Territory; and (c) in any other way required by the regulations (if any). (2) The Minister must register any person or body that applies in writing for registration. (3) Registration has effect for the period specified in the notice.(279) Clause 267, page 212 (line 4) to page 213 (line 16), omit the clause, substitute:267 Simplified outline of this Subdivision The following is a simplified outline of this Subdivision: Recovery plans for listed threatened species and ecological communities and threat abatement plans for key threatening processes bind the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies. The Minister must ensure that a recovery plan is in force for each listed threatened species and ecological community. The Minister need ensure a threat abatement plan is in force for a key threatening process only if the Minister decides that a plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way of abating the process. The Minister must consult before making such a decision. A recovery plan or threat abatement plan can be made by the Minister alone or jointly with relevant States and Territories, or the Minister can adopt a State or Territory plan. There must be public consultation and advice from the Scientific Committee about the plan, regardless of how it is made or adopted.(280) Page 213 (after line 29), after clause 269, insert:269A Making or adopting a recovery planEnsuring recovery plan is always in force (1) The Minister must exercise his or her powers under this section to ensure that there is always in force a recovery plan for: (a) each listed threatened species (except one that is extinct or is a conservation dependent species); and (b) each listed threatened ecological community; once the first recovery plan for the species or community has come into force.Making a plan (2) The Minister may make a written recovery plan for the purposes of the protection, conservation and management of: (a) a listed threatened species (except one that is extinct or is a conservation dependent species); or (b) a listed threatened ecological community. Note: Section 273 requires recovery plans to be made and in force by certain deadlines.Making a plan jointly with a State or Territory (3) The Minister may make a written recovery plan for the purposes of the protection, conservation and management of a listed threatened species (except one that is extinct or is a conservation dependent species) or a listed threatened ecological community jointly with the States and self-governing Territories in which the species or community occurs, or with agencies of those States and Territories.Content of a plan (4) The Minister must not make a recovery plan under subsection (2) or (3) unless the plan meets the requirements of section 270. Prerequisites to making a plan (5) Before making a recovery plan under subsection (2) or (3) for a listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological community, the Minister must: (a) consult the appropriate Minister of each State and self-governing Territory in which the species or community occurs, with a view to: (i) taking the views of each of those States and Territories into account in making the plan under subsection (2); or (ii) making the plan jointly under subsection (3); unless the species or community occurs only in a Commonwealth area; and (b) consider the advice of the Scientific Committee given under section 274; and (c) consult about the plan and consider comments in accordance with sections 275 and 276.Limits on making a plan (6) The Minister must not make a recovery plan under subsection (2) for a species or ecological community that occurs wholly or partly outside a Commonwealth area unless the Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to make the plan under subsection (3): (a) with each of the States and self-governing Territories in which the species or community occurs; and (b) in the case of a species or ecological community that occurs partly inside and partly outside a Commonwealth area—within the time required by subsection 273(2).Adopting a State or Territory plan (7) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, adopt as a recovery plan a plan made by a State, a self-governing Territory or an agency of a State or self-governing Territory (whether or not the plan is in force in the State or Territory). The Minister may adopt the plan with such modifications as are specified in the instrument. This subsection has effect subject to section 277. Note: Section 277 requires that: (a) an adopted plan have the content required for a recovery plan by section 270; and (b) there has been adequate consultation in making the plan adopted; and (c) the Minister consult the Scientific Committee about the content of the plan.Effect of adopting a plan (8) A plan adopted under subsection (7) has effect as if it had been made under subsection (2) (whether it was adopted with modifications or not).(281) Clause 270, page 214 (after line 15), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) identify threats to the species or community; and(282) Clause 270, page 214 (line 32) to page 215 (line 2), omit paragraph (i).(283) Clause 270, page 215 (line 16), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (e) the role and interests of indigenous people in the conservation of Australia's biodiversity.(284) Page 215 (after line 16), after clause 270, insert:270A Decision whether to have a threat abatement planDecision (1) The Minister may at any time decide whether to have a threat abatement plan for a threatening process in the list of key threatening processes established under section 183. The Minister must do so: (a) within 90 days of the threatening process being included in the list; and (b) within 5 years of the last decision whether to have a threat abatement plan for the process, if that decision was not to have a threat abatement plan for the process.Basis for decision (2) The Minister must decide to have a threat abatement plan for the process if he or she believes that having and implementing a threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process. The Minister must decide not to have a threat abatement plan if he or she does not believe that.Consultation before making a decision (3) Before making a decision under this section, the Minister must: (a) request the Scientific Committee to give advice within a specified period; and (b) take reasonable steps to request any Commonwealth agency, any State, any self-governing Territory, and any agency of a State or self-governing Territory, that would be affected by or interested in abatement of the process to give advice within a specified period; on the feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process.Consulting others (4) Subsection (3) does not prevent the Minister from requesting any other person or body to give advice within a specified period on the feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process.Request may be made before listing (5) A request for advice on the feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process may be made before or after the process is included in the list of key threatening processes established under section 183.Time for giving advice (6) The Minister must not make a decision whether to have a threat abatement plan for the process before the end of the period within which he or she has requested a person or body to give advice on the feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process.Considering views expressed in consultation (7) When the Minister is making a decision under this section, he or she must consider the advice that a person or body gave on request within the period specified in the request.Publishing decision and reasons (8) The Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) a decision whether or not to have a threat abatement plan for a key threatening process; and (b) the Minister's reasons for the decision.Special rules for processes included in original list (9) Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) do not apply in relation to a decision about a process included in the list under section 183 as first established. (285) Page 215, after clause 270A, insert:270B Making or adopting a threat abatement planApplication (1) This section applies only if the Minister's most recent decision under section 270A in relation to a key threatening process is to have a threat abatement plan for the process. Note: Section 273 sets a deadline of 3 years from the decision for ensuring that a threat abatement plan is in force for the process.Making a plan (2) The Minister may make a written threat abatement plan for the purposes of reducing the effect of the process.Making a plan jointly with a State or Territory (3) The Minister may make a written threat abatement plan for the purposes of reducing the effect of the process, jointly with the States and self-governing Territories in which the process occurs or with agencies of those States and Territories.Content of a plan (4) The Minister must not make a threat abatement plan under subsection (2) or (3) unless the plan meets the requirements of section 271.Prerequisites to making a plan (5) Before making a threat abatement plan for the process under subsection (2) or (3), the Minister must: (a) consult the appropriate Minister of each State and self-governing Territory in which the process occurs, with a view to: (i) taking the views of each of those States and Territories into account in making the plan under subsection (2); or (ii) making the plan jointly under subsection (3); unless the process occurs only in a Commonwealth area; and (b) consider the advice of the Scientific Committee given under section 274; and (c) consult about the plan and consider comments in accordance with sections 275 and 276.Limits on making a plan (6) The Minister must not make a threat abatement plan under subsection (2) for a process that occurs wholly or partly outside a Commonwealth area unless the Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to make the plan: (a) jointly with each of the States and self-governing Territories in which the process occurs; and (b) within 3 years of the decision to have the plan.Adopting a State or Territory plan (7) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, adopt as a threat abatement plan for the process a plan made by a State, a self-governing Territory or an agency of a State or self-governing Territory (whether or not the plan is in force in the State or Territory). The Minister may adopt the plan with such modifications as are specified in the instrument. This subsection has effect subject to section 277. Note: Section 277 requires that: (a) an adopted plan have the content required for a threat abatement plan by section 271; and (b) there has been adequate consultation in making the plan adopted; and (c) the Minister consult the Scientific Committee about the content of the plan.Effect of adopting a plan (8) A plan adopted under subsection (7) has effect as if it had been made under subsection (2), whether it was adopted with modifications or not.(286) Clause 271, page 216 (line 18), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (e) the role and interests of indigenous people in the conservation of Australia's biodiversity.(287) Heading to clause 273, page 216 (line 29), omit the heading, substitute:273 Ensuring plans are in force(288) Clause 273, page 216 (before line 30), insert:When a plan comes into force (1A) A recovery plan or a threat abatement plan comes into force on the day on which it is made or adopted, or on a later day specified by the Minister in writing.Recovery plan for species and communities in Commonwealth areas only(289) Clause 273, page 216 (line 32), after "must be made", insert "and come into force". (290) Clause 273, page 218 (before line 1), insert:Recovery plan for species and communities partly in Commonwealth areas(291) Clause 273, page 218 (lines 23 to 33), omit subclause (3), substitute:Recovery plan for species and communities wholly outside Commonwealth areas (3) A recovery plan for a listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological community that occurs only outside Commonwealth areas must be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the species or ecological community is included in the list referred to in section 178 or 181 (as appropriate).Deadline for threat abatement plan (4) A threat abatement plan for a key threatening process must be made and in force within 3 years of the decision under section 270A to have the plan.Ensuring threat abatement plan is in force (5) Once the first threat abatement plan for a key threatening process is in force, the Minister must exercise his or her powers under this Subdivision to ensure that a threat abatement plan is in force for the process until the Minister decides under section 270A not to have a threat abatement plan for the process. Note: The Minister may revoke a threat abatement plan for a key threatening process if the Minister decides under section 270A not to have a threat abatement plan for the process. See section 283A.(292) Clause 275, page 219 (line 29), omit "subsection 267(1) or (4)", substitute "this Subdivision".(293) Clause 277, page 221 (line 3), omit "subsection 267(2)", substitute "this Subdivision".(294) Clause 278, page 221 (line 12), omit "section 267", substitute "this Subdivision".(295) Clause 279, page 222 (line 3), omit "section 267", substitute "this Subdivision".(296) Page 225 (after line 2), after clause 283, insert:283A Revoking a threat abatement plan (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, revoke a threat abatement plan for a key threatening process if the Minister decides under section 270A not to have a threat abatement plan for the process. (2) The Minister must publish in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) the instrument revoking the threat abatement plan; and (b) the Minister's reasons for revoking the plan.(297) Clause 284, page 225 (line 5), omit "section 267", substitute "this Subdivision".(298) Clause 285, page 225 (after line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) a conservation dependent species.(299) Clause 285, page 225 (lines 19 to 21), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Minister must not make a wildlife conservation plan for a species that is a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species).(300) Clause 285, page 226 (line 5), at the end of paragraph (5)(c), add: or (d) a conservation dependent species occurs;(301) Clause 285, page 226 (lines 19 and 20), omit subclause (8).(302) Clause 287, page 226 (line 27), omit "or species of cetacean", substitute ", species of cetacean or conservation dependent species".(303) Clause 287, page 227 (line 12), omit "or species of cetacean", substitute ", species of cetacean or conservation dependent species".(304) Clause 287, page 227 (line 21), omit "and species of cetacean", substitute ", species of cetacean and conservation dependent species".(305) Clause 287, page 227 (lines 27 and 28), omit "or species of cetacean", substitute ", species of cetacean or conservation dependent species".(306) Clause 287, page 227 (line 28), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (e) the role and interests of indigenous people in the conservation of Australia's biodiversity.(307) Clause 289, page 228 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Scientific Committee may advise the Minister on its own initiative to make a wildlife conservation plan for a specified species described in subsection 285(1).(308) Clause 289, page 228 (line 10), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(309) Clause 297, page 232 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: ; (d) one or more conservation dependent species.". (310) Clause 299, page 232 (line 27), at the end of paragraph (b), add "(except a conservation dependent species)".(311) Page 233 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision C, add:300A State and Territory laws not affected Sections 269A, 270A, 270B, 273 and 285 do not exclude or limit the concurrent operation of a law of a State or self-governing Territory.(312) Page 234 (after line 13), after Division 6, insert:Division 6A—Control of non-native species301A Regulations for control of non-native species The regulations may: (a) provide for the establishment and maintenance of a list of species, other than native species, whose members: (i) do or may threaten biodiversity in the Australian jurisdiction; or (ii) would be likely to threaten biodiversity in the Australian jurisdiction if they were brought into the Australian jurisdiction; and (b) regulate or prohibit the bringing into the Australian jurisdiction of members of a species included in the list mentioned in paragraph (a); and (c) regulate or prohibit trade in members of a species included in the list mentioned in paragraph (a): (i) between Australia and another country; or (ii) between 2 States; or (iii) between 2 Territories; or (iv) between a State and a Territory; or (v) by a constitutional corporation; and (d) regulate and prohibit actions: (i) involving or affecting members of a species included in the list mentioned in paragraph (a); and (ii) whose regulation or prohibition is appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries; and (e) provide for the making and implementation of plans to reduce, eliminate or prevent the impacts of members of species included in the list mentioned in paragraph (a) on biodiversity in the Australian jurisdiction. (313) Clause 303, page 236 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (2) In particular, the regulations may prohibit or regulate actions affecting a member of a native species in a Commonwealth area. This does not limit subsection (1).(314) Page 236 (after line 6), at the end of Division 8, add:303A Exemptions from this Part (1) A person proposing to take an action that would contravene a provision of this Part apart from this section may apply in writing to the Minister for an exemption from the provision. (2) The Minister must decide within 20 business days of receiving the application whether or not to grant the exemption. (3) The Minister may, by written notice, exempt a specified person from the application of a specified provision of this Part in relation to a specified action. (4) The Minister may do so only if he or she is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the provision not apply in relation to the person or the action. (5) In determining the national interest, the Minister may consider Australia's defence or security or a national emergency. This does not limit the matters the Minister may consider. (6) A provision specified in the notice does not apply in relation to the specified person or action on or after the day specified in the notice. The Minister must not specify a day earlier than the day the notice is made. (7) Within 10 business days after making the notice, the Minister must: (a) publish a copy of the notice and his or her reasons for granting the exemption in accordance with the regulations; and (b) give a copy of the notice to the person specified in the notice.(315) Clause 305, page 237 (after line 23), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: When the Minister is considering entering into a conservation agreement, the Minister must take into account any responsibilities of other Commonwealth Ministers that may be affected by the agreement.(316) Clause 305, page 238 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A conservation agreement must not cover all or part of a Commonwealth reserve. (5) Under subsection (1), the Minister may enter into a conservation agreement covering land with one of the following persons who has a usage right relating to the land: (a) an indigenous person; (b) a body corporate wholly owned by indigenous persons; (c) a body corporate established by or under an Act for the purposes of holding for the benefit of indigenous persons land vested in it by or under that Act; (d) the trustee of a trust that holds land for the benefit of indigenous persons. This does not limit subsection (1). (6) The Minister must take account of the following when entering into a conservation agreement as described in subsection (5): (a) paragraph (j) of Article 8 of the Biodiversity Convention; (b) paragraph (c) of Article 10 of the Biodiversity Convention; (c) paragraph 4 of Article 18 of the Biodiversity Convention; (d) objective 1.8.2 of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, published by the Commonwealth in 1996.(317) Clause 306, page 238 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph (f).(318) Clause 308, page 239 (line 31), omit "other party or parties to the conservation agreement", substitute "person or persons bound by the conservation agreement under paragraph 307(b) or (c)".(319) Clause 308, page 240 (lines 3 to 27), omit "other party or parties to the agreement" (wherever occurring), substitute "person or persons bound by the conservation agreement under paragraph 307(b) or (c)".(320) Clause 309, page 241 (lines 13 to 19), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a conservation agreement, or a variation of such an agreement, or any part of such an agreement or variation, if the Minister is satisfied that disclosure of the agreement or variation, or the part of the agreement or variation, as the case may be, would result in harm being done to components of biodiversity. (4) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a conservation agreement, or a vari ation of such an agreement, or any part of such an agreement or variation, if the Minister is satisfied that disclosure of the agreement or variation, or the part of the agreement or variation, as the case may be, would disclose matters that the Minister is satisfied are commercial-in-confidence. (5) The Minister must not be satisfied that matter is commercial-in-confidence unless a person demonstrates to the Minister that: (a) release of information under subsection (1) about the matter would cause competitive detriment to the person; and (b) the information is not in the public domain; and (c) the information is not required to be disclosed under another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (d) the information is not readily discoverable.(321) Clause 316, page 246 (line 8), omit "any", substitute "the".(322) Clause 316, page 247 (line 10), omit "any", substitute "the".(323) Clause 319, page 247 (line 22), omit "(if any)".(324) Clause 321, page 248 (line 19), omit "any", substitute "the".(325) Clause 322, page 249 (line 2), omit "any", substitute "the".(326) Clause 323, page 249 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations must prescribe principles for the management of natural heritage and cultural heritage. The principles prescribed are the Australian World Heritage management principles .(327) Clause 328, page 253 (line 4), omit "any", substitute "the".(328) Clause 328, page 254 (line 5), omit "any", substitute "the".(329) Clause 331, page 254 (line 17), omit "(if any)".(330) Clause 332, page 254 (line 24), omit "section", substitute "Subdivision".(331) Clause 333, page 255 (line 12), omit "any", substitute "the".(332) Clause 334, page 255 (line 25), omit "(if any)".(333) Clause 335, page 256 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations must prescribe principles for the management of wetlands included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention. The principles prescribed are the Australian Ramsar management principles .(334) Clause 338, page 257 (lines 10 to 19), omit "any" (wherever occurring), substitute "the".(335) Clause 339, page 257 (line 25), omit "any", substitute "the".(336) Clause 340, page 258 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations must prescribe principles for the management of Biosphere reserves. The principles prescribed are the Australian Biosphere reserve management principles .(337) Clause 342, page 259 (line 18), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(338) Clause 343, page 260 (line 8), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(339) Clause 343, page 260 (line 15), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(340) Clause 344, page 261 (line 1), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(341) Clause 344, page 261 (line 3), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(342) Page 262 (after line 23), after clause 345, insert:345A Commonwealth usage rights vest in Director (1) When a Commonwealth reserve is declared, a usage right that relates to land or seabed in the reserve and is held by the Commonwealth vests in the Director, by force of this subsection. (2) If the Commonwealth acquires a usage right relating to land or seabed in a Commonwealth reserve, the usage right vests in the Director. (3) This section does not vest in the Director a usage right in respect of minerals, despite subsections (1) and (2).(343) Clause 346, page 263 (line 20), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(344) Clause 347, page 264 (lines 6 to 8), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) that the reserve or zone should be managed in accordance with the Australian IUCN reserve management principles for the category.(345) Clause 348, page 265 (lines 5 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations must prescribe principles for each IUCN category. The principles prescribed for an IUCN category are the Australian IUCN reserve management principles for the category.(346) Clause 349, page 265 (line 17), omit "Secretary or his or her agent", substitute "Director".(347) Clause 349, page 265 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), substitute: (a) kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a member of a native species; (b) damage heritage; (c) carry on an excavation; (d) erect a building or other structure; (da) carry out works; (db) take an action for commercial purposes;(348) Clause 350, page 266 (line 17), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(349) Clause 350, page 266 (line 25), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(350) Clause 350, page 266 (lines 29 to 31), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(351) Clause 351, page 267 (line 13), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(352) Clause 351, page 267 (line 15), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(353) Clause 351, page 267 (line 28), omit "Secretary's", substitute "Director's".(354) Clause 351, page 268 (lines 26 to 29), omit paragraph (6)(b), substitute: (b) has the effect of changing the name of a Commonwealth reserve in the Kakadu region; or(355) Clause 352, page 269 (lines 5 to 20), omit the clause, substitute:352 What happens to Director's usage rights when Commonwealth reserve is revoked (1) This section applies in relation to land or seabed that ceases to be included in a Commonwealth reserve because of a Proclamation made under section 350, except a Proclamation that causes the land or seabed: (a) to cease to be included in one Commonwealth reserve; and (b) to be included in another Commonwealth reserve. (2) A usage right relating to the land or seabed that the Director held vests in the Commonwealth, by force of this subsection. (3) However, if the usage right is a lease of indigenous people's land, the usage right ceases to exist, by force of this subsection. (4) If the land is in a State or Territory: (a) the Director may give the officer of the State or Territory responsible for registering land titles a copy of the Proclamation, certified by the Director; and (b) the officer may make an entry in his or her registers and do anything else needed to reflect the effect of this section.(356) Clause 354, page 270 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), substitute: (a) kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a member of a native species; or (b) damage heritage; or (c) carry on an excavation; or (d) erect a building or other structure; or (e) carry out works; or (f) take an action for commercial purposes. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—500 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—5,000 penalty units.(357) Clause 354, page 270 (line 15), omit "Secretary or his or her agent", substitute "Director".(358) Clause 354, page 270 (line 24), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(359) Clause 354, page 270 (line 29), omit "Secretary and his or her agents", substitute "Director".(360) Clause 354, page 271 (lines 7 and 8), omit subparagraph (4)(a)(iii), substitute: (iii) the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 ; and(361) Clause 355, page 272 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (5)(c), substitute: (c) the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 ;(362) Page 274 (after line 30), after clause 356, insert:356A Charges for activities in Commonwealth reserves Subject to the approval of the Minister, the Director may determine and impose charges for: (a) entering or using a Commonwealth reserve or part of a Commonwealth reserve; and (b) using services or facilities provided by the Director in or in connection with a Commonwealth reserve; and (c) the parking or stopping of vehicles in a Commonwealth reserve; and (d) the mooring or landing of vessels in a Commonwealth reserve; and (e) the landing of aircraft in a Commonwealth reserve; and (f) the use of vehicles and vessels in a Commonwealth reserve.(363) Clause 357, page 275 (lines 3 to 29), omit "(if any)" (wherever occurring).(364) Clause 357, page 275 (lines 4 and 5), omit "Secretary must exercise his or her powers and perform his or her functions", substitute "Director must exercise the Director's powers and perform the Director's functions".(365) Clause 357, page 275 (line 13), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(366) Clause 357, page 275 (line 14), omit "Commonwealth's", substitute "Director's".(367) Clause 357, page 275 (line 27), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(368) Clause 357, page 275 (line 28), omit "Commonwealth's", substitute "Director's".(369) Heading to clause 358, page 276 (line 6), omit "Commonwealth's ", substitute "Director's ".(370) Clause 358, page 276 (line 8), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(371) Clause 358, page 276 (line 9), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(372) Clause 358, page 276 (line 11), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(373) Clause 358, page 276 (line 15), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(374) Clause 358, page 276 (line 17), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(375) Clause 359, page 276 (line 26), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(376) Clause 359, page 276 (line 26), omit ", sea".(377) Clause 359, page 276 (line 27), omit ", sea".(378) Clause 359, page 276 (line 29), omit "Act", substitute "Division".(379) Clause 359, page 277 (line 1), after "regulations", insert "made for the purposes of this Division". (380) Page 277 (after line 22), after clause 359, insert:359A Traditional use of Commonwealth reserves by indigenous persons (1) This Division and regulations made for the purposes of this Division do not prevent an indigenous person from continuing in accordance with law the traditional use of an area in a Commonwealth reserve for: (a) hunting or food-gathering (except for purposes of sale); or (b) ceremonial and religious purposes. (2) However, regulations made for the purposes of this Division do affect an indigenous person's traditional use of an area in a Commonwealth reserve if they: (a) are made for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in the area; and (b) expressly affect the traditional use of the area by indigenous persons.(381) Clause 360, page 278 (line 1), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(382) Clause 360, page 278 (lines 5 to 28), omit "Secretary or his or her agent" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(383) Clause 360, page 278 (lines 7 to 10), omit paragraphs (4)(a), (b), (c) and (d), substitute: (a) kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a member of a native species; (b) damage heritage; (c) carry on an excavation; (d) erect a building or other structure; (da) carry out works; (db) take an action for commercial purposes;(384) Clause 360, page 278 (after line 18), at the end of subclause (4), add: Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—500 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—5,000 penalty units.(385) Clause 360, page 278 (line 31), at the end of subclause (6), add "and to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 ".(386) Clause 361, page 279 (lines 3 to 10), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(387) Clause 362, page 279 (lines 13 and 14), omit "The Secretary must exercise his or her powers and perform his or her functions", substitute "The Director must exercise the Director's powers and perform the Director's functions".(388) Heading to clause 363, page 280 (line 1), omit "Secretary ", substitute "Director ".(389) Clause 363, page 280 (line 5), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(390) Clause 363, page 280 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Secretary is exercising his or her powers and performing his or her functions", substitute "Director is exercising the Director's powers and performing the Director's functions".(391) Clause 363, page 280 (lines 9 to 17), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(392) Clause 363, page 281 (line 7), after "Commonwealth", insert "or the Director".(393) Clause 363, page 281 (line 19), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(394) Heading to clause 364, page 281 (line 21), omit "Secretary ", substitute "Director ".(395) Clause 364, page 281 (line 23) to page 282 (line 15), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(396) Clause 365, page 282 (lines 19 to 28), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(397) Clause 366, page 283 (line 3) to page 284 (line 4), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(398) Clause 367, page 284 (line 17), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(399) Clause 367, page 284 (line 18), omit "Commonwealth's", substitute "Director's".(400) Clause 367, page 285 (line 13), omit "any", substitute "the".(401) Clause 368, page 286 (line 6), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(402) Clause 368, page 286 (line 8), omit "Minister", substitute "Director".(403) Clause 368, page 286 (line 11), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(404) Clause 368, page 286 (line 14), omit "Minister", substitute "Director".(405) Clause 368, page 286 (lines 16 to 21), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(406) Clause 368, page 286 (line 23), omit "Minister", substitute "Director".(407) Clause 368, page 286 (line 26), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(408) Clause 368, page 287 (lines 9 to 12), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director". (409) Clause 368, page 287 (line 19), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(410) Clause 368, page 288 (line 21), omit "Minister", substitute "Director".(411) Clause 368, page 288 (line 24), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(412) Clause 368, page 289 (lines 7 to 10), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(413) Heading to clause 369, page 289 (line 15), omit "Secretary ", substitute "Director ".(414) Clause 369, page 289 (line 17) to page 290 (line 11), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(415) Clause 370, page 290 (lines 13 to 25), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(416) Clause 370, page 290 (line 27), omit "After the Secretary has given the plan", substitute "Within 60 days of the Director giving the plan".(417) Clause 370, page 291 (line 3), omit "may", substitute "must".(418) Clause 370, page 291 (lines 5 to 18), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(419) Clause 370, page 291 (line 19), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(420) Clause 370, page 291 (line 20), omit "Secretary's", substitute "Director's".(421) Clause 370, page 291 (line 22), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(422) Clause 374, page 293 (line 10), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(423) Clause 375, page 293 (line 17), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(424) Clause 376, page 293 (line 18) to page 294 (line 8), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(425) Clause 377, page 294 (line 15) to page 295 (line 2), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(426) Clause 378, page 295 (line 31), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(427) Clause 379, page 296 (after line 26), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: Subsection (1) is subject to section 390A, which deals with the appointment of a Northern Territory nominee as a member of the Board for a Commonwealth reserve consisting wholly or mostly of indigenous people's land held by the Director under lease in the Territory. (428) Clause 380, page 297 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert: Avoiding doubt—future terms of office (1A) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not prevent a person from being appointed as a member of a Board again. This subsection does not affect the operation of subsection 33(4A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to this Act.(429) Clause 382, page 298 (after line 18), after subclause (4), insert: Termination for conduct inimical to Board (4A) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of a Board for a reserve if the Minister is satisfied that the person has acted in a way that is not in the interest of the Board as a whole. However, the Minister may not terminate under this subsection the appointment of a member nominated by traditional owners of indigenous people's land in the reserve.(430) Clause 383, page 300 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A meeting of a Board for a Commonwealth reserve consisting wholly of indigenous people's land: (a) must not start; and (b) must not continue; unless the majority of the members of the Board present are persons nominated by the traditional owners of the indigenous people's land for appointment as members. (5) Subsection (4) has effect despite subsections (1), (2) and (3).(431) Clause 385, page 300 (line 22), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(432) Clause 385, page 300 (line 23), omit "Secretary's" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director's".(433) Clause 388, page 302 (lines 15 to 21), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(434) Clause 388, page 302 (line 22), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(435) Clause 389, page 303 (line 10), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(436) Clause 389, page 304 (line 1), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(437) Clause 389, page 304 (line 16), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director". (438) Clause 390, page 304 (line 28) to page 305 (line 22), omit "Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Director".(439) Clause 390, page 305 (line 13), omit "Conservation Commission", substitute "Parks and Wildlife Commission".(440) Clause 390, page 305 (line 23), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(441) Clause 390, page 305 (line 24), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(442) Clause 390, page 305 (line 27), omit "Secretary's", substitute "Director's".(443) Clause 390, page 306 (line 7), omit "Secretary", substitute "Director".(444) Page 306 (after line 23), at the end of Subdivision G, add:390A Appointment of Northern Territory nominee to Board (1) This section makes special provision for the appointment of a person nominated by the Northern Territory as a member of the Board for a Commonwealth reserve consisting wholly or mostly of indigenous people's land held by the Director under lease in the Territory. (2) Despite subsection 379(1), the Minister must not appoint the person unless: (a) the members of the Board nominated by the traditional owners of the land consent to the appointment; or (b) the appointment has been recommended under subsection (5). (3) The Northern Territory may inform the Minister if it believes that the members of the Board nominated by the traditional owners of the land are unreasonably withholding consent to the appointment. (4) If the Northern Territory informs the Minister, he or she must refer the matter to the person (the Ombudsman ) holding the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 . (5) If the Ombudsman is satisfied that the members of the Board nominated by the traditional owners of the land are unreasonably withholding consent to the appointment, the Ombudsman must recommend to the Minister that the Minister make the appointment.(445) Page 306 (after line 23), at the end of Part 15, add:Division 5—Conservation zones390B Simplified outline of this Division The following is a simplified outline of this Division: The Governor-General can proclaim a Commonwealth area to be a conservation zone, to protect biodiversity in the area while it is being assessed for inclusion in a Commonwealth reserve. Regulations can be made to regulate a wide range of activities in a conservation zone. People who have rights relating to an area that is later included in a conservation zone can continue to exercise those rights in the zone. A conservation zone can be revoked if the Minister is satisfied the area concerned should not be included in a Commonwealth reserve. It is revoked automatically if it is included in a Commonwealth reserve.390C Object of this Division The object of this Division is to provide for the protection of biodiversity, other natural features and heritage in Commonwealth areas while they are being assessed for inclusion in a Commonwealth reserve.390D Proclamation of conservation zones (1) The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, declare a Commonwealth area outside a Commonwealth reserve to be a conservation zone. (2) Before the Governor-General makes a Proclamation declaring a Commonwealth area to be a conservation zone, the Minister must be satisfied that the area should be assessed to determined whether the biodiversity, other natural features and heritage in the area should be protected by including the area in a Commonwealth reserve.390E Regulating activities generally (1) The regulations may: (a) regulate or prohibit the pollution of soil, air or water in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to: (i) people, biodiversity or heritage in conservation zones; or (ii) the natural features of conservation zones; and (b) regulate tourism in conservation zones; and (c) provide for the protection and preservation of conservation zones and property and things in conservation zones; and (d) provide for the protection and conservation of biodiversity in conservation zones; and (e) regulate or prohibit access to all or part of a conservation zone by persons or classes of persons; and (f) provide for the removal of trespassers from conservation zones; and (g) regulate camping in conservation zones; and (h) provide for the safety of persons in conservation zones; and (i) regulate the use of fire in conservation zones; and (j) regulate the conduct of persons in conservation zones; and (k) regulate the carrying on of any trade or commerce in a conservation zone; and (l) regulate the use of vehicles in conservation zones and provide for signs and road markings for those purposes; and (m) provide for: (i) the removal of vehicles, aircraft or vessels from places in conservation zones where they have been left in contravention of the regulations or have been abandoned; and (ii) the impounding of such vehicles, aircraft or vessels; and (n) provide that the person taken for the purposes of the regulations to be the owner of a motor vehicle involved in a contravention of a provision of the regulations relating to the parking or stopping of vehicles in a conservation zone is, except as provided otherwise, taken to commit an offence against the provision; and (o) provide for a person to be taken to be the owner of a motor vehicle for the purposes of regulations made under paragraph (n) (including a person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered under the law of a State or Territory); and (p) regulate the use of vessels in, and the passage of vessels through, conservation zones; and (q) regulate the landing and use of aircraft in, and the flying of aircraft over, conservation zones; and (r) regulate or prohibit the taking of animals or plants into or out of conservation zones; and (s) provide for the impounding, removal, destruction or disposal of animals found straying in conservation zones; and (t) regulate or prohibit the taking into conservation zones, and the use in conservation zones, of weapons, traps, nets, snares, fishing apparatus and other devices; and (u) regulate or prohibit the laying of baits and the use of explosives and poisons in conservation zones; and (v) provide for the collection of specimens and the pursuit of research in conservation zones for scientific purposes; and (w) provide for the issue of licences, permits and authorities relating to activities in conservation zones, the conditions subject to which they are issued and the charging of fees by the Commonwealth in respect of such licences, permits and authorities; and (x) provide for any matter incidental to or connected with a matter described in another paragraph. (2) Regulations relating to conservation zones may also: (a) regulate the carrying on of mining operations, fishing, pastoral or agricultural activities for commercial purposes; and (b) regulate the construction or alteration of buildings and structures; and (c) regulate the construction or establishment of bridges, railways, roads, tracks, port facilities and air-strips and the carrying out of any other works; and (d) regulate the felling or taking of timber; and (e) provide for and in relation to the powers to be exercised, and the functions and duties to be performed, in and in relation to conservation zones by wardens, by rangers and by other persons included in specified classes of persons; and (f) provide for and in relation to the giving of securities for compliance with regulations made for the purposes of this section by persons doing, or proposing to do, anything to which those regulations relate. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section have no effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of a right (however described) to explore for minerals, or to mine for or recover minerals, granted under section 124 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 .390F Charges for activities in conservation zones Subject to the approval of the Minister, the Director may determine and impose charges for using services or facilities provided by the Director in or in connection with a conservation zone.390G Other laws and regulations made for this Division Regulations regulating aircraft subject to other Commonwealth laws (1) A provision of the regulations regulating the flying of aircraft over a conservation zone does not have any effect so far as it is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth. For this purpose, a provision is not inconsistent with such a law if it can be complied with without contravention of the law. Territory laws subject to regulations (2) A law of a Territory has effect so far as it is not inconsistent with a provision of the regulations made for the purposes of this Division and having effect in that Territory. For this purpose, such a law is not inconsistent with the provision so far as it can operate concurrently with the provision.390H Prior usage rights relating to conservation zones continue to have effect (1) None of the following provisions affect a usage right that was held by a person (other than the Commonwealth) in relation to land or seabed immediately before the land or seabed was included in a conservation zone: (a) provisions of this Division that relate to the zone (whether or not they also relate to another conservation zone); (b) provisions of the regulations made for the purposes of this Division that relate to the zone (whether or not they also relate to another conservation zone). (2) None of the provisions covered by subsection (1) affect the application of a law of a State or Territory in relation to the usage right. (3) The usage right may be renewed or have its term extended only: (a) with the Minister's written consent; and (b) subject to any conditions determined by the Minister. This subsection has effect despite subsections (1) and (2) and any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to a usage right relating to minerals on, in or under land or seabed included in a conservation zone as if the usage right were a usage right relating to the land or seabed. (5) This section applies to a right arising out of a usage right in the same way as it applies to the usage right.390J Revoking and altering conservation zones Proclamations to revoke or amend declaring Proclamation (1) The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, revoke or amend a Proclamation made under section 390D (declaring a Commonwealth area to be a conservation zone). Limit on making Proclamations (2) Before the Governor-General makes a Proclamation under subsection (1) causing a Commonwealth area to cease to be within a conservation zone, the Minister must be satisfied that the area should not be included in a Commonwealth reserve. Declaration of Commonwealth reserve revokes conservation zone (3) A Commonwealth area ceases to be a conservation zone by force of this subsection if the area becomes or is included in a Commonwealth reserve. Conservation zone ends if it ceases to be in Commonwealth area (4) If land, waters, seabed or airspace in a conservation zone cease to be a Commonwealth area, the land, waters, seabed or airspace cease to be (or be in) a conservation zone by force of this subsection. Proclamation to reflect cessation of conservation zone (5) If land, waters, seabed or airspace cease to be a conservation zone by force of subsection (3) or (4), the Governor-General must make a Proclamation revoking or amending the Proclamation that included the land, waters, seabed or airspace in a conservation zone, to reflect the fact that the land, waters, seabed or airspace are no longer part of the conservation zone.Amendments agreed to.17:41:006188Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Chair, in respect of opposition amendments, I would like to move them in two batches. Perhaps I can explain how that stacks up. In respect of the first batch, I would like to move amendments 221, 224, 226 and 227 to 230. They are all the amend ments that go to the management arrangements for Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta national parks. Then I would like to move the remaining opposition amendments in one batch as well. I seek leave to do so.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(221) Clause 377, page 295 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (5) and the note.(224) Clause 378, page 296 (lines 4 to 13), omit subclause (3), substitute:Prerequisite to revoking or amending notice (3) The Minister must not revoke or amend a notice under section 377 relating to a Commonwealth reserve unless the land council for indigenous people's land or the traditional owners of the indigenous people's land in the reserve has agreed to the revocation or amendment, as the case requires.(226) Clause 382, page 298 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (4).(227) Page 299 (after line 16), after clause 382, insert:382A Deputy members (1) Where an appointment to an office of member of a Board established for a reserve is made pursuant to subsection 377(4), those traditional owners of the indigenous people's land may nominate a person who satisfies the relevant qualifications (if any) in relation to that office to be the deputy of the member of the Board holding that office. (2) A member of a Board who was appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4) may, with the approval of the Minister, nominate a person who satisfies the relevant qualifications (if any) in relation to the member's office to be the deputy of the member. (3) Where a person is nominated to be the deputy of a member of a Board, the person so nominated may, if the member is absent from a meeting of the Board, attend that meeting and, when so attending, is, subject to subsection (4), deemed to be a member of the Board. (4) A person who is nominated to be the deputy of a member of a Board must not preside at a meeting of the Board. (5) Where the traditional owners of the indigenous people's land situated in the reserve for which a Board is established nominate a person, pursuant to subsection (1), to be the deputy of a member of the Board, those traditional owners may revoke that nomination. (6) A member of a Board who was appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4) may, with the approval of the Minister, revoke a nomination made by the member under subsection (2). (7) A deficiency or irregularity in relation to the selection or nomination of the person does not invalidate the person's nomination.(228) Page 299 (after line 16), after clause 382A, insert:382B Presiding members (1) A Board may, by resolution, appoint a member of the Board to be the presiding member of the Board. (2) A member appointed to be presiding member of a Board holds office, subject to subsection (3), for such period as is determined by the Board at the time of the member's appointment to that office. (3) A member of a Board ceases to hold office as presiding member of the Board if: (a) the member resigns that office; (b) the Board revokes the member's appointment to that office; or (c) the member ceases to be a member of the Board.(229) Page 299 (after line 16), after clause 382B, insert:382C Disclosure of interests (1) A member of a Board who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Board shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of that interest at a meeting of the Board. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Board.(230) Page 299 (after line 16), after clause 382C, insert:382D Meetings (1) Subject to the provisions of this Division, a Board must determine its procedures and determine which persons are to be permitted to attend or participate in meetings of the Board. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), at a meeting of a Board, a number of mem bers greater than half the number of persons who constitute the Board constitute a quorum. (3) Where a Board is established for a reserve that consists wholly or mostly of indigenous people's land held by the Commonwealth under lease, a meeting of the Board must not be held, or must not continue, unless the majority of the members of the Board present at the meeting are members appointed pursuant to subsection 377(4). (4) A meeting of a Board must not be held, or must not continue, unless at least one of the members of the Board present at the meeting is a member appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4). (5) Decisions of a Board are to be determined by a majority of the members of the Board present and voting. (6) The member of a Board who is presiding at a meeting of the Board has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments Nos 221, 224, 226, and 227 to 230 be agreed to.17:47:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Hutchins, S. O'Chee, W. G.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Faulkner, J. P. Newman, J. M.Forshaw, M. G. Heffernan, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Amendments (by Senator Bolkus)—by leave—put:(117) Heading to clause 172, page 158 (lines 7 and 8), omit "on Commonwealth land ".(118) Clause 172, page 158 (line 9), after "inventories", insert "on a national basis".(119) Clause 172, page 158 (lines 11 and 12), omit "and listed marine species", substitute ", listed marine species and critical habitats for those species and communities".(120) Clause 172, page 158 (line 12), omit "on Commonwealth land".(121) Clause 172, page 158 (lines 13 to 16), omit "5 years", (wherever occurring), substitute "3 years".(122) Heading to clause 173, page 158 (lines 21 and 22), omit "in Commonwealth marine areas ".(123) Clause 173, page 158 (line 23), after "surveys", insert "on a national basis".(124) Clause 173, page 158 (line 25), omit "Commonwealth marine areas", substitute: : (i) any waters of the sea inside the seaward boundary of the exclusive economic zone; and (ii) any waters over the continental shelf; and critical habitats for those cetaceans;(125) Clause 173, page 158 (lines 27 and 28), omit "and listed marine species", substitute ", listed marine species and critical habitats for those species and communities".(126) Clause 173, page 158 (line 28), omit "in Commonwealth marine areas", substitute "in the waters mentioned in paragraph (a)". (127) Clause 173, page 158 (line 29) to page 159 (line 3), omit "10 years" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 years".(128) Page 159 (after line 11), after clause 174, insert:174A Inventories and surveys to be publishedInventories and surveys prepared under this Division must be published on the Internet and otherwise in accordance with the regulations except where the Minister is of the opinion that publication of information contained in an inventory or survey would or would be reasonably likely to endanger a species, community or habitat.(129) Clause 176, page 160 (line 12), omit "may", substitute "must".(130) Clause 178, page 161 (line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (g) internationally threatened.(131) Clause 179, page 163 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (7) A species is eligible to be included in the internationally threatened category at a particular time if, at that time: (a) it is recognised by the World Conservation Union ( IUCN ) as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable; and (b) it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria, outside the jurisdiction of Australia; and (c) Australia would provide a viable place of refuge.(132) Clause 181, page 163 (line 27), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) conservation dependent.(133) Clause 182, page 165 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (4) An ecological community is eligible to be included in the conservation dependent category at a particular time if, at that time, it is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would, or would be likely to, result in the community becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered within a period of 5 years.(134) Page 165 (after line 11), after clause 183, insert:183A Listing of critical habitats (1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of habitats that are critical to the survival of: (a) listed threatened species; and (b) listed threatened ecological communities. (2) The Minister must not include a habitat on the list as first established unless the Minister is satisfied that the habitat is critical to the survival of a species or ecological community contained in a list under section 178 or 181 as first established. (3) In establishing a list under subsection (1), the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed list.(135) Clause 184, page 165 (line 15), omit "or 183", substitute ", 183 or 183A".(136) Page 168 (after line 4), after clause 186, insert:186A Amending list of internationally threatened species (1) The Minister must add to the list of internationally threatened species any non-native species that has been recognised by the World Conservation Union (IUCN ) as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. (2) The Minister must not add an internationally threatened species to the list unless satisfied that it is eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species. (3) The Minister must not delete an internationally threatened species from the list unless satisfied that: (a) it is no longer eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species; and (b) it is no longer recognised by the World Conservation Union as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. (4) In deciding whether a non-native species is eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species, the Minister must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of the species concerned.(137) Clause 188, page 169 (lines 12 to 14), omit all words from and including "and the preparation" to the end of subclause (4).(138) Page 169 (after line 24), after clause 188, insert:188A Amending list of critical habitats (1) The Minister must not add a critical habitat to the list unless satisfied that it is eligible to be treated as a critical habitat. (2) The Minister must not delete a critical habitat from the list unless satisfied that it is no longer eligible to be treated as a critical habitat. (3) A habitat is a critical habitat , in whole or in part, if it is: (a) the habitat of an endangered species, population or ecological community; and (b) critical to the survival of that species, population or ecological community. (4) Before deciding whether a habitat is eligible to be treated as a critical habitat, the Minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee and any Commonwealth agency, any State, any self-governing Territory, and any agency of a State or self-governing Territory, that would be affected by the listing of the habitat. (5) In deciding whether to include a critical habitat in, or delete a critical habitat from, a list, the Minister must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of a species, population or ecological community in that critical habitat.(139) Page 169 (after line 24), after clause 188A, insert:188B Interim emergency listing (1) The Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , declare that any of the following: (a) an unlisted threatened species; (b) an unlisted internationally threatened species; (c) an unlisted threatened ecological community; (d) an unlisted threatening process; (e) an unlisted critical habitat;is included on the relevant list as an interim emergency item if the Minister is satisfied that failure to include the item on the list would endanger the survival of the species, community or habitat. (2) The Minister must not include an item on a list as an interim emergency item unless the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed interim emergency listing. (3) An instrument made under subsection (1) has effect until the Minister makes a decision under section 189 whether to amend a list referred to in section 178, 181, 183 or 183A in relation to the item.(140) Clause 189, page 169 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add "or 183A".(141) Clause 189, page 169 (lines 30 and 31), omit "the proposed amendment", substitute: : (c) the establishment of the list; or (d) the proposed amendment.(142) Clause 189, page 170 (line 1), after "subsection (1)", insert "or 188B(1)".(143) Clause 189, page 170 (line 3), after "matter", insert "of the list or".(144) Clause 189, page 170 (line 4), omit "a proposed amendment", substitute "the establishment, or a proposed amendment,".(145) Clause 189, page 170 (line 5), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection 188B(1)".(146) Clause 189, page 170 (line 6), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(147) Clause 189, page 170 (line 8), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(148) Clause 189, page 170 (after line 12), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the Minister requests advice on an interim emergency listing under subsection 188B(1), the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 30 days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request, and the Minister must make a decision within 7 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the interim emergency listing.(149) Clause 189, page 170 (line 13), omit "The Minister", substitute "After considering advice under subsection (1), the Minister".(150) Clause 189, page 170 (after line 18), after subclause (5), insert: (5A) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision in relation to: (a) the establishment of a list under sections 178, 181, 183 or 183A; or (b) the amendment of a list under subsection (5); or (c) the inclusion of an interim emergency item on a list under subsection 188A(1); cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(151) Clause 189, page 170 (line 21), after "90 days", insert "—or 7 days in the case of advice requested under subsection 188B(1)—".(152) Clause 190, page 170 (line 29), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(153) Clause 191, page 171 (line 9), after "native", insert "or internationally threatened".(154) Clause 191, page 171 (line 14), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; or (d) a critical habitat to be included in the list referred to in section 183A.(155) Clause 191, page 171 (lines 17 to 25), after "species" (wherever occurring), insert ", internationally threatened species".(156) Clause 191, page 171 (after line 2), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the Minister decides that a critical habitat is not eligible to be listed, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) advise the person who made the nomination of the Minister's decision; and (b) give to that person a statement of reasons why the critical habitat is not eligible to be listed.(157) Clause 192, page 172 (lines 16 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:192 Rediscovery of threatened species that were extinct (1) If the Minister is satisfied that a native species that is listed in the extinct category has been definitely located in nature since it was last listed as extinct, the Minister may, under section 184, transfer the species from the extinct category to another category provided that the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee. (2) If the Minister requests advice under subsection (1), the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 12 months, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request.(158) Clause 196, page 173 (lines 24 and 25), omit "; and" and paragraph (c).(159) Clause 196, page 173 (after line 27), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Subject to section 197, a person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person significantly modifies the habitat of a member of a native species or an ecological community; and (b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(160) Clause 196, page 174 (lines 5 and 6), omit "; and" and paragraph (c).(161) Clause 196, page 174 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (3) and the note.(162) Clause 196, page 174 (line 11), after "(1)", insert ", (1A)".(163) Clause 197, page 174 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraph (d).(164) Clause 201, page 176 (lines 24 and 25), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 200 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(165) Page 177 (after line 28), after clause 201, insert:201A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused;under section 201.(166) Page 182 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add:209A Listing of critical habitats (1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of habitats that are critical to the survival of listed migratory species. (2) The Minister must not include a habitat on the list unless the Minister is satisfied that the habitat is critical to the survival of a species, or a population of a species, contained in a list under section 209.(167) Page 182 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add: 209B Nomination of migratory species etc (1) A person may, in accordance with the regulations (if any), nominate to the Minister: (a) a migratory species to be included in the list referred to in section 209; or (b) a habitat to be included in the list referred to in section 209A. (2) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister must forward all nominations to the Scientific Committee. (3) If the Minister decides that a nominated migratory species or critical habitat is not eligible to be listed, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) advise the person who made the nomination of the Minister's decision; and (b) give to that person a statement of reasons why the species or habitat is not eligible to be listed. (4) The Minister may, at any time, request a person who has made a nomination to provide additional information about the subject of the nomination within such period as the Minister specifies. (5) The Minister may reject a nomination if satisfied that: (a) the subject of the nomination has previously been nominated; or (b) the nomination is vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith; or (c) the nomination has not been made in accordance with the regulations (if any); or (d) any additional information requested under subsection (4) has not been provided within the specified period, or the information that has been provided is incomplete.(168) Page 182 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add:209C Interim emergency listing (1) The Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , declare that either of the following: (a) an unlisted migratory species; or (b) an unlisted critical habitat;is included on the relevant list as an interim emergency item if the Minister is satisfied that failure to include the species or habitat on the list would endanger the survival of the species or habitat. (2) The Minister must not include a migratory species or critical habitat on a list as an interim emergency item unless the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed interim emergency listing. (3) An instrument made under subsection (1) has effect until the Minister makes a decision under section 209 or 209A whether to list the particular migratory species or critical habitat.(169) Clause 216, page 185 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 215 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(170) Page 186 (after line 2), after clause 216, insert:216A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) application for permits that have been refused;under section 216.(171) Page 187 (after line 24), after clause 222, insert (in Subdivision C):222A Advice from Scientific Committee (1) In deciding whether: (a) to accept a nomination of a migratory species or critical habitat under section 209A; or (b) to make a declaration about an interim emergency listing under section 209C;the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed action. (2) In preparing advice under subsection (1), the Scientific Committee may obtain advice from a person with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the proposed action. (3) In preparing advice under paragraph (1)(a), the Scientific Committee must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of the migratory species or critical habitat concerned. (4) If a migratory species or critical habitat has been nominated under section 209A to be listed, the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 12 months, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the nomination from the Minister under that section, and the Minister must: (a) make a decision; and (b) if the Minister decides to list the species or habitat—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 90 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the listing. (5) If the Minister requests advice on an interim emergency listing under section 209C, the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 30 days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request, and the Minister must: (a) make a decision; and (b) if the Minister decides to make an interim emergency listing—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 7 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the interim emergency listing. (6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision in relation to: (a) the listing of a migratory species or critical habitat under section 209A; (b) the making of a declaration about an interim emergency listing under section 209C;cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament. (7) A member of the Scientific Committee has a duty not to disclose to any other person the advice, or any information relating to the advice, before: (a) if the advice relates to a listing under section 209A—90 days; or (b) if the advice relates to a listing under section 209C—7 days;unless the disclosure: (c) is for the official purposes of the Scientific Committee; or (d) if an instrument is published in the Gazette relating to the listing to which the advice relates—occurred after the publication. (172) Clause 228, page 191 (line 19), at the end of subclause (2), add "and published in the Gazette ".(173) Clause 238, page 197 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 237 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(174) Page 198 (after line 24), after clause 238, insert:238A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused;under section 238.(175) Clause 251, page 204 (after line 12), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision under paragraph (2)(a) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(176) Clause 255, page 206 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraph (d).(177) Clause 258, page 208 (lines 4 and 5), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 257 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(178) Page 209 (after line 29), after clause 258, insert:258A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused;under section 258.(179) Page 211 (after line 24), after Division 4, insert: Division 4A—Invasive speciesSubdivision A—Listing266A Listed invasive species (1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of invasive species divided into the following categories: (a) potentially threatening; (b) threatening but responding to control measures; (c) threatening but uncontrolled. (2) In establishing a list under subsection (1), the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed list. (3) The Minister must establish the list written 30 days after the commencement of this Act. (4) The Minister must cause a notice summarising the information contained in the instrument to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any).266B Minister may amend list (1) Subject to this Subdivision, the Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , amend the list: (a) by including items in the list; or (b) by deleting items from the list; or (c) by transferring items from one category in the list to another category in the list; or (d) by correcting an inaccuracy or updating the name of an invasive species. (2) An instrument mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (3) Despite section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as it applies in relation to an instrument because of section 46A of that Act, amendments of a list that delete items from the list take effect on the first day on which they are no longer liable to be disallowed, or to be taken to have been disallowed, under section 48 of that Act as it so applies. (4) When an instrument is laid before each House of the Parliament in accordance with section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , the Minister must cause a statement to be laid before each House with the instrument explaining: (a) in the case of an item that has been included in the list by the instrument—why the item was so included; or (b) in the case of an item that has been deleted from the list by the instrument—why the item was so deleted. (5) The Minister must cause a notice summarising the information contained in an instrument to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any).266C Adding invasive species to the listThe Minister must add an invasive species to the list if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to include the species in the list to prevent significant damage to any listed threatened species, ecological community or critical habitat.266D Minister must consider advice from Scientific Committee (1) In deciding whether to add an item to, or delete an item from, the list, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the scientific aspects of the addition or deletion of the item concerned. (2) The Minister must: (a) decide whether to add an item to, or delete an item from, the list; and (b) if the Minister decides to add or delete the item—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 90 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the addition or deletion of the item. (3) A member of the Scientific Committee has a duty not to disclose to any other person the advice, or any information relating to the advice, before the end of that period of 90 days unless the disclosure: (a) is for the official purposes of the Scientific Committee; or (b) if an instrument is published in the Gazette relating to an addition or deletion to which the advice relates—occurred after the publication.266E Minister to make lists available to the publicThe Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), make copies of up-to-date lists available for purchase, for a reasonable price, at a prescribed place in each State and self-governing Territory. Subdivision B—Permit system266F Possession etc of listed invasive species (1) Subject to subsection 266G, a person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person has in his or her possession a member of an invasive species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed invasive species; and (c) the member has been unlawfully imported. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) Subject to section 266G, a person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of an invasive species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed invasive species; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (4) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.266G Section 266F does not apply to certain actionsSection 266F does not apply to: (a) an action authorised by a permit that is in force; or (b) an action provided for by, and taken in accordance with, a threat abatement plan made under Division 5 and that is in force; or (c) an action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health; or (d) an action by a Commonwealth agency, or an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory, that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of law enforcement; or (e) an action that is reasonably necessary to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life or property; or (f) an action that occurs as a result of an unavoidable accident, other than an accident caused by negligent or reckless behaviour. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this section. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .266H Application for permits (1) A person may, in accordance with the regulations, apply to the Minister for a permit to be issued under section 266J. (2) The application must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations (if any).266J Minister may issue permits (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 266H and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part. (2) A permit authorises its holder to take the actions specified in the permit without breaching section 266F. (3) The Minister must not issue a permit unless satisfied: (a) the specified action will significantly contribute to the eradication or control of the listed invasive species concerned; and (b) the taking of the action will not adversely affect: (i) the conservation status of any native species or population; or (ii) any listed ecological community; or (iii) any listed critical habitat.266K Publication of permit details The Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused;under section 266J.266L Conditions of permit (1) A permit is subject to such conditions as are specified in the permit or as are imposed under subsection (2). (2) The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations: (a) vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (b) impose further conditions of a permit. 266M Contravening conditions of a permitThe holder of a permit is guilty of an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding 300 penalty units if: (a) he or she does, or fails to do, an act or thing; and (b) doing, or failing to do, the act or thing results in a contravention of a condition of the permit.266N Authorities under permits (1) Subject to subsection (2), the holder of a permit may give to a person written authority to do for or on behalf of the holder any act authorised by the permit. The authority may be given generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of authority. (2) The holder of a permit must not give an authority unless: (a) the permit contains a condition permitting the holder to do so; and (b) the authority is given in accordance with any requirements set out in the condition. (3) A permit is, for the purposes of this Act, taken to authorise the doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act by the person is authorised by an authority given by the holder of the permit. (4) The giving of an authority does not prevent the doing of any act by the holder of the permit. (5) Except as provided in this section, a permit does not authorise the doing of any act by a person for or on behalf of the holder of the permit. (6) A person who gives an authority must give to the Minister written notice of it within 14 days after giving the authority.266P Transfer of permitsOn the application, in accordance with the regulations, of the holder of a permit, the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, transfer the permit to another person.266Q Suspension or cancellation of permitsThe Minister may, in accordance with the regulations: (a) suspend a permit for a specified period; or (b) cancel a permit.266R FeesSuch fees as are prescribed (if any) are payable in respect of the following: (a) the grant or the transfer of a permit; (b) the variation or revocation of a condition of a permit; (c) the imposition of a further condition of a permit.(180) Page 211 (after line 24), after Division 4A, insert:Division 4B—Public consultation before issue of permits266S Public consultation before issue of permits (1) Before issuing a permit under: (a) section 201; or (b) section 216; or (c) section 238; or (d) section 258; or (e) section 266J;the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under this section to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in a notice under subsection (6). (2) The Minister must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, cause to be published in the Gazette and in a national daily newspaper a notice inviting applications from persons or bodies wishing to be registered for receipt of advice on applications for all or any of the following classes of permits: (a) a permit issued under section 201 for an action in relation to listed threatened species or listed ecological communities; (b) a permit issued under section 216 for an action in relation to listed migratory species; (c) a permit issued under section 238 for an action in relation to cetaceans; (d) a permit issued under section 258 for an action in relation to listed marine species; (e) a permit issued under section 266J for an action in relation to listed invasive species. (3) The Minister must register any person or body that applies in writing for the registration. (4) Registration has effect for the period specified in the notice. (5) As soon as practicable after receiving an application under: (a) section 200 (in relation to listed threatened species or listed ecological communities); or (b) section 215 (in relation to listed migratory species); or (c) section 237 (in relation to cetaceans); or (d) section 257 (in relation to listed marine species); or (e) section 266H (in relation to listed invasive species);the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person registered in respect of that class of permit. (6) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged. (7) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(181) Clause 278, page 221 (after line 13), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the making or adoption of a recovery plan or of a threat abatement plan under section 267 to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and(182) Clause 281, page 223 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (4) As soon as practicable after determining the conditions (if any) to which the giving of assistance under this section is to be subject, the Minister must cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to those conditions (if any) to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(183) Clause 285, page 225 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) a listed internationally threatened species that occurs in Australia or an external Territory.(184) Clause 286, page 226 (line 22), after "agency", insert "and an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory".(185) Clause 293, page 229 (after line 24), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the making or adoption of a wildlife conservation plan under section 285 to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and(186) Clause 301, page 234 (lines 3 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:301 Control of access to biological resources (1) The Minister and the Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee must, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this section, seek the involvement and approval of the holders and the proponents of traditional indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices based on that knowledge for the making of regulations under subsection (2). (2) The regulations may provide for the control of access to biological resources, subject to Articles 8(i) and 10(c) of the Biodiversity Convention. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (2) must provide for: (a) respecting, preserving and maintaining knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (b) promoting the wider application of that knowledge and those innovations and practices in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (c) the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of that knowledge and those innovations and practices in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (d) protecting and encouraging customary use of biological resources in accordance with Article 10(c) of the Biodiversity Convention. (4) Without limiting subsection (2), the regulations contain provisions about all or any of the following: (a) the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of biological resources in Commonwealth areas; (b) the facilitation of access to such resources; (c) the right to deny access to such resources; (d) the granting of access to such resources and the terms and conditions of such access. (187) Page 236 (after line 6), at the end of Division 8, add:303A Review by the Administrative Appeals TribunalAn application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision by the Minister to issue a permit under: (a) section 201; or (b) section 216; or (c) section 238; or (d) section 258; or (e) section 266J.(189) Clause 306, page 238 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph (f).(190) Clause 313, page 243 (lines 5 to 21), omit the clause (but not the note), substitute:313 Simplified outline of this DivisionThe following is a simplified outline of this Division:The Commonwealth may submit property for inclusion in the World Heritage List.The Minister must note plans for managing properties on the World Heritage List. The Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must not contravene such plans.The Commonwealth can provide assistance for the protection or conservation of declared World Heritage properties.(191) Subdivision B, clause 314, page 244 (lines 1 to 22), omit the subdivision, substitute:Subdivision B—Commonwealth may seek World Heritage listing314 Commonwealth may seek World Heritage listingThe Commonwealth may submit a property to the World Heritage Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage List.(192) Clause 315, page 245 (after line 10), after subclause (3), insert:Plans for World Heritage properties in States and self-governing Territories (3A) If a property is: (a) in a State; or (b) in a self-governing Territory; or (c) on, over or under the seabed vested in a State by the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 or in the Northern Territory by the Coastal Areas (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 ;the Commonwealth must consult with the State or Territory in preparing and implementing a plan for managing the property. (193) Heading to subdivision D, page 245 (lines 18 and 19), omit "in Commonwealth areas ".(194) Clause 316, page 245 (lines 21 to 27), omit subclause (1), substitute:Minister must make plan (1) The Minister must make a written plan for managing a property that is included in the World Heritage List. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the property is included in the World Heritage List.(194A) Clause 316, page 246 (line 5), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent".(194B) Subdivision E, clauses 320 to 322, page 248 (line 3) to page 249 (line 5), omit the Subdivision, substitute:Subdivision E—Managing World Heritage properties320 General obligation to protect World Heritage properties (1) This section applies to: (a) the Commonwealth; (b) an agency of the Commonwealth; (c) a State; (d) an agency of a State; (e) a self-governing Territory; (f) an agency of a self-governing Territory. (2) An entity mentioned in subsection (1) must: (a) take all reasonable steps to ensure it exercises its powers and performs its functions in relation to a declared World Heritage property with due regard to the protection, conservation and presentation (within the meaning of the World Heritage Convention) of the property; and (b) otherwise comply with: (i) the World Heritage Convention; and (ii) any Australian World Heritage management principles; and (iii) any plan for managing the property.(196) Clause 321, page 248 (lines 21 and 22), omit the note.(197) Clause 323, page 249 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian World Heritage management principles for management of natural heritage and cultural heritage.(198) Clause 325, page 250 (lines 5 to 22), omit the clause (but not the note), substitute:325 Simplified outline of this DivisionThe following is a simplified outline of this Division:The Commonwealth may designate a wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention.The Minister must make plans for managing wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention. The Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must not contravene such plans.The Commonwealth can provide assistance for the protection or conservation of declared Ramsar wetlands.(199) Subdivision B, clause 326, page 251 (lines 1 to 23), omit the subdivision, substitute:Subdivision B—Commonwealth may seek Ramsar designation326 Commonwealth may seek Ramsar designationThe Commonwealth may designate a wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention.(200) Heading to subdivision D, page 252 (lines 14 and 15), omit "in Commonwealth areas ".(201) Clause 328, page 252 (lines 17 to 24), omit subclause (1), substitute:Minister must make plan (1) The Minister must make a written plan for managing a wetland that is included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the wetland is included in the List.(201A) Clause 328, page 253 (line 2), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent"(202) Clause 328, page 253 (after line 6), after subclause (3), insert:Plans for listed wetlands in States and self-governing Territories (3A) If a listed wetland is: (a) in a State; or (b) in a self-governing Territory; or (c) on, over or under the seabed vested in a State by the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 ; or in the Northern Territory by the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 ; the Commonwealth must consult with the State or Territory in preparing and implementing a plan for managing the wetland.(204) Clause 333, page 255 (lines 15 and 16), omit the note.(205) Clause 335, page 256 (lines 3 to 6) omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian Ramsar management principles for management of wetlands included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention.(206) Clause 338, page 257 (line 10), omit "The Minister may", substitute "Not later than 3 years after the designation of a Biosphere reserve, the Minister must".(207) Clause 338, page 257 (line 12), after "entirely", insert "or partly".(207A) Clause 338, page 257 (lines 18 and 19), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent".(208) Clause 340, page 258 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian Biosphere reserve management principles for management of Biosphere reserves.(209) Clause 344, page 261 (line 22) to page 262 (line 5), omit subclause (2).(210) Clause 346, page 263 (line 5), after "one", insert "or more".(211) Clause 348, page 265 (lines 5 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian IUCN reserve management principles for each IUCN category.(212) Clause 348, page 265 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Regulations must not be made for the purposes of this section until after the traditional owners of any indigenous people's land in a Commonwealth reserve or zone of a Commonwealth reserve have been consulted about the proposed principles.(213) Clause 351, page 269 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:Report to be tabled in Parliament (7) As soon as practicable after the Governor-General makes a Proclamation under this Subdivision, the Minister must cause a copy of a report prepared by the Secretary under this section to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(213A) Clause 354, page 271 (lines 7 and 8), omit subparagraph (4)(a)(iii).(214) Clause 355, page 271 (line 27), before "storage", insert "transportation, handling,".(214A) Clause 355, page 272 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraphs (5)(c).(214B) Clause 357, page 275 (line 17), omit "not".(214C) Clause 357, page 275 (line 19), omit "inconsistently", substitute "consistently".(214D) Clause 357, page 275 (after line 20), before paragraph (2)(a), insert: (aa) Australia's obligations under relevant international agreements; and(215) Clause 368, page 287 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Not later than the day on which a notice mentioned in subsection (2) is published in the Gazette , the Minister must cause a copy of the notice to be served on the Chair or Chairperson of any land council for indigenous people's land in the Commonwealth reserve.(216) Clause 368, page 289 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Not later than the day on which a notice mentioned in subsection (5) is published in the Gazette , the Minister must cause a copy of a draft of a management plan for the Commonwealth reserve to be served on: (a) the Chair or Chairperson of any land council for any indigenous people's land in the reserve; and (b) if the reserve is in a State or self-governing Territory—the agency (if any) of the State or Territory that is responsible for managing national parks established in the State or Territory under a law of the State or Territory.(217) Clause 370, page 290 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add "but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the declaration of a reserve".(218) Clause 371 page 292 (line 17), at the end of subclause (3), add "together with copies of any suggestions made by the Minister for alterations to the draft plan and the Secretary's views on the Minister's suggestions". (219) Clause 376, page 294 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of a Board are not affected by a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Board.(220) Clause 377, page 294 (lines 12 and 13), omit "and in the way (if any) prescribed by the regulations".(222) Clause 378, page 295 (line 28), omit "subsections 377(4) and (5)", substitute "subsection 377(4)".(223) Clause 378, page 296 (lines 1 to 3), omit Note 2.(225) Clause 379, page 296 (line 24), omit "on a part-time basis".(231) Clause 383, page 299 (line 18) to page 300 (line 2), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations may provide for matters relating to the operation of a Board or the rights of a deputy of a member of a Board, not otherwise provided for in this Act.(232A) Clause 388, page 302 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (3).17:47:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Hutchins, S. O'Chee, W. G.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Faulkner, J. P. Newman, J. M.Forshaw, M. G. Heffernan, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:55:006203Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to move Green (WA)-Australian Greens amendment No. 37, which would ban export woodchipping after next January; No. 41, which introduces national clearing controls; and Nos 42 and 43, which under this legislation give standing to any Australian in the court on matters of the environment. These are all key and core Democrat policy matters that we are implementing.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I move:(37) Page 211 (after line 24), after Division 4, insert:Division 4A—Protection of native forests266A Protection of high conservation value native forests A person must not: (a) take wood or clear vegetation from, or destroy vegetation in, a high conservation value native forest after 1 January 2000; or (b) trade in, keep, move or process wood harvested after 1 January 2000 from a high conservation value native forest. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. Subsection (1) has effect: (a) in relation to acts done by any person in relation to a high conservation value native forest that: (i) is or is part of an area identified as a World Heritage Area under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 ; or (ii) is or is part of a place that the Commonwealth is obliged to protect under the World Heritage Convention; or (iii) is or is part of a place identified as having world heritage value under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 ; and (b) for the purpose of giving effect to: (i) the Convention on Biological Diversity; or (ii) a prescribed international instrument. (3) In addition, subsection (1) has effect in relation to acts done by a constitutional corporation.266B Prohibition of exports A person must not export from Australia after 1 January 2000 woodchips obtained or derived from any native forest. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.266C What is a high conservation value native forest ? In this Act: forest means a vegetation community dominated by trees with a projective foliage cover greater than 30%. high conservation value native forest means a native forest on public land that satisfies one or more of the following paragraphs: (a) a native forest growing on land within a subcatchment containing rainforest or within 500 metres of rainforest, whichever is the lesser area; (b) a native forest place listed on the Register of the National Estate or the Interim Register of the National Estate for their biological values; (c) a World Heritage Area identified under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 , a place that the Commonwealth is obliged to protect under the World Heritage Convention, or a place identified as having world heritage value; (d) a subcatchment or area of at least 500 hectares surrounding sites in which any of the following species have been recorded since 1 January 1980: (i) species listed in Schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992; (ii) species listed as endangered or vulnerable in the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994 of Queensland (for sites in Queensland); (iii) species listed in Schedule 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 of New South Wales (for sites in New South Wales); (iv) species listed as threatened in section 13 of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 of Tasmania (for sites in Tasmania); (v) species declared specially protected flora and fauna under paragraph 14(2)(ba) or section 23F of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 of Western Australia (for sites in Western Australia); (vi) species listed in Schedule 1 (for sites in Victoria); (e) an old growth native forest covering 10 hectares or more; (f) a wilderness area. native forest means forest dominated by tree species native to the locality in which it occurs and where natural regeneration processes operate either fully or in part for recovery of canopy structure following natural or artificial disturbance. old growth native forest means native forest that is ecologically mature (the upper stratum or overstorey is in the late mature to over-mature phases) and has been subjected to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing. plantation means an area of trees planted and managed in an agricultural context for purposes including wood production. rainforest means native forest which is fire sensitive, has a more or less continuous closed canopy of variable height and has a characteristic diversity of species and life forms, and includes: (a) transitional and seral communities with sclerophyll emergents that are of similar botanical composition to mature rainforest in which sclerophyll emergents are absent; and (b) disturbed native forests that can be expected to recover the defined characteristics. species includes a sub-species. wilderness means any area larger than 3000 hectares which has a National Wilderness Inventory wilderness quality of 12 or greater, and any area identified as wilderness under the Wilderness Act 1987 of New South Wales. World Heritage Convention means the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage that has been adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, being the convention a copy of the English text of which is set out in the Schedule to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 .266D Minister to prepare transition strategy The Minister must prepare a strategy by 1 January 2000 to achieve: (a) recognition of the need for Australia to move from a native forest based wood products industry to a plantation based wood products industry; and (b) management of that transition; and (c) the provision of assistance to workers financially disadvantaged by the prohibition on logging in high conservation value native forests or the phase out of the export of woodchips.(41) Page 306 (after line 23), at the end of Part 15, add:Division 5—Protecting and managing native vegetation390A Planning for protection and management of native vegetation (1) The Minister must make and implement a written plan for protecting and managing native vegetation in Australia within one year after the commencement of this Act. (2) The objectives for protecting and managing native vegetation in the plan must include: (a) to end large-scale clearing of native vegetation in Australia; and (b) to end the clearing or conversion of native forests for plantations; and (c) to protect and conserve native vegetation so as, in particular: (i) to protect the habitat of flora and fauna; and (ii) to help to protect ecological processes; and (iii) to help to maintain the genetic diversity of flora and fauna and their potential for evolutionary development in the wild; and (iv) to lessen contributions to and adverse impacts of the greenhouse effect; and (v) to protect soil against erosion, salinisation and other forms of degradation; and (vi) to minimise adverse effects of groundwater recharge; and (vii) to protect wetlands, waterways and water resources; and (viii) to preserve and enhance landscape quality; and (d) by protecting native vegetation, to promote the sustainable use of land. (3) The Commonwealth may co-operate with a State, self-governing Territory or local government in preparing and implementing the plan.390B Implementing the plan to protect and conserve native vegetation (1) A Commonwealth agency must be administered so as to have regard to the plan for conserving and managing native vegetation in Australia. (2) The Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not make available to a local government, State or self-governing Territory any funds of the following kinds unless that local government, State or self-governing Territory has adopted a law or planning scheme which prohibits or regulates the clearing of native vegetation, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minister that the regulations are effective in preventing clearing which contravenes the objectives for conserving and managing native vegetation: (a) Natural Heritage Trust funds; (b) funds for tree-planting; (c) funds for land protection and landcare; (d) funds for improving water quality. (3) The Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not make available any funds of the following kinds to a person unless the land where the funds are to be used is subject to a law or planning scheme which prohibits or regulates the clearing of native vegetation and the person is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minister that native vegetation on the land will be protected in accordance with the objectives for conserving and managing native vegetation: (a) Natural Heritage Trust funds; (b) funds for tree-planting; (c) funds for land protection and landcare; (d) funds for improving water quality. Note: See section 24D for the meaning of clearing and native vegetation .(42) Clause 475, page 373 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (b) and (c), substitute: (b) any person to whom the Court grants leave to apply;(43) Clause 475, page 373 (after line 13), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Court must not grant leave to a person to apply for an injunction unless the Court is satisfied that: (a) the application would not be an abuse of the process of the Court; and (b) the particulars of the offence or other contravention disclose, without any hearing of the evidence, a prima facie case of the commission of the offence or contravention.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I therefore put the question that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens' amendments Nos 37 and 41 to 43 be agreed to.18:00:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.51Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I presume you are going to move on to technical—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am going to move on to the government amendments on chapters 1 and 6 to 8.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—In terms of chapter 5, there is another batch of opposition amendments: Nos 188, 203, 232—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That relate to clauses 304 to 312—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—If you could put those, we will not call a division, but we will vote for them.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that clauses 304 to 312, 320 to 322, 332 to 334 and 385 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:05:006206Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was wondering whether I may seek leave to move Greens (WA)-Australian Greens' amendment No. 10, on nuclear issues, No. 11, on greenhouse, and No. 12. on native vegetation.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have already dealt with those, Senator. They are on chapters 2 and 4. We have passed that. We are finishing chapter 5 and are about to go to chapters 1 and 6 to 8.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—We were not able to give those at the time, and this is my first opportunity to ask.BH4HILLSenator Hill—We cannot go back to previous chapters. It would be most unfair.Leave not granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will now move to chapters 1 and 6 to 8, and I intend to put all the government amendments, with the exception of No. 7 and No. 473, which require division in respect of clauses.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Could I just ask when I would have had an opportunity to do that? If we have gone past it—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Leave has not been granted. The question is that the remaining government amendments, Nos 1 to 6, 8, 9, 446 to 472 and 474 to 511 be agreed to:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 8), omit "6", substitute "12".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 22), omit "and land-holders", substitute ", land-holders and indigenous peoples".(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (f) to recognise the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity; and (g) to promote the use of indigenous peoples' knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge.(4) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 28 to 32), omit paragraph (2)(g), substitute: (g) promotes a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation through: (i) bilateral agreements with States and Territories; and (ii) conservation agreements with land-holders; and (iii) recognising and promoting indigenous peoples' role in, and knowledge of, the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of biodiversity; and (iv) the involvement of the community in management planning.(5) Page 3 (after line 32), after clause 3, insert: 3A Principles of ecologically sustainable development The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development : (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.(6) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2).(8) Clause 8, page 6 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (2) This Act does not affect the operation of: (a) the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 ; or (b) the Native Title Act 1993 .(9) Clause 9, page 6 (before line 21), before subclause (1), insert:Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (1A) Subsection 70(1) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 does not prevent a person exercising powers or performing functions or duties under Division 4 or 5 of Part 15, or Division 5 of Part 19, of this Act from entering or remaining on land: (a) in the Kakadu region or Uluru region; and (b) in which an Aboriginal Land Trust established under that Act holds an estate in fee simple.(446) Clause 391, page 308 (table item 7), omit the table item, substitute:7269Aabout making a recovery plan or adopting a plan as a recovery plan7A270Awhether or not to have a threat abatement plan for a key threatening process7B270Babout making a threat abatement plan or adopting a plan as a threat abatement plan(447) Clause 393, page 309 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, an arrangement under subsection (1) must not provide for the performance or exercise of functions or powers under this Act or the regulations in relation to a Commonwealth reserve or conservation zone.(448) Clause 393, page 310 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The Director may make arrangements with the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service, or with an authority of the Commonwealth, for the performance or exercise of all or any of the functions or powers of wardens and rangers under this Act or the regulations in relation to Commonwealth reserves or conservation zones by officers or employees in the Department or authority. (449) Clause 405, page 318 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add "(except subsection 406(4))".(450) Clause 405, page 318 (line 7), at the end of subclause (2), add "(except subsection 406(4))".(451) Clause 406, page 318 (line 17), omit "search", substitute "inspect and search".(452) Clause 406, page 318 (after line 18), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) may take photographs (including a video recording), and make sketches, of the premises or of any substance or thing on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft, platform or premises; and(453) Clause 406, page 318 (after line 23), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: (ca) may take measurements of, and conduct tests on, the vehicle, vessel, air craft, platform or premises or any substance or thing on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft, platform or premises; and(454) Clause 406, page 318 (line 25), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (e) may take onto the vehicle, vessel, aircraft, platform or premises any equipment or material reasonably necessary for the purpose of exercising a power referred to in paragraph (a), (aa), (b), (c), (ca) or (d).(455) Clause 406, page 319 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (4) An authorised officer who boards a vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform under section 403 may require a person on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform to: (a) answer a question asked by the authorised officer; or (b) give the authorised officer information requested by the authorised officer; or (c) produce to the authorised officer records or documents kept on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform. (5) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) an authorised officer has boarded a vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform under section 403; and (b) the person is on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform; and (c) the authorised officer requires the person to: (i) answer a question asked by the authorised officer; or (ii) give the authorised officer information requested by the authorised officer; or (iii) produce to the authorised officer records or documents kept on the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or platform; and (d) the person contravenes the requirement. (6) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 6 months, a fine of not more than 30 penalty units, or both.(456) Clause 407, page 320 (line 6), after "to", insert "inspect and".(457) Clause 407, page 320 (after line 11), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the power to take measurements of, and conduct tests on, the premises or any substance or thing on the premises; and (458) Clause 408, page 321 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:Extension to vehicles, vessels and aircraft (8) Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) apply in relation to: (a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft in the same way as they apply in relation to premises; and (b) a person apparently in charge of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft in the same way as they apply in relation to the occupier of premises.(459) Page 324 (after line 13), at the end of Division 3, add:412A Other powers when on premises under monitoring warrant (1) If the authorised officer named in a monitoring warrant enters premises under the warrant, he or she may require a person on the premises to: (a) answer a question asked by the authorised officer; or (b) give the authorised officer information requested by the authorised officer; or (c) produce to the authorised officer records or documents kept on the premises. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the authorised officer named in a monitoring warrant has entered premises under the warrant; and (b) the person is on the premises; and (c) the authorised officer requires the person to: (i) answer a question asked by the authorised officer; or (ii) give the authorised officer information requested by the authorised officer; or (iii) produce to the authorised officer records or documents kept on the premises; and (d) the person contravenes the requirement. (3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 6 months, a fine of not more than 30 penalty units, or both.(460) Clause 458, page 361 (lines 4 to 8), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Minister may, by written notice given to the holder of an environmental authority, require the holder to carry out an environmental audit if the Minister believes or suspects on reasonable grounds: (a) that the holder has contravened, or is likely to contravene, a condition of the authority; or (b) the impacts that the action authorised by the authority has, has had or is likely to have on the matter dealt with by the provision for which the authority authorises the action are significantly greater than was indicated in the information available to the Minister when the authority was granted.(461) Clause 466, page 367 (line 10), omit "environment", substitute "listed threatened species or listed threatened ecological community the order was made to protect".(462) Clause 476, page 375 (line 15), omit "party to", substitute "person bound by".(463) Clause 476, page 375 (line 17), omit "party to", substitute "person bound by".(464) Clause 476, page 375 (after line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: Section 307 explains who is bound by a conservation agreement.(465) Page 378 (before line 3), before clause 481, insert:Subdivision A—Obtaining an order for a civil penalty(466) Page 380 (after line 19), at the end of Division 15, add:Subdivision B—Civil penalty proceedings and criminal proceedings486A Civil proceedings after criminal proceedings The Federal Court must not make a pecuniary penalty order against a person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision if the person has been convicted of an offence constituted by conduct that is substantially the same as the conduct constituting the contravention.486B Criminal proceedings during civil proceedings (1) Proceedings for a pecuniary penalty order against a person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision are stayed if: (a) criminal proceedings are started or have already been started against the person for an offence; and (b) the offence is constituted by conduct that is substantially the same as the conduct alleged to constitute the contravention. (2) The proceedings for the order may be resumed if the person is not convicted of the offence. Otherwise, the proceedings for the order are dismissed. 486C Criminal proceedings after civil proceedings Criminal proceedings may be started against a person for conduct that is substantially the same as conduct constituting a contravention of a civil penalty provision regardless of whether a pecuniary penalty order has been made against the person.486D Evidence given in proceedings for penalty not admissible in criminal proceedings Evidence of information given or evidence of production of documents by an individual is not admissible in criminal proceedings against the individual if: (a) the individual previously gave the evidence or produced the documents in proceedings for a pecuniary penalty order against the individual for a contravention of a civil penalty provision (whether or not the order was made); and (b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence is substantially the same as the conduct that was claimed to constitute the contravention.However, this does not apply to a criminal proceeding in respect of the falsity of the evidence given by the individual in the proceedings for the pecuniary penalty order.(467) Clause 489, page 383 (lines 12 to 14), omit note 2.(468) Clause 489, page 383 (line 15), omit "The offence", substitute "An offence against subsection (1)".(469) Clause 489, page 383 (after line 25), insert: (2A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person provides information in response to a requirement or request under Part 7, 8, 9 or 13; and (b) the person is negligent as to whether the information is false or misleading in a material particular. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2B) An offence against subsection (2A) is punishable on conviction by a fine not more than 30 penalty units. Note: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. (470) Clause 489, page 383 (line 26), omit "Subsection (1) does", substitute "Subsections (1) and (2A) do".(471) Clause 490, page 384 (lines 13 to 15), omit note 2.(472) Clause 491, page 385 (lines 8 to 10), omit the note.(474) Clause 495, page 387 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add: (2) If: (a) a body corporate contravenes: (i) section 15A (Offences relating to declared World Heritage properties); or (ii) section 17B (Offences relating to declared Ramsar wetlands); or (iii) section 18A (Offences relating to threatened species etc.); or (iv) section 20A (Offences relating to listed migratory species); or (v) section 22A (Offences relating to nuclear actions); or (vi) section 24A (Offences relating to marine areas); or (vii) section 27A (Offences relating to Commonwealth land); or (viii) section 142A (Offence of breaching conditions on approval); and (b) an executive officer of the body was reckless as to whether the contravention would occur; and (c) the officer was in a position to influence the conduct of the body in relation to the contravention; and (d) the officer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention; the officer is guilty of an offence. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) An offence against subsection (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding the term specified in the provision contravened by the body corporate. Note: Subsection 4B(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court that convicts an individual of an offence impose a fine instead of, or as well as, imprisonment. The maximum fine (in penalty units) the court can impose is 5 times the maximum term of imprisonment (in months). (475) Clause 496, page 388 (line 13), after "142", insert "or 142A".(476) Page 390 (after line 15), at the end of Part 17, add:Division 21—Immunity of officers498A Immunity of officers and assistants (1) An authorised officer or ranger is not liable to any proceedings relating to an act done, or omitted to be done, in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of any power conferred on the officer or ranger by this Part or regulations made for the purposes of this Part or Division 5 of Part 15. (2) A person requested by an authorised officer or ranger to assist the officer or ranger in the exercise or purported exercise of any power conferred on the officer or ranger by this Part, or by regulations made for the purposes of this Part or Division 5 of Part 15, is not liable to any proceedings relating to an act done, or omitted to be done, in good faith for the purpose of assisting the officer or ranger.(477) Clause 503, page 394 (line 17), after "Minister", insert "(on the Minister's request or on the Committee's initiative)".(478) Clause 504, page 395 (after line 22), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) indigenous peoples;(479) Page 396 (after line 10), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Indigenous Advisory Committee505A Establishment (1) The Indigenous Advisory Committee is established. (2) The Minister is to determine in writing the composition of the Committee, including the qualifications of its members. (3) The Minister is to appoint the members of the Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Committee.505B Functions of the Committee (1) The function of the Committee is to advise the Minister on the operation of the Act, taking into account the significance of indigenous peoples' knowledge of the management of land and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. (2) The Minister may give the Committee written guidelines about its function.(480) Clause 506, page 397 (line 6), at the end of the clause, add: ; and (c) the Indigenous Advisory Committee.(481) Page 402 (after line 6), at the end of Part 19, add:Division 5—Director of National ParksSubdivision A—Establishment, functions and powers514A Continuation The corporation sole that existed under section 15 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 immediately before the commencement of this Act continues in existence as the Director of National Parks. Note: Subject to section 514U, the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 applies to the Director. That Act deals with matters relating to Commonwealth authorities, including reporting and accountability, banking and investment, and conduct of officers.514B Functions (1) The functions of the Director are: (a) to administer, manage and control Commonwealth reserves and conservation zones; and (b) to protect, conserve and manage biodiversity and heritage in Commonwealth reserves and conservation zones; and (c) to co-operate with any country in matters relating to the establishment and management of national parks and nature reserves in that country; and (d) to provide, and assist in the provision of, training in the knowledge and skills relevant to the establishment and management of national parks and nature reserves; and (e) to carry out alone or in co-operation with other institutions and persons, and to arrange for any other institution or person to carry out, research and investigations relevant to the establishment and management of Commonwealth reserves; and (f) to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the establishment and management of Commonwealth reserves; and (g) to administer the Australian National Parks Fund; and (h) any other functions conferred on the Director under any other Act; and(i) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the functions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (h) (inclusive). Note: Section 514D sets out requirements relating to the performance of the Director's functions. (2) The Director may perform any of the Director's functions in co-operation with a State, a self-governing Territory, an agency of a State or self-governing Territory or a Commonwealth agency.514C Powers (1) The Director has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of the Director's functions. (2) The Director's powers include, but are not limited to, the following powers: (a) to enter into contracts; and (b) to erect buildings and structures and carry on works; and (c) to occupy, use and control any land or building owned or held under lease by the Commonwealth and made available for the purposes of the Director; and (d) to acquire, hold and dispose of real or personal property; and (e) despite section 514D, obtain goods or services on credit from any person by the use of a credit card; and (f) to accept gifts, devises and bequests made to the Director whether on trust or otherwise, and to act as trustee of moneys or other property vested in the Director upon trust. Note: Section 514D sets out limits on the Director's powers.514D Requirements relating to functions and powers Ministerial directions (1) The Director must perform the Director's functions and exercise the Director's powers in accordance with any directions given by the Minister, unless this Act provides otherwise. Consultation (2) The Director must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons in relation to the performance of the Director's functions and the exercise of the Director's powers in relation to a Commonwealth reserve or conservation zone: (a) if the reserve or zone is wholly or partly in a State or self-governing Territory—the agency (if any) of the State or Territory responsible for managing national parks established under the law of the State or Territory; (b) if the reserve or zone is wholly or partly in an area for which an Aboriginal Land Council has been established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 —the Chairperson of the Council; (c) if the reserve is Booderee National Park—the Chairperson of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council. Australian National Botanic Gardens in Jervis Bay Territory (3) The Director must consult and have regard to the views of the Chairperson of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council in relation to the performance of the Director's functions and the exercise of the Director's powers in relation to the part of the Commonwealth reserve known as the Australian National Botanic Gardens that is in the Jervis Bay Territory. Trust property (4) The Director must deal with any money or property vested in the Director on trust in accordance with the powers and duties of the Director as trustee, despite the other provisions of this Act. Limits on contracts and leases (5) The Director must not: (a) enter into a contract involving the payment or receipt of an amount more than: (i) $250,000; or (ii) if the regulations prescribe a greater amount—that greater amount; or (b) take land (except indigenous people's land) on lease for more than 10 years; without the Minister's approval. No borrowing (6) The Director must not borrow money in the performance of the Director's functions.Subdivision B—Constitution of Director of National Parks514E Constitution (1) The Director: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; and (b) must have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name. (2) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially must: (a) take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of the Director appearing on a document; and (b) presume that the document was duly sealed.514F Appointment (1) A person is to be appointed as the Director by the Governor-General by written instrument. (2) Before the Governor-General appoints a person as the Director, the Minister must be satisfied that the person has qualifications and experience in connection with national parks or the conservation and management of biodiversity that make the person suitable for the appointment. (3) The appointment is on a full-time basis. However, a person appointed as the Director may also hold an office or be employed in the Australian Public Service on a part-time basis, subject to this Division.514G Acting appointments (1) The Minister may appoint a person to act as the Director: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Director; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the person appointed as the Director is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any reason, temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) A person acting as the Director is taken to constitute the corporation mentioned in section 514A while the person is acting. (3) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under an appointment is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or (b) there was a defect or irregularity in connection with the appointment; or (c) the appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased.Subdivision C—Terms and conditions of appointment514H Term of office The person appointed as the Director holds office for the period specified in the instru ment of appointment. The period must not exceed 7 years.514J Remuneration (1) The person appointed as the Director is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the person is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (2) The person is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .514K Outside employment The person appointed as the Director must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of the Director's office without the Minister's approval.514L Disclosure of interests If the person appointed as the Director has a material personal interest in a matter that he or she is considering or is about to consider as the Director, the person must give written notice of the interest to the Minister.514M Leave of absence (1) Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the person appointed as the Director has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) The Minister may grant the person appointed as the Director leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines.514N Resignation The person appointed as the Director may resign his or her appointment by giving the Governor-General a written resignation.514P Termination (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a person as the Director for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. (2) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a person as the Director if: (a) the person: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or (b) the person is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (c) the person engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid employment outside the duties of the office of Director; or (d) the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 514L.514Q Other terms and conditions The person appointed as the Director holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Governor-General.Subdivision D—Australian National Parks Fund514R Australian National Parks Fund The fund established by section 45 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 continues in existence as the Australian National Parks Fund, vested in the Director.514S Payments to Australian National Parks Fund The following amounts are to be paid into the Australian National Parks Fund: (a) any money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Department and allocated by the Secretary for the management of Commonwealth reserves or conservation zones; (b) the proceeds of the sale of any property acquired out of money standing to the credit of the Fund; (c) any amounts paid to the Director in respect of leases, licences, permits and other authorities granted by the Director in relation to Commonwealth reserves or conservation zones; (d) any other amount paid by a person to the Director if: (i) payment of the amount into the Fund would be consistent with the purposes for which the amount was paid; and (ii) the Minister administering the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 considers it appropriate that the amount should be paid into the Fund; (e) any charges paid under section 356A or section 390F; (f) any other money received by the Director in the performance of his or her functions.514T Application of money (1) The money of the Australian National Parks Fund may be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the costs, expenses and other obligations incurred by the Director in the performance of the Director's functions; and (b) in payment of any remuneration, allowances and compensation payable under this Division or Division 4 of Part 15. (2) Subsection (1) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Fund under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .Subdivision E—Accountability514U Modification of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (1) Sections 514A and 514E provide that the Director is a corporation. The Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 applies (subject to subsections (2) and (3)) in relation to the corporation as if the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Director were a director of the corporation for the purposes of that Act. (2) Section 21 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 does not apply in relation to the Director. (3) To avoid doubt, the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 applies to the Australian National Parks Fund as though the Fund were money of the Director.514V Extra matters to be included in annual report The annual report prepared by the Director under section 9 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 must also include particulars of any directions given by the Minister under subsection 514D(1) of this Act during the year to which the report relates.Subdivision F—Miscellaneous514W Exemption from taxation The income of the Australian National Parks Fund and the property and transactions of the Director are not subject to taxation under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. 514X Changes in office of Director An authority given, or a delegation or appointment made, by a person for the time being holding or acting in the office of Director continues in force despite the person ceasing to hold or act in that office, but may be revoked by a person later holding or acting in that office.(482) Clause 515, page 403 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Director may, by sealed instrument, delegate all or any of the Director's powers or functions under this Act to a person. The delegate is, in the exercise of a delegated power or function, subject to the directions of the Director.(483) Page 404 (before line 4), before clause 516, insert:Division 1—Annual reports(484) Clause 516, page 404 (line 7), after "Act", insert "(except Divisions 4 and 5 of Part 15 and Division 5 of Part 19)".(485) Page 404 (after line 14), at the end of Part 21, add:516A Annual reports to deal with environmental matters Departmental annual reports (1) The Secretary of a Department under the Public Service Act 1922 must ensure that a report under section 25 of that Act complies with subsection (6). Parliamentary Department annual reports (2) The relevant Presiding Officer in relation to a Parliamentary Department (as defined in section 9B of the Public Service Act 1922 ) must ensure that a report under that section complies with subsection (6). Annual reports of Commonwealth authorities (3) The directors of a Commonwealth authority (as defined in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 ) must ensure that an annual report relating to the authority prepared under that Act complies with subsection (6). Annual reports of Commonwealth companies (4) A Commonwealth company (as defined in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 ) that is a Commonwealth agency must ensure that the documents given to the responsible Minister (as defined in that Act) under section 36 of that Act include a report complying with subsection (6). Annual reports of other Commonwealth agencies (5) A Commonwealth agency that is: (a) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth; and (b) required by law to give the Minister responsible for it an annual report; and (c) not described in subsection (3) or (4); must ensure that the annual report complies with subsection (6). Content of report (6) A report described in subsection (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) relating to a body or person (the reporter ) for a period must: (a) include a report on how the actions of, and the administration (if any) of legislation by, the reporter during the period accorded with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and (b) identify how the outcomes (if any) specified for the reporter in an Appropriations Act relating to the period contribute to ecologically sustainable development; and (c) document the effect of the reporter's actions on the environment; and (d) identify any measures the reporter is taking to minimise the impact of actions by the reporter on the environment; and (e) identify the mechanisms (if any) for reviewing and increasing the effectiveness of those measures. Note: The Auditor-General Act 1997 lets the Auditor-General audit a reporter's compliance with these requirements.(486) Page 404 (after line 14), at the end of Part 21 (after proposed clause 516A), add:Division 2—State of the environment reports516B State of the environment reports (1) The Minister must cause a report on the environment in the Australian jurisdiction to be prepared in accordance with the regulations (if any) every 5 years. The first report must be prepared by 31 December 2001. (2) The report must deal with the matters prescribed by the regulations. (3) The Minister must a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report. (487) Clause 520, page 407 (after line 17), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; (k) the Framework Convention on Climate Change done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992.(488) Page 408 (after line 5), at the end of Part 22, add:522A Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause independent reviews to be undertaken by a person or body of: (a) the operation of this Act; and (b) the extent to which the objects of this Act have been achieved. (2) The first review must be undertaken within 10 years of the commencement of this Act. Later reviews must be undertaken at intervals of not more than 10 years. (3) The person or body undertaking a review must give a report of the review to the Minister. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives it.(489) Page 408, at the end of Part 22 (after proposed clause 522A), add:522B This Act does not apply to certain actions with prior approval (1) This Act does not apply to an action that: (a) consists of a use of land, sea or seabed; and (b) was specifically authorised under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a self-governing Territory before the commencement of this Act. (2) However, this Act does apply to an action described in subsection (1) if, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a further authorisation (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a self-governing Territory was necessary to allow the action to be taken lawfully.(490) Page 410 (after line 15), at the end of Subdivision A, add:524A Provision of grant funding is not an action Provision of funding by way of a grant by one of the following is not an action : (a) the Commonwealth; (b) a Commonwealth agency; (c) a State; (d) a self-governing Territory; (e) an agency of a State or self-governing Territory; (f) an authority established by a law applying in a Territory that is not a self-governing Territory.(491) Page 410, at the end of Subdivision A (after proposed clause 524A), add:524B Significant impact of actions In determining for the purposes of this Act whether an impact that an action has, will have or is likely to have is significant , the matters (if any) prescribed by the regulations must be taken into account.(492) Clause 528, page 413 (before line 5), before the definition of acquisition of property , insert: accredited management plan has the meaning given by subsection 33(2).(493) Clause 528, page 414 (line 25), omit "signed", substitute "done".(494) Clause 528, page 415 (after line 18), after the definition of baggage , insert: bilaterally accredited management plan has the meaning given by subsection 46(2).(495) Clause 528, page 415 (line 26), omit "signed", substitute "done".(496) Clause 528, page 416 (line 9), omit "signed", substitute "done".(497) Clause 528, page 416 (line 19), omit "signed", substitute "done".(498) Clause 528, page 419 (after line 5), after the definition of conservation dependent , insert: conservation dependent species means a listed threatened species that is included in the conservation dependent category of the list referred to in section 178.(499) Clause 528, page 419 (after line 7), after the definition of conservation order , insert: conservation zone means a Commonwealth area that is declared to be a conservation zone under Division 5 of Part 15.(500) Clause 528, page 419 (after line 18), after the definition of convict , insert: critical habitat for a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community has the meaning given by subsection 207A(4).(501) Clause 528, page 420 (after line 9), after the definition of directed environmental audit , insert: Director means the Director of National Parks referred to in section 514A. (502) Clause 528, page 423 (line 3), omit "229(4)", substitute "229B(4)".(503) Clause 528, page 423 (line 8), omit "signed", substitute "done".(504) Clause 528, page 425 (line 17), omit the definition of nuclear reactor .(505) Clause 528, page 426 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of principles of ecologically sustainable development , substitute: principles of ecologically sustainable development has a meaning affected by section 3A.(506) Clause 528, page 426 (lines 22 to 24), omit "adopted by the International Conference on the Conservation on Wetlands and Waterfowl", substitute "done".(507) Clause 528, page 427 (lines 3 and 4), omit the definition of recovery plan , substitute: recovery plan means a plan made or adopted under section 269A.(508) Clause 528, page 427 (after line 22), after the definition of self-governing Territory , insert: significant , in relation to the impact of an action, has a meaning affected by section 524B.(509) Clause 528, page 428 (lines 16 and 17), omit the definition of threat abatement plan , substitute: threat abatement plan means a plan made or adopted under section 270B.(510) Clause 528, page 429 (line 5), omit "229(4)", substitute "229D(3)".(511) Clause 528, page 430 (lines 2 to 4), omit "adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization", substitute "done".Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 6 and clause 492 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That completes consideration of the amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity—18:07:006216Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Chair, there are opposition amendments which I would like to put.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Which ones?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Nos 1, 5 and so on to 277.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—All of that first group?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Yes, that first group. I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 24), at the end of subsection 3(1), add: ; and (f) to encourage and provide for public involvement and participation in environmental assessment and protection.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 26 to 30), omit paragraph (2)(a).(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (b).(4) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 29 and 30), omit "bilateral agreements with States and Territories, conservation agreements with land holders and".(5) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause 4(2).(7) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 13 to 19), omit the clause, substitute:8 Native title rights not affected(1) Nothing in this Act affects the rights or interests of any indigenous person under: (a) the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 ; or (b) the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987 ; or (c) the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 ; or (d) the Native Title Act 1993 .(2) Subject to subsection (3) and to the operation of Division 4 of Part 15, nothing in this Act prevents indigenous people from continuing, in accordance with law, the traditional use of any area of land or water for hunting or food-gathering (otherwise than for purposes of sale) and for ceremonial and religious purposes.(3) The operation of subsection (2) is subject to regulations made for the purpose of conserving wildlife in any Commonwealth reserve and expressly affecting the traditional use of the reserve by indigenous people.(233) Page 308, after Part 16, insert:Part 16A—Commissioner for the EnvironmentDivision 1—Commissioner's functions etc.391A Commissioner for the EnvironmentThere is to be a Commissioner for the Environment. The person holding the office of Auditor-General is to hold the office of Commissioner for the Environment.391B Commissioner's functionsThe Commissioner's functions include the following functions: (a) to audit the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented action plans under their sustainable development strategies and have met objectives under these plans; (b) to audit bilateral agreements made under Part 5 for the following purposes: (i) to assess consultancy with prescribed accreditation criteria; (ii) to assess compliance with the agreements; (iii) to review agreements under section 65; (c) to audit compliance with conservation agreements made under Part 14; (d) to audit compliance by Commonwealth agencies with Part 15 (which deals with the management of protected areas); (e) to audit compliance with management plans made under Part 15; (f) to investigate action by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15 and in respect of which a complaint has been made to the Commissioner; (g) to prepare state of the environment reports.391C Commissioner's audit and investigation powers (1) The following provisions apply in relation to an audit that is conducted by the Commissioner under paragraphs 391B(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) (with references to the Auditor-General being replaced by references to the Commissioner): (a) sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 ; (b) any other provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 32, 33, 34 or 35 of that Act. (2) The following provisions apply in relation to an investigation that is conducted by the Commissioner under paragraph 309B(f) (with references to the Ombudsman being replaced by references to the Commissioner): (a) sections 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 ; (b) any other provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 or 14 of that Act. (3) Where a complaint has been made to the Commissioner with respect to an action taken by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15, the Commissioner may, in his or her discretions, decide not to investigate the action or, if he or she has commenced to investigate the action, decide not to investigate the action further: (a) if the Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant became aware of the action more than 12 months before the complaint was made to the Commissioner; or (b) if, in the opinion of the Commissioner: (i) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith; or (ii) the complainant does not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (iii) an investigation, or further investigation, of the action is not warranted having regard to all the circumstances.391D ReportsAnnual report (1) After the end of each financial year, the Commissioner must give a report to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, on: (a) the activities of the Commissioner during the year; and (b) any matter in relation to environmental or other aspects of sustainable development that the Commissioner believes should be brought to the attention of this Parliament.Audit reports (2) As soon as practicable after completing the report on an audit under paragraphs 390B(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), the Commissioner must: (a) cause a copy to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and (b) give a copy to the responsible Minister.Investigation reports (3) The following provisions apply in relation to reports relating to investigations conducted by the Commissioner under paragraph 309B(f) (with references to the Ombudsman being replaced by references to the Commissioner and references to the Prime Minister being replaced by references to the Environment Minister): (a) sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 ; (b) any other provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 15, 16 or 17 of that Act.391E State of the environment reports (1) The Commissioner must prepare a report on the state of the environment after each period of 3 years after the commencement of this act. (2) A report under subsection (1) must include the following matters: (a) an assessment of the status and conditions of the major environmental resources of Australia; (b) an examination of environmental trends, including the implications for the environment and human health; (c) a review of the programs and activities of Commonwealth agencies and Constitutional corporations related to environment protection; (d) an examination of trends in economic analysis of and of the costs and benefits (including economic evaluation) of environment protection; (e) any recommendations for future legislative or other action which the Commissioner considers appropriate to discharge his or her responsibilities under this Part. (3) Subject to subsection (4), each report under this section must be given to the Minister and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after the end of each 3 year period. (4) The first report under this section must be laid before each House of the Parliament not later than 31 December 2001.Division 2—Miscellaneous390L Complaints to the CommissionerA person may complain in writing to the Commissioner about action by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15 of this Act.(234) Clause 391, page 307 (line 19), omit "The decisions are", substitute "Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must take account of the precautionary principle in making any of the decisions listed in the following table, to the extent he or she can do so consistently with the other provisions of this Act:".(235) Clause 391, page 307 (after table item 1), insert:1A78reconsideration whether an action is a controlled action1B79reconsideration at State or Territory request whether an action is a controlled action1C87about what assessment approach applies to an action(236) Page 312 (after line 9), before clause 400, insert:399A Qualifications and training of wardens, rangers and inspectors Before making an appointment or an arrangement under section 392, 393, 396 or 398, the Minister must make a written determination setting out: (a) the qualifications to be held; or (b) the training to be undertaken;by any person performing the duties of a warden, ranger or inspector because of an appointment or arrangement under this Division.(237) Clause 408, page 321 (line 12), at the end of subclause (5), add "and that if consent is given, any hold, container or receptacle may be broken open for inspection and any items or goods seized".(238) Clause 419, page 323 (line 28), at the end of subclause (5), add "However, if the warrant was issued under section 416 and a copy of the warrant is not available at the time of the search, the person must be given the name and telephone number of the magistrate who issued the warrant".(239) Clause 458, page 361 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister may, by written notice given to the holder of an environmental authority, require the holder to carry out an environmental audit if the Minister believes, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that the impacts of the holder's activities are different from or greater than those predicted by the proponent in the environmental assessment process which took place under Division 5, 6 or 7. (1B) If the Minister believes, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that the impacts on the environment: (a) arising out of a contravention referred to in subsection (1); or (b) referred to in subsection (1A); are significant, the Minister may, by written notice given to the holder of the authority, require the holder to carry out an environmental audit.(240) Clause 459, page 362 (line 6), after "must not", insert "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly".(241) Clause 459, page 362 (line 8), omit "Civil penalty", substitute "Penalty".(242) Clause 464, page 365 (after line 22), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iii) all declared World Heritage properties; or (iv) specified declared World Heritage properties; or (v) all declared Ramsar wetlands; or (vi) specified declared Ramsar wetlands; or(243) Clause 464, page 365 (after line 25), at the end of paragraph (b), add: (iii) all declared World Heritage properties; or (iv) specified declared World Heritage properties; or (v) all declared Ramsar wetlands; or (vi) specified declared Ramsar wetlands; or(244) Clause 475, page 373 (line 7), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(245) Clause 475, page 373 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (b) and (c), substitute: (b) any person to whom the Court grants leave to apply;(246) Clause 475, page 373 (after line 13), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Court must not grant leave to a person to apply for an injunction unless the Court is satisfied that: (a) the application would not be an abuse of the process of the Court; and (b) the particulars of the offence or other contravention disclose, without any hearing of the evidence, a prima facie case of the commission of the offence or contravention.(247) Clause 475, page 373 (line 17), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(248) Clause 475, page 373 (line 28), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(249) Clause 475, page 374 (line 6) to page 375 (line 12), omit subclauses (6) and (7).(252) Heading to Division 15, page 378 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:Division 15—Civil penalty orders and pecuniary penalties(253) Page 378 (after line 2), before clause 481, insert:480A Application for civil penalty order based on alternative verdict at jury trial (1) This section applies if a person is tried on indictment for an offence and the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a contravention but is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person did so knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. (2) The jury may find the person not guilty of the offence, but guilty of the contravention. (3) If the jury does so, the Court may: (a) declare that the person has, by a specified act or omission, contravened a penalty provision; and (b) make a civil penalty order on the application of the prosecutor. (4) A declaration under subsection (3) is subject to appeal or review as if it were a conviction by the court for an offence constituted by the contravention.(254) Page 378 (after line 2), after clause 480A, insert:480B Application for civil penalty order based on alternative finding by court of summary jurisdiction (1) This section applies if, on the hearing of a proceeding for the summary conviction of a person for an offence, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a contravention but is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person did so knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. (2) The court may find the person not guilty of the offence, but guilty of the contravention. (3) If the court does so, it may: (a) declare that the person has, by a specified act or omission, contravened a penalty provision; and (b) make a civil penalty order on the application of the prosecutor. (4) A declaration under subsection (3) is subject to appeal or review as if it were a conviction by the court for an offence constituted by the contravention.(255) Heading to clause 481, page 378 (line 4), omit "civil ".(256) Clause 481, page 378 (line 6), omit "civil".(257) Clause 481, page 378 (line 11), omit "civil".(258) Clause 481, page 378 (line 26), omit "civil ".(259) Clause 481, page 378 (line 27), omit "civil".(260) Clause 482, page 379 (lines 4 to 10), omit "civil" (wherever occurring).(261) Clause 482, page 379 (line 7), omit "words", substitute "word".(262) Clause 483, page 379 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute:483 Contravening a penalty provision may also be an offenceMost penalty provisions in this Act are offences. Sections 480A and 480B set out the circumstances in which a civil penalty order may be made in relation to a person prosecuted for an offence.(263) Clause 484, page 379 (lines 13 to 24), omit "civil" (wherever occurring).(264) Clause 486, page 380 (line 5), omit "civil".(265) Clause 489, page 383 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person knowingly provides false or misleading information in response to a requirement or request under Part 7, 8, 9 or 13; and (b) the person is recklessly indifferent to the provision of false or misleading information. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(266) Clause 489, page 383 (lines 15 to 22), omit subclause (2) (but not the note), substitute: (2) An offence under subsection (1) or (1A) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both. (267) Clause 490, page 384 (after line 15), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person is the holder of an environmental authority; and (b) a condition attached to the environmental authority requires the person to provide information; and (c) the person knowingly provides false or misleading information in response (or purportedly in response) to the requirement; and (d) the person is recklessly indifferent to the provision of false or misleading information. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(268) Clause 490, page 384 (lines 16 to 23), omit subclause (2) (but not the note), substitute: (2) An offence under subsection (1) or (1A) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both.(268A) Page 396 (after line 10), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Establishment and functions of the Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee505A Establishment (1) The Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee is established. (2) The Minister is to determine in writing the composition of the committee, including the qualifications of its members. (3) The Minister is to appoint members of the Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Committee. (4) The Minister must ensure that the membership includes members who are appointed to represent the following: (a) ATSIC; and (b) State and Territory Aboriginal Land Councils; and (c) relevant indigenous environmental organisations; and (d) indigenous people with expertise in biodiversity and environmental issues. (5) The Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, each one of the members has: (a) the support of his or her particular communities; and (b) relevant expertise in environmental issues and biodiversity.505B Functions of the CommitteeThe functions of the Committee are to advise the Minister at his or her request on all matters covered in this Act relating to indigenous peoples including: (a) matters relating to indigenous rights in relation to conservation and ecological sustainable use of biological diversity; (b) the implementation of Article 8(j), 10(c) and related Articles of the Biodiversity Convention; (c) indigenous rights in relation to access to biological resources; (d) protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge; (e) subject to Part 15 of Division 4—on indigenous interests in relation to the establishment of reserves; (f) bilateral arrangements with States.(269) Clause 523, page 409 (line 7) after "Subdivision", insert "and without limiting its ordinary meaning".(270) Clause 523, page 409 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the avoidance of doubt, but subject to subsection (2), an action includes any action to which the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 previously applied.(271) Clause 524, page 410 (lines 2 and 3), omit "an action " (first occurring), substitute "a controlled action ".(272) Clause 524, page 410 (after line 3), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, a decision taken by a government body to grant a governmental authorisation (however described) for another person to take an action is itself an action .(273) Clause 524, page 410 (lines 4 to 15), omit subclause (3).(274) Page 410 (after line 15), at the end of Subdivision A, add:524A What is a significant impact ? (1) If a provision of this Act refers to an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact , it is the intention of the Parliament that this phrase be interpreted with reference to the: (a) context; and (b) intensity;of the impact of the action. (2) The context of an action means the biophysical, economic and social circumstances that surround a particular action, on a scale that provides for the effects of the action to be taken into account. Example 1: An action specific to a particular site may, depending on the nature of the action, have a limited impact on the surrounding physical environment and human activity for a short period of time. Example 2: An action of a particular kind may have a global impact over an indefinite period of time. (3) The intensity of the impact of an action includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (a) the degree to which the proposed action affects: (i) public health or safety; or (ii) unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, parklands, farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas; or (b) the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment: (i) are, or are likely to be, controversial; or (ii) are, or are likely to be, uncertain; or (iii) involve, or are likely to involve, known or unknown risks; or (c) the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions; (d) whether the action is related to other actions which, individually, may be insignificant but which, when taken together, may have a significant impact; (e) whether the action is likely to result in a breach of any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of a local government authority for the protection of the environment.(275) Clause 528, page 415 (line 19), omit the definition of bilateral agreement .(276) Clause 528, page 417 (line 1), omit the definition of civil penalty provision .(276A) Clause 528, page 432 (after line 1), after the definition of interested person , insert: internationally threatened species has the meaning given by subsection 179(7).(277) Clause 528, page 426 (after line 2), after the definition of organism , insert: penalty provision has the meaning given by section 482.I indicate that, given the numbers and the way the Democrats are voting, we will not force this to a division. We know that the numbers are not here to get them up.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments (1) to (5), (7), (233) to (249), (252) to (268), (268A), (269) to (276), (276A) and (277) on sheet 1372 be agreed to.Question so resolved in the negative.18:08:006222Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We oppose clauses (6) and (10) in the following terms:(6) Clause 6, page 6 (lines 7 to 9), TO BE OPPOSED .(8) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 5 to 8), TO BE OPPOSED .10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that clauses (6) and (10) stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 250, as follows, be agreed to:(250) Clause 475, page 373 (after line 12), after paragraph (c), insert: or (d) an indigenous person whose interests are, or are likely to be, affected by the conduct; Note: See section 363 for the meaning of indigenous person .Question resolved in the negative.18:08:006222Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to move Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens' amendment No. 1, which is to introduce the objectives of the earth charter to this legislation.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 11) to page 3 (line 32), omit the clause, substitute:3 Objectives of environmental protection and biodiversity (1) The objectives of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation in Australia are: (a) to protect and restore the integrity of Australia's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain and renew life; and (b) to prevent harm to the environment as the best method of ecological protection and, when knowledge is limited, take the path of caution; and (c) to treat all living beings with compassion, and protect them from cruelty and wanton destruction; and (d) to adopt patterns of consumption, production, and reproduction that respect and safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights and community well-being; and (e) to ensure that economic activities support and promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner. (2) A public authority must be administered so as to have regard to the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation objectives. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.18:13:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.55Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] be agreed to with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—As the time for consideration of the bill has expired, the question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to.18:22:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998 [1999]10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The time has expired for the consideration of the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] . The question is that the following government amendments be agreed to:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Part 1 of Schedule 7A to this Act commences when Schedule 5 to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 commences if Schedule 5 to that Act has not commenced when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 commences. (6) Part 2 of Schedule 7A to this Act commences when the Public Service Act 1999 commences if that Act has not commenced when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 commences.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 18), omit "1AB", substitute "2".(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 30), omit "1E", substitute "6".(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 25), omit "1E", substitute "6".(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 30), omit "1B and 1C", substitute "4 and 5". (6) Schedule 1, item 15, page 11 (lines 9 to 12), to be opposed .(7) Schedule 2, item 5, page 17 (line 23), omit "section 267", substitute "Subdivision A of Division 5 of Part 13".(8) Schedule 4, item 5, page 40 (line 33), after "subsection 370(1) of the new Act", insert "when it commenced".(9) Schedule 4, item 6, page 41 (line 32) to page 42 (line 2), omit subitem (3), substitute: (3) The Minister administering Division 4 of Part 15 of the new Act must appoint under that Division a person as a member of the Board referred to in paragraph (2)(b) within 3 months of: (a) the Northern Territory nominating the person; or (b) if the Northern Territory informs that Minister it believes that the members of the Board nominated by the traditional owners are unreasonably withholding consent to the appointment—that Minister referring the matter to the person holding the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 .(10) Schedule 4, item 8, page 42 (line 18) to page 43 (line 26), to be opposed .(11) Schedule 4, page 43 (after line 26), after item 8, insert:8A Continuation of conservation zones A Proclamation under section 8A of the Parks Act declaring an area to be a conservation zone that was in force immediately before the commencement of the new Act continues in force as if it had been made under Division 5 of Part 15 of the new Act immediately after that commencement, so that: (a) the area; and (b) the subsoil and seabed (if any) specified in the Proclamation under the area; and (c) the waters under the sea (if any) in the area; are declared as a conservation zone under the new Act.(12) Schedule 4, item 11, page 46 (line 22), omit "section 267 of".(13) Schedule 4, item 12, page 47 (after line 9), at the end of the item, add: Note 1: The heading to section 38A is altered by omitting "Jervis Bay National Park " and substituting "Booderee National Park ". Note 2: The heading to section 38B is altered by omitting "Jervis Bay National Park " and substituting "Booderee National Park ".(14) Schedule 4, item 13, page 47 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute:13 Subsection 2(1) (definition of Director ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Director has the meaning given by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . Note: The Director is also an Authority.(15) Schedule 4, item 16, page 47 (lines 19 and 20), to be opposed .(16) Schedule 4, item 19, page 48 (lines 1 to 4), to be opposed .(17) Schedule 4, item 21, page 48 (line 12), omit "Commonwealth", substitute "Director".(18) Schedule 4, item 22, page 48 (lines 19 to 22), to be opposed .(19) Schedule 4, item 23, page 48 (lines 23 to 30), to be opposed .(20) Schedule 4, item 24, page 48 (line 31) to page 49 (line 6), omit the item, substitute:24 Section 38C Omit "Jervis Bay National Park or the Jervis Bay Botanic Gardens", substitute "Booderee National Park".(21) Schedule 4, item 27, page 49 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item, substitute:27 Subsection 3(1) (definition of conservation zone ) Repeal the definition, substitute: conservation zone has the meaning given by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(22) Schedule 4, item 28, page 49 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item, substitute:28 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Director ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Director has the meaning given by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(23) Schedule 4, item 32, page 50 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:32 Subsection 11(1A) Omit "park", substitute "Commonwealth reserve under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(24) Schedule 4, item 33, page 50 (lines 5 to 26), omit the item, substitute: 33 Subsection 12(2A) Omit "park", substitute "Commonwealth reserve under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(25) Schedule 4, page 50 (after line 26), after item 33, insert:33A Subsections 12(2B) and (2C) Omit "the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 ", substitute "Division 4 of Part 15 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(26) Schedule 4, item 34, page 50 (line 28), omit "amendment", substitute "amendments".(27) Schedule 4, item 35, page 51 (lines 1 to 13), omit the item, substitute:35 Subsection 12A(1) Omit "the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 ", substitute "Division 4 of Part 15 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(28) Schedule 4, item 36, page 51 (lines 14 to 28), omit the item, substitute:36 Application provision Subsection 12A(1) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 as amended by this Schedule applies whether the estate or interest of the Director in the land ceased to exist before or after the commencement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(29) Schedule 4, item 37, page 51 (lines 29 to 32), to be opposed .(30) Schedule 4, item 38, page 52 (lines 1 to 4), to be opposed .(31) Schedule 4, item 39, page 52 (lines 5 and 6), to be opposed .(32) Schedule 4, item 40, page 52 (lines 7 to 14), omit the item, substitute:40 Paragraph 12B(2)(b) Omit "National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 ", substitute "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(33) Schedule 4, item 41, page 52 (lines 15 and 16), to be opposed .(34) Schedule 4, item 42, page 52 (lines 17 and 18), to be opposed .(35) Schedule 4, item 43, page 52 (lines 19 to 26), to be opposed .(36) Schedule 4, item 44, page 52 (lines 27 and 28), to be opposed .(37) Schedule 4, item 45, page 52 (lines 29 and 30), omit the item, substitute: 45 Subsection 50(1B) Omit "park", substitute "Commonwealth reserve under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(38) Schedule 4, item 50, page 53 (lines 18 to 25), omit the item, substitute:50 Section 8 Omit all the words after "Parks" (first occurring), substitute "about any matter concerning the declaration or management of a Commonwealth reserve under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ".(39) Schedule 4, item 51, page 53 (lines 27 to 29), omit the item, substitute:51 Subsection 3(1) (definition of appointed member ) Omit "and Wildlife".(40) Schedule 4, item 53, page 54 (lines 3 to 7), omit the item, substitute:53 Subsection 3(1) Insert: Director of National Parks means the person holding the appointment as the Director of National Parks under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(41) Schedule 4, item 58, page 55 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item, substitute:58 Paragraph 18(1)(b) Omit "and Wildlife".(42) Schedule 4, item 59, page 55 (lines 4 to 7), omit the item, substitute:59 Paragraph 18(1A)(b) Omit all the words after "Parks" (first occurring), substitute "or a person who is an agent or delegate of the Director of National Parks".(43) Schedule 4, item 60, page 55 (lines 8 to 11), omit the item, substitute:60 Subsections 21(3) and (6) Omit "and Wildlife".(44) Schedule 4, item 61, page 55 (lines 12 to 14), to be opposed .(45) Schedule 4, item 62, page 55 (lines 15 and 16), to be opposed .(46) Schedule 4, item 63, page 55 (lines 17 to 20), omit the item, substitute:59 Paragraph 22C(4)(b) Omit all the words after "Parks" (first occurring), substitute "or a person who is an agent or delegate of the Director of National Parks".(47) Schedule 4, item 65, page 56 (lines 1 to 11), omit the item, substitute: 65 Paragraph 33(a) Omit "and Wildlife".Note: The heading to section 33 is altered by omitting "and Wildlife " (first occurring).(48) Schedule 4, item 67, page 56 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:67 Section 3 (definition of Director ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Director has the meaning given by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(49) Schedule 4, item 68, page 56 (line 28) to page 57 (line 3), to be opposed .(50) Schedule 4, item 69, page 57 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed .(51) Schedule 4, item 73, page 57 (lines 19 and 20), to be opposed .(52) Schedule 4, item 74, page 57 (line 24), omit "under Division 4 of", substitute "or conservation zone under".(53) Schedule 4, item 75, page 57 (lines 26 and 27), to be opposed .(54) Schedule 4, item 76, page 58 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute:76 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Director ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Director has the meaning given by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .(55) Schedule 4, item 80, page 58 (lines 15 and 16), to be opposed .(56) Schedule 4, item 90, page 60 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item, substitute:90 Paragraph 45(1)(b) Omit "and Wildlife", substitute "(within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 )".(57) Schedule 5, item 5, page 65 (lines 13 to 15), omit paragraph (f), substitute: (f) the holder of the permit has been convicted of an offence against one or more of the following provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 : (i) Division 1 of Part 3; (ii) Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 3; (iii) Division 2 of Part 9; (iv) Part 13.(58) Page 80 (after line 14), after Schedule 7, insert: Schedule 7A—Amendments contingent on other Acts commencingPart 1—Amendments relating to Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 1 Subsection 514U(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) Sections 27G, 27H, 27J and 27K of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 do not apply in relation to the Director.Part 2—Amendments relating to Public Service Act 1999Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 2 Subsection 124(1) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".3 Subsection 125(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922, a", substitute "A".4 Subsection 514M(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922, the", substitute "The".5 Subsections 516A(1) and (2) Repeal the subsections, substitute:Agency annual reports (1) The Head of an Agency (as defined in the Public Service Act 1999 ) must ensure that an annual report under that Act on the Agency's activities complies with subsection (6).6 Subsection 516A(6) Omit "(2),".Question resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the remaining stages of the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] be agreed to.18:22:00The Senate divided. 0Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.0Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Notices6227622718:33:006227O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—by leave—On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.6227Senator Bolkus to move, 15 sitting days hence:That the following instruments, made under section 43A of the Native Title Act 1993 , be disallowed:(a) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Laws) Determination 1999;(b) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Mining Laws) Determination 1999; and(c) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Petroleum Laws) Determination 1999.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 be an order of the day for the first sitting day in August 1999.Miscellaneous62286228Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the allotment of times motion be varied as follows:(1) Paragraph 2(a)(a) on Thursday, 24 June 1999, omit "6.30 pm" and substitute "9.30 pm";(b) combine the allotment of times for A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 and the remaining bills in the package to read as follows:A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 and remaining billscommencing at 3.30 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999 until 4.30 pm(2) Paragraph 2(b)omit "until 5.15 pm on Monday, 28 June 1999" and substitute "immediately upon the conclusion of the preceding item".Business62286228Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That on Monday, 28 June 1999, upon the completion of the consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and 26 related bills, the routine of business until 6.30 pm shall be:(1) Petitions(2) Notices of motion(3) Motions relating to committees and memberships of committees and a statutory authority(4) Formal motions(5) Presentation of committee and other documents(6) Messages received from the House of Representatives.Miscellaneous6228622818:35:006228Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Pursuant to contingent notice and on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the moving in the committee of the whole of an amendment which is the same in substance as an amendment already negatived by the committee or which is inconsistent with an amendment already agreed to by the committee.Madam President, I move this procedural motion to avoid any problems which might otherwise result from the application of standing order 118(2). That standing order, as you would know, provides that no new clause or amendment shall be proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee or which is inconsistent with one that has been agreed to by the committee unless a recommittal of the bill has intervened. Suspension of this provision will facilitate consideration of amendments which are the same as or substantially similar to amendments previously moved and dealt with by both the government and non-government senators.18:36:006228Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I rise to oppose the motion just moved by the parliamentary secretary. I think it is an extraordinary motion to propose to the chamber. It is extraordinary on many counts. One of the most outstanding counts is that this is a procedural motion to deal with the repudiation of decisions made by this chamber before now in this debate. This is the debate on the government's tax package, the so-called headline GST package. We do not even have before us at this stage a running sheet for this debate; we have no running sheet whatsoever. The running sheet that we have is the running sheet that was left over when we terminated the debate after the famous speech by Senator Harradine in which he said he could not bring himself to support the government's legislation. That is the running sheet before us.One reads in the press that a deal has been done between the Australian Democrats and the government to alter the tax package considerably. That deal substantially changes the nature of the proposition that we had before us. We did not see the amendments that give legislative voice to that deal until late last night. We saw one of them then and some have dribbled out during the day. We did not receive an explanatory memorandum until quite late in the day. There are 119 of these amendments—so it is not an insubstantial number—and we have no proposal as to how they should be dealt with in this chamber. I would have thought that that was a matter of considerable importance in terms of parliamentary procedure.Before we move to motions about how we will conduct a parliamentary debate on the Democrat-government GST deal, we are, I am sure, reasonably entitled to have some explanation by either the government or, if they are too afraid of making it, the Australian Democrats as to what the proposition is. We remember the Prime Minister saying, when asked whether he would remove food from the GST—and these were his words—`No, no, no, no, no.' Apparently, he has agreed to do so, but what explanation has been afforded to this legislative chamber, the Australian Senate, as to what the package is now? There has been no explanation. All we have had is the parliamentary secretary moving a motion about procedure so he can knock off things that this chamber has decided to do previously in this debate. There has been no explanation at all as to the substance of the matter. This is a contemptuous attitude towards the powers of the Senate.I would be disappointed if the Democrats supported this procedure without there being any explanation to the chamber. If there is one thing the Democrats are famous for it is for insisting, in speech after speech, year in, year out, in every parliamentary sitting that I have sat through for the last 16 years, that this chamber should be afforded the opportunity of greater and proper scrutiny. In fact, Meg Lees's second reading speech to this chamber chided the government for not allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny in the time allotted to this debate in the chamber.Are the Democrats going to be compliant in ramming a procedural motion down our throat in the absence of any explanation at all? Are they going to repudiate years of so-called Democrat principle that this chamber is entitled to scrutiny and explanation? What sort of complacency do we expect from a government that has done this deal and, in effect, says to us in this chamber, `Read about it in the paper. We just want to move on. And, by the way, we haven't got a running sheet and, by the way, we don't know whether all of the amendments are before us yet and, by the way, we're not going to tell you a damn thing about it'?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Calm down.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No, you calm down, parliamentary secretary. You are the perpetrator of this. Is that your idea of parliamentary democracy? This motion should be withdrawn by the government. An explanation should be given and we should proceed on this in an orderly fashion. If this is going to be the government's attitude to this debate, it will be a very rancorous debate, because this is an abuse of power. This is a conscription of the Democrats to the will of the executive and a standing over of the rights of this chamber. The motion should be defeated.18:42:006229Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I will not delay the chamber for very long. I cannot anyway: I only get five minutes. Senator Cook is right. I think the Manager of Government Business in the Senate has assumed that everyone knows the reasons for his moving the motion. I think he should have at least outlined them. Apart from an explanation, we probably should have had an apology. What this motion does, in effect, is say, `I'm sorry we have wasted the parliament's time by going through the committee stage for 40 hours or so.' Senator Campbell indicated today, in an earlier burst of rhetoric, that we have spent 40 hours or so on the committee stage of the bill. The effect of this motion is to scrap it all.Technically, this motion is probably required because, in order to consummate the deal between the government and the Democrats, the government virtually have to move the same amendments as the Democrats moved and absorb them as their own, and standing orders do not allow that to occur. Senator Campbell could have explained that to us. He could have said, `I'm sorry for wasting the committee's time for 44½ hours. We misjudged our negotiating stance. We put all our eggs in Senator Harradine's basket. The moment that fell through, we had to run and cut a deal with the Democrats and agree to amendments that we had already crushed, defeated, in this chamber.' That is, I believe, the effect of all this.Senator Cook is right: the manager should have given us a more adequate explanation. What we will see happening over the next four days is the government supporting concepts and amendments that it had previously indicated it would oppose in this chamber. Of course, that is a humiliating backflip for the government. Nevertheless, it is a course it has chosen. I am not sure whether we were given notice of this procedural motion. Maybe when he sums up the debate the manager will indicate whether he notified us of this motion in advance.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We gave notice of it. It is a contingent notice.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is a contingent notice of motion. I had heard that a contingent notice of motion had been put in, Senator Campbell. I admit at this stage that I had not read it. In summary, it is not just an explanation that we require. Senator Campbell should fess up and admit that this is necessary because of the dramatic change of course with the negotiations with the Democrats. We might then be able to proceed to a vote on it. I am not sure the opposition would seek to divide on this matter. I will seek the guidance of others. Nevertheless, a better and more adequate explanation of this matter may have facilitated the time of the chamber.18:44:006230Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I think the points have been made by the opposition in so far as the inadequacies of the explanation given for the proposal that has been put forward by way of a contingent notice of motion. I think we need to appreciate that there may well be a majority in the chamber for this proposition because I would not have expected Senator Campbell to have put it forward, with such obvious slight regard for explanation, if he did not think there were sufficient numbers to support it. Given the events of today and that there has obviously been support given by a majority of senators to the government in proceeding these questions, I do think it is important to get some questions drawn to the attention of the Senate. It was only recently that Senator Lees lectured the Senate on their approach in their relationship with this government.I recall, for instance, that just last year she said that she thought the government's:. . . contempt for parliament does not stop with the bullying of the Speaker by Messrs Howard and Mr Reith. It runs far deeper than that.She then indicated that, on the question of the government's approach to parliamentary processes:The very same bullying tactics adopted by the Prime Minister against his own Speaker are regularly employed to downgrade the status and powers of the Senate.She went on to indicate a number of examples and particularly indicated her concern about attempts to pre-empt the decisions of the Senate in a number of ways. I think that what has occurred in recent times on this issue highlights the action now being taken up. There are none so zealous as those who have been converted to a position and we will no doubt be able to demonstrate that over the coming four days. I am reminded that it was Senator Lees who said that:It is no secret that this thuggish government—and I stress the word thuggish because that is what it is—has set it sights on the independence of the Senate, the body described the former Auditor- General John Taylor as the last effective brake on executive government.She then went on to say that:This government has shown far greater contempt for this parliament than any government in memory. Democracy and the people of Australia are the losers if this government with its born-to-rule mentality succeeds in avoiding the checks and balances provided by the parliament. Australia will not be served by a parliament that cannot hold the government to account, that does not provide a balanced and fair forum for debate on day-to-day issues, that does not provide a pressure valve for the public to actually have a say to express its views on government proposals that are either plainly wrong or unpopular.I would have thought those sentiments apply quite directly to the proposition before us today and of course apply in general to the questions that are being raised about the unanswered and unexplained nature of the arrangements entered into between this government and the Australian Democrats on the GST. I think and I would hope that Senator Campbell might have learnt something from the experience of today and would seek to explain to this chamber, in a great deal more depth and clarity, what the government is seeking to achieve and the reasons for it. On the basis of the actions that we have seen, it is quite apparent that this government is most anxious to avoid scrutiny, as are the Democrats.They are anxious to avoid being held accountable for the arrangements that they have made, which will have far-reaching consequences for many hundreds of thousands of Australians in areas that in past the Democrats were said have represented. I speak specifically of those people with whom I am in close contact, particularly those concerned with educational issues. I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that it would be appropriate to explain what he is intending to do on these measures and it would be appropriate for the Democrats to come clean on the nature of the arrangements that they have made to impose upon this country a most unpopular and unwarranted GST.18:49:006231Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I thought that this was a fairly simple proposition. I gave what I thought was a quite clear explanation on it. In plain English, it means that under standing orders 118(2), if the Senate has made a decision about an amendment, you cannot revisit that amendment in the same debate. I think that rule applies generally to most meetings and meeting procedures throughout the world, not only in the Senate. We are seeking to suspend that. I gave notice of it some time ago so that the whole world, including all senators, would know about it. In fact, if those honourable senators who are interested turn to page 28 of today's Notice Paper , they will see that the proposition that we are dealing with is clearly set out on that page.I make this point because I have been asked to go into more detail. I have said in plain English that this effectively means that you can re-put an amendment that has been voted on that is the same or substantially the same and have it voted on again. I am reliably told that the one matter this specifically and definitely applies to—and there are some amendments that are similar and so it may apply to those—is an amendment in relation to acupuncture. The whole debate we are having now is potentially related to just one amendment in relation to acupuncture. I suspect those people who find relief from stress in acupuncture could do with a bit after a day like today in the Senate.I do not know whether that answer will satisfy the opposition or any other senators, but that explains why we are doing it. Quite clearly, we need to revisit the acupuncture amendment and of course some others, and this gives the Senate the power to do that. I do not think that giving a contingent notice, having it published in the Notice Paper to be brought on when the bill comes back on, is any sort of hijacking; it is certainly not meant to be. The reason you give notice of things and bring them on at the appropriate time is so that no ambushes can take place, and I certainly did not seek to do that at all.18:52:006231Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I seek to put a question to the parliamentary secretary which might expedite this matter. I would like to also direct it to Senator Murray, representing the Australian Democrats. The question is: does the government or the Australian Democrats, or do both of them conjointly, propose to make an explanation to the Senate as to what they have now done and how they intend to proceed in terms of the changes they have made? I ask the question because these are substantive changes. This is not anything like the same bill we were considering before. In the normal course there would be a second reading speech to at least make an explanation about the global changes that are being made. We would have a chance, at least, to respond to that and have a process that we are well attuned to in order to conduct the proper processes of scrutiny. But just to assume that we resume as if nothing has happened and that we understand everything that occurs off-stage, out of this chamber, through the media is, I think, somewhat contemptuous. I just ask the question: is it intended that an appropriate explanation will be made to the Senate as to why these measures, in which we clothe the Senate with the power to expunge decisions that it has already made, are being sought? What are the government and the Democrats attempting to do?18:53:006232Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—There are three points I would make. Firstly, this motion before the chair at the moment does not seek to expunge decisions; it just gives the Senate the power to make a decision. It basically suspends 118(2), which would otherwise not allow us to make a new decision. Secondly, I have in my right hand at least one, if not more, explanatory memoranda, which I will table as soon as we get into committee. I am not allowed to do it before then. There is a detailed explanatory memorandum going around. I think the running sheet has already been distributed. I am not sure if it has got across to that side of the chamber.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It looks like the old running sheet, not a new running sheet.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Can we get a copy of that?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will table that. I now formally table the regulation impact statement and supplementary explanatory memoranda—six of them, I think—relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to certain bills contained in this package. The regulation impact statement and supplementary explanatory memoranda were, indeed, circulated in the chamber on 22 and 23 June. I am also assured by the Assistant Treasurer, who will have carriage of the bills—I am only carrying these procedural matters—and whom I trust implicitly and have enormous respect for, that he will give, in his normal style, an eloquent explanation which I am fairly certain will satisfy you. I think Senator Cook is looking for an explanation of what is occurring. I am assured by the Assistant Treasurer that, when we actually do get into the committee stage, he would like to open the batting, kick off—or any other analogy—with a thorough explanation of what Senator Cook has been looking for. I foreshadow that if Senator Cook is not happy with that explanation, he would cross-examine.18:56:006232Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I wish to ask a further question. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate has indicated, in response to an earlier question from Senator Cook, that the issue that you were concerned about—recommittal—was in relation to acupuncture and other matters.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is not recommittal.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The issues you said would be affected by this proposition went to the question of acupuncture and other matters. Could I ask what those other matters are so that we can have a list of the issues that actually would be affected by this proposition?18:56:006232Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I was quite precise about it. We are certain that 118(2) needs to be suspended to deal with acupuncture because the amendment that is in the new group of amendments tabled last night is identical, I understand, to the amendment moved during the committee stage previously. There are similar amendments in relation to food. Whether or not 118(2) needs to be suspended to deal with the food amendments is a matter of fine judgment, but it is better to suspend 118(2). You could argue for years to figure out whether or not you need to suspend it.Specifically to Senator Carr, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, acupuncture is the matter that we are definitely dealing with and, of course, other amendments dealing with food, where there were similar amendments dealt with in the committee stage. The point can also be made—and I do not make it frivolously—that, I understand, having read the papers, there may be the Australian Labor Party's proposed tactic to re-put some of the Democrat amendments or to put some of the Democrat amendments—AW5CARRSenator Carr—This is to help us!ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—We never thought of that.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, it is to help the whole Senate. We understand that you would not be able to do that unless we did this. We are not trying to tell you to support this for your own good. We think it would aid the consideration of this legislation in the interests of all senators and, most importantly, in the interests of all of our fellow citizens.18:58:006233Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I wish to clarify my earlier question. My question was to the coalition, which the parliamentary secretary has been kind enough to answer. But it was also to the Australian Democrats, and I wonder if they would be kind enough to answer?18:59:006233Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am sorry, Senator Cook. I was engaged in conversation with one of your colleagues and I missed much of what you said, but I think you were asking me about the proposition that was being put to you. Is that correct?RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, I was asking you whether you are going to make some explanation about the changes that are proposed.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I think our view of that would be—and I think Senator Campbell has given you the signal—that much of what is being proposed is in line with what has been previously proposed. The Senate is aware and the public at large who voted for the Democrats are aware that the Democrats always had a position that if we could change the bills towards our view of them, then we would support them. For instance, let us start with income tax cuts. We believed in income tax cuts but not in the manner that they were outlined by government. So you are substantially dealing with the same issue; it is just in a different shape. With respect to the goods and services tax, we believed in a goods and services tax but not in the shape laid out by government. What you have is the same policy result but with a different outcome in terms of the items which are taxable and not taxable.If you refer to the social area, we agreed that it was necessary to improve pensions, allowances, social security benefits and so on, but that the improvements were insufficient. Those have been increased, so you are dealing with the same issue but a different set of numbers. On Commonwealth-state financial relations, we believed that those did need to be reformed in the manner that the government intended, but the consequence is that some items have been left in and out. None of these matters that I am outlining to you, Senator Cook, are insubstantial—and I think that is your point. They are substantial and they matter. But they fall within the intent that the government had originally put to the people. I think the clue for you—and I looked up 118(2)—is in the nature of the parliamentary secretary's—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order, Senator Murray. The time for the debate has elapsed.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—May I take another minute by leave?Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I was going to say that 118(2) says:No new clause or amendment shall be proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee . . .In other words, we agree that most of what is being done with respect to a number of the amendments is substantially the same as what we dealt with before. That is why we believe it is a continuation of the debate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The question is that the motion moved by the parliament secretary, Senator Campbell, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6235r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr661Billsr754Billsr761Billsr765Billsr763Billsr764Billsr757Billsr760Billsr758Billsr759Bills6235r756Billsr7626235A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 14 May.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering government amendments Nos 25 to 27 on sheet FA210 relating to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and Democrat amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27. The question is that the Democrat amendment be agreed to.19:03:006235Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Following the debate we have just had, Senator Cook wanted the government to give an overview of where it intends to proceed from here on out. I thought that, prior to getting into the detail of the amendments and concluding the amendment which is now before the chair, I would make a short statement which provided an overview of what is now intended.Following yesterday's final agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats, the government will now move forward with the legislation to reform the Australian tax system. I welcome the involvement of the Democrats in the tax reform, which we believe and which they believe is in Australia's national interest. In contrast, of course, Labor does have a policy vacuum on tax reform. I think that has been well revealed during the debate so far.I can inform the Senate that the government will be proceeding with all key elements of its tax reform package. A 10 per cent GST will be introduced from 1 July 2000, with basic food to be GST free. Personal income tax cuts targeted at low and middle income earners will be maintained. This means that the government will keep its commitment to ensure that over 80 per cent of taxpayers face a marginal tax rate of only 30 per cent. There will be some paring back of the proposed tax cuts for taxpayers earning over $50,000 per annum, but significant benefits are retained. In addition to the tax cuts, generous compensation for the introduction of the GST through improved family assistance and the social security benefits will be enhanced.The government has agreed to some changes in the GST and the diesel excise reforms. These have been well publicised over recent days. Reforms to diesel will proceed and legislation was introduced yesterday in the other place to enhance the existing diesel fuel rebate scheme and to establish a new diesel and alternative fuel grants scheme for on-road fuels. As a result of the benefits being delivered through a grants scheme, diesel credits will be taken out of the GST system.The government has circulated amendments arising out of discussions with the Democrats, clarifying how the GST will apply to food, health, education and the financial services sector. I will not, obviously, in the interests of time go through all of the amendments, as we will have an opportunity to debate them. However, I will point out the following.As a result of food being GST free, most food items will fall in price. The legislation provides that food for human consumption will be GST free, except for (1) savoury snacks, confectionery, ice-cream, biscuits and certain beverages currently subject to wholesale sales tax; (2) bakery products other than bread; and (3) prepared food, including take-away foods and food supplied by restaurants.The health amendments include the following. Products on schedule 2 and the standard for the uniform scheduling of drugs and poisons will be GST free, including smaller packs of pain relievers identical to schedule 2 products. Under this amendment, over-the-counter pain relievers will be GST free. The range of health professionals who may provide GST-free health services will be expanded to include appropriately qualified naturopaths, acupuncturists and herbalists. Certain public health goods will also be GST free, by way of ministerial determination—subject to the approval of the ministerial council. Initially, the government will seek the inclusion of sunscreens, folate supplements, condoms and personal lubricants as GST-free public health goods. The education amendments include the following. Adult and community education courses likely to develop employment related skills will be GST free. First-aid or life-saving courses offered by non-profit bodies will be GST free. To address concerns raised concerning compliance costs of school based organisations, school tuckshops will be given an option to be input taxed.With respect to financial services, the government has agreed to allow partial input tax credits to purchasers of a specified list of services used by enterprises making financial supplies. This measure will particularly benefit smaller organisations in the financial sector, such as credit unions, which operate with a large range of outsourced activities.Other amendments put in place are increased compensation measures, enhanced family assistance arrangements and changes to the income tax scales. Madam President, that gives a brief summary of the changes which the government proposes, and we believe that—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—On a point of order, Minister, I am not Madam President.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Oh sorry! I must wear my glasses, Senator. Thank you for drawing your gender to my attention. Chair, can I say that the government welcome the discussions that we had with the Democrats. We believe that they have been conducted in an extremely fair fashion. Obviously in certain areas the government and the Democrats have differed, but we believe now that the package which has emerged from these discussions and resulted from the amendments will deliver real tax reform to the Australian community. We urge the Senate to ensure the speedy passage of the legislation and the bills which are before it.19:10:006236Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have to say that the opposition participates in this debate under protest. We are being guillotined and required to complete the debate within the hour set by this chamber in a collusion between the Australian Democrats and the coalition. It is the government's bill but a bill which has been substantially altered to suit Democrat convenience, because of the principled position of Senator Harradine.We know that the government sought to persuade Senator Harradine to vote for the original package. It was only after Senator Harradine made what by now must be a famous speech—the `I cannot' speech—that the government knew for certain that it did not have the numbers to allow its legislation to pass in this chamber. As a consequence of that, as the opportunists that they have now been revealed to be, the Australian Democrats proceeded to `negotiate with' as they call it—but by any other standards it would be `sell out to'—the government on a range of tax measures that we now have fetched up on our shore for debate this evening.We participate under protest because there is a straitjacket on this debate. We participate under protest because a guillotine has been introduced. We participate under protest because the amendments that give voice to the changes that have been agreed between the Australian Democrats and the government have not been given to us with sufficient notice. I note in passing that the committee stage of this debate was delayed for a day or two so that the Democrats could get ready, even though they had had significant notice, as we had had, of the changes that the government had proposed—some 218 changes, at that stage.No such courtesy is extended to us on this occasion. The fact that the Democrats have had prior notice of the amendments and that they and the government circularised the press gallery last night before releasing those amendments to the opposition for scrutiny does indicate not only a degree of concern about news management—so that proper scrutiny can be avoided and the government's and Democrats' preferred spin can be imparted on these amendments—but also a contempt for this chamber and the processes of this chamber, in that the amendments were given to the press before they were given to honourable senators. They were held back until late in the piece—and then not all of them—and now there are 119 of them. And now the explanatory memorandum dribbles out late at this stage, so that when this debate kicks off there is not even the dignity of this chamber having a running sheet before it. The running sheet is distributed—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I am sure that Senator Cook is not intentionally misleading the parliament but I should advise you that I only received a copy of the food amendment, which is the one that you were referring to, at 20 past 10 last night and so I certainly did not receive it in advance nor circulate it in advance.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is not a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, and I hope you will rule it out of order.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. It is a point of information.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Let me then rephrase that to actually get it accurate. What the media in this place was telling us and everyone else—and they reported it, in fact, this morning—was that the Democrat party room pored over the amendments and ticked them off finally. Maybe then the formal amendments were generated, and so you are technically right, Senator. But I have to say that you will excuse me if there is a fair degree of cynicism that you did not know what the amendments would contain until 10.20 last night. We certainly did not. I accept your acknowledgment now that you did. And that was indeed my point.The point is: for proper debate and scrutiny in this chamber, polite and reasonable notice should be extended. That is a principle the Democrats have insisted on and it is a principle that we have tried to acknowledge and accommodate, but it is not extended to us on this occasion and that is why, under protest, we participate in the early bringing on of these bills in this manner. I think it is ludicrous to expect that we are in a position to respond properly and appropriately in all of the circumstances, given the shortage of notice, the inadequate supply of information and the conspiracy that has been entered into to put the favourable spin by the government on the legislation.I am not alone in saying those things. This morning at the Park Hyatt in Melbourne, at a small business breakfast, the Premier of Victoria, Jeffrey Kennett, went on to say how sad it is that this legislation is coming forward and how sad it is that it has changed all the things he believed the coalition—and he is a leader of a state branch of the principal party—stood for. He made a very powerful speech which I recommend the Democrats read, because this is the beginning of the Howard alibi.If these changes are made—and I suspect they will be, as I apprehend the numbers in the chamber to do so—and if the compliance cost difficulties start to bite, as they will, and if the unintended consequences that always emerge in rushed legislation begin to surface, this government will disown the Australian Democrats at a speed of a million miles an hour. They will hang the albatross of `It is the Democrats' legislation, not ours' around their neck. Jeffrey Kennett started the process this morning by saying, `Blame the Democrats for all of these changes. Blame the Democrats for the increase in compliance costs. Blame the Democrats for the confusion and for not having a wide enough tax base. Blame the Democrats for the problems that we in the states will experience if this legislation goes through.' That only echoes what Mr Howard has said.But I make that point in passing because the more devastating criticism has been made by Professor Peter Dixon from the Monash Centre of Economic Studies. He put out a paper yesterday in which he made the obvious point: what is the information base upon which this ill-gotten conglomeration of changes is being made? Do we know the economic impact of this new series of changes? Do we know whether it has been modelled? Is that information available? Are we being asked to legislate blindfolded as to the impacts? The Democrats, and I think rightly, take some pride in causing in this chamber a majority viewpoint about an inquiry into the GST. That was a valuable inquiry, and that has been acknowledged by all parties, except by a reluctant government burdened by the penetration of some real insight into the clouded myopia of propaganda that they had spread about their ANTS package. Everyone else welcomed it.But what do we know about the economic implications of this in the public domain? We have not been told anything. No modelling has been set out. No macro-economic parameters have been published. What is the impact on employment? What is the impact on growth? What is the impact on our trade balance? What is the impact on people on low and middle incomes? Nothing. Silence. Do the Democrats step forward to enlighten us? No, they do not. The big advocates of proper scrutiny are silent on this point, absent without leave from the field.I make those observations because Professor Dixon goes on to find, on reasonable research available to him and on papers and studies published between now and when the last study was done, that the impact of this set of changes will be adverse to the national economy, unemployment will increase and there will be slower growth.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—What absolute rubbish!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Why don't you shut up! You'll get your chance in a moment.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Cook, withdraw.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I withdraw. Mr Chairman, would you bring the minister to order and do your duty in the chair as well. Will you do that, Mr Chairman? If we're going to have a debate on this, let us do it properly.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, it being 7.20 p.m., I will report progress to the Senate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes. Do your job, Grant. Don't bloody well call me to order!10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Withdraw that.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Withdraw what?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Your comments, your reflection on the chair.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I withdraw.Progress reported.Adjournment623810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.623819:20:006238O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On 31 May I received a pack of information from the Australian National Audit Office. The covering letter told me that the pack contained a discussion paper on the principles of corporate governance as they apply to Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies, and it makes very interesting reading. It states that the definitions of corporate governance are many and varied, but there are some key elements and they are: the transparency of corporate structures and operations; the implementation of effective risk management and internal control systems; and the accountability of the board to stakeholders through clear and timely disclosure. And, of course, Commonwealth authorities and companies are accountable to parliament.The ANAO paper also states that `the board can only fulfil its responsibilities if it meets regularly and collectively with clear agendas and records decisions and outcomes'. I might add these are basic rules that one would expect from the local sporting club, let alone a Commonwealth authority or company. One would certainly expect these processes to apply to the board of any statutory authority. The discussion paper specifically goes to the operation of boards. It also states that `the effectiveness of board meetings is dependent on carefully planned agendas and providing board papers and materials to directors sufficiently prior to board meetings' and that `it is important that minutes accurately record outcomes from meetings'. Again, this sounds basic, but it is also very important.In relation to a corporate code of conducts for boards, the ANAO paper states:The board and senior management are responsible for promoting high ethics and integrity standards.It also says:The language, attitudes and actions of directors and senior management affect the integrity, ethics, values and other aspects of corporate culture.The reason for my interest in this paper and my heightened interest in corporate governance relates to recent estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—specifically, the evidence given to that committee by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.There are two issues flowing from those hearings that I wish to address. They are: the circumstances surrounding the appointment of a member of that board to a senior management position within that organisation; and also the manner in which the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board conducts its business. When both of these matters are considered against the standards outlined by the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, I believe there is significant reason for concern. In fact, the evidence given during those hearings in relation to both these matters may require further investigation by the Senate and certainly requires urgent action by the minister, Mr Anderson.Over the past couple of years the structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has gone through a number of changes. The explanation for this probably lies in the instability in both the board and senior management over that period. The current management structure was settled around July last year. It consists of three main units: safety compliance, safety standards, and safety promotion. In addition, there is a corporate services area. These new management arrangements were debated by the board over a period of time. All board members were involved. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority Director, Mr Toller, told the committee on 6 May that no directors absented themselves from this process.According to the CASA annual report for 1997-98, the board members at that time were Mr Dick Smith, Dr Paul Scully-Power, Mr Bruce Byron, Mr Michael Ryan, Mr Tony Pyne, Mr John Pyke and Mr Laurie Foley. Mr Foley was appointed to the CASA board on 8 May 1997, the same day as Mr Dick Smith was appointed. In fact, Mr Foley was appointed on the basis of Mr Smith's recommenda tion to the then Minister for Transport, Mr Sharp. The board not only was actively involved in the development of this new structure but it also approved a process for recruiting senior staff to fill the newly created positions.A key player in this process was Mr Wes Willoughby. Mr Willoughby was a regional manager in the Civil Aviation Authority, and he took a redundancy package some time around 1991. Obviously, he worked for that authority until 1991. He came back to this organisation as a consultant, I understand on the recommendation of Mr Dick Smith, on 7 August 1997. His initial work, at a rate of $1,000 a day, was with an American, Mr Brodrick. His contract was then extended by Mr Smith.In addition to the base rate of $1,000 a day, Mr Willoughby was paid $200 an hour plus expenses to advise Mr Smith. I understand that those expenses included accommodation, travel, weekend fares from Canberra to Melbourne and Melbourne to Canberra for himself and his wife, as well as access to a car. Mr Willoughby, who I understand to be a competent officer, did well from those arrangements. In fact, for the month of July that year he was paid $57,684. I learnt that from an answer to a question from Senator Mackay to Mr Toller, the Chief Executive Officer of CASA, in estimates on 6 May this year. According to Mr Toller, the current structure was formally approved by the CASA board some time prior to May last year. He thought it was around February.A company trading as Spencer Stuart was engaged to assist with the recruitment process. According to Mr Toller, this company had been engaged by CASA before. Spencer Stuart had a close relationship with Mr Willoughby. On 7 April Mr Willoughby sought board approval to engage a recruitment firm to fill the new executive position. The matter was settled by the board in a closed session on 15 April. There was no tender process but a call for expressions of interest on that same day.A decision was taken to engage Spencer Stuart on 24 April, just nine days later. I understand that, over a period of time, Mr Foley also had a number of dealings with Spencer Stuart, along with a fellow board member, Mr Bryce Byron. So there appears to have been a close relationship between this company, Mr Willoughby and Mr Foley before it was given the contract to provide candidates for key positions under the new structure. The contract with Spencer Stuart was signed on 5 May, but that company commenced work on the consultancy well before that. Mr Toller told estimates that this was because the company was given verbal advice that it had the job some time between 24 and 28 April.Mr Foley had advised Spencer Stuart that he was available for work early in 1998. This occurred while he and his fellow board members were developing a new CASA structure and, along with it, a number of new senior positions. Mr Foley participated in the selection process that led to the appointment of that company. He then approved, along with the other members of the CASA board, the engagement of Spencer Stuart, but it appears Mr Foley had not advised the board of that obvious conflict of interest. He continued to be an active participant in the work of the board even though he had a direct and significant personal interest in the outcomes of a number of matters that the board had before it.Mr Foley met with Spencer Stuart on 5 May to discuss his candidacy for one of the positions that that company was seeking to fill—that is, he met with the headhunter he had helped to appoint to discuss his interest in one of the positions he had helped to create. Again, he failed to advise his fellow board members of his actions. Two days later Mr Foley told Mr Wheatley from Spencer Stuart that he was a candidate for one of those positions, but again he did not advise the board of his decision.At a board meeting on 15 May, the process to be followed in interviewing candidates for these jobs and the role of the board in that process was discussed. The process was to involve the establishment of a number of panels with a member of the board sitting on each panel. Mr Foley told the board he was not able to participate in that process, but he did not advise the board members why he was unavailable. I asked Mr Toller, who was present at the 15 May meeting of the board, whether or not Mr Foley told his fellow board members why he would not sit on any selection panels. Mr Toller said Mr Foley gave no reason at that time. There is a lot more to this story and, given that my time is about to elapse, I advise the Senate that I intend to resume this story at the next available opportunity.624019:30:006240Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Few would argue that Australia's long-term social, cultural and economic development are all inextricably linked to the size and make-up of the nation's population. This is a topic which I think deserves greater attention than it gets. As an example, critical mass in the national population is an important although often underresearched issue in identifying a pool of people capable of developing technological skills. Without a critical mass, a talent pool is something that other nations will claim at Australia's expense. The United States has recognised this and has aggressive recruitment programs to encourage young and talented people from other countries to take up opportunities in the United States and even to settle there permanently to build the country's knowledge base. I think it rings alarm bells for us.The forces that change our population are natural increase and migration. A fertility rate of 2.2 children per female would be required for the population to replace itself. The current Australian fertility rate is 1.85 children per female. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has based its population projections on assumed fertility rates, ranging from 1.6 to 1.75 births per woman by 2005-06 and then remaining constant. According to the ABS projections, the rate of population growth in 2051 would be between 0.0 per cent and 0.3 per cent, compared with around 1.2 per cent in 1997. A fertility rate of between 1.65 and 1.8 and net migration of between 60,000 and 100,000 per year would result in a stationary population of between 24 million and 26 million by around 2037.There have been many expert and, indeed, other opinions, and they are divided on what might be an ideal population target. The reality is that Australia has a below replacement fertility rate and has had for more than 20 years, and there are no signs that this trend will change. The infusion of youth into our population structure has therefore been declining for some time, and I think this is a serious issue for our future economy. The capacity for natural increase to sustain population increase is really collapsing. Moreover, as we have heard so often, our population is ageing. Under current trends, the population aged 65 and over will increase by 100,000 a year in the decades to 2031, and the population aged 65 and over will rise from 12 per cent in 1997 to 22 per cent by the year 2031.The prospects through to the middle of the next century are for a major escalation in aged dependency for Australia. That is hardly news, but Australia, by default, is drifting towards a position of negligible population growth. By doing that, we risk closing the doors to advances such as those enjoyed in earlier times of spectacular growth in this country.Any discussion on population inevitably raises the matter of immigration, a topic on which opinions legitimately differ. Some environmental groups, for example, have taken the view that Australia should adopt a policy of zero net overseas migration. Business and industry bodies, on the other hand, have argued the case very strongly for a very substantial increase in the immigration intake in order to increase growth and reduce the impact of the ageing population. Some have talked about population targets of 50 million in 50 years time. I am not arguing for that target, but I think it would be unrealistic not to acknowledge that many Australians have deeply held concerns on a number of migration issues, and we need to address them. Equally, it is difficult, in my view, to find any sustainable arguments against a well-researched and properly thought out population policy that will meet our needs, aspirations and national goals for the next couple of decades. This will mean maintaining the community's confidence in our migration program.I think it is worth looking back a little bit. It is undeniable that the modern history of Australian society has been built on successive waves of immigration, first from England, then from Europe and more recently from Asia. Each wave has brought with it new and profound social, political and cultural influences. The tide of postwar immigration has transformed Australia into a nation with an open and vibrant economy, a strong services sector and greatly improved health and education facilities. But where do we stand now on the immigration front? There has been a lot of water under the bridge, but immigration rates have been falling since the 1980s. Before that, immigration typically contributed more than one per cent to Australia's population each year—now it is less than half that. This trend is taking place at the same time as birth rates of the non-immigrant population are declining.The rather stark reality of our declining population base is ample reason for us to rethink our attitude to migration as being both positive and necessary to maximise Australia's potential. The critical questions are what sort of migration will not only swell our numbers but also make a positive contribution to Australia's productive base, and what policies will encourage migrant settlement outside crowded metropolitan areas where environmental pressures already threaten the fabric of our major cities.If we are to encourage increased migration to Australia—and I am certainly in that camp of persons who think we should—we need to give very careful thought to policies that will assist regional development by encouraging a much more balanced distribution of the migrant intake. Until recently—and, indeed, to a large extent, this still obtains—the settlement patterns of migrants, including skilled and business migrants, has been heavily skewed towards settlement in and around Australia's largest metropolitan centres. The patterns tend to exacerbate Australia's population concentration, particularly in Sydney, which receives about 40 per cent of the migrant intake each year.The contrast with other cities is very interesting. South Australia, which has some 8.3 per cent of Australia's population, attracts between four and five per cent of Australia's new settlers. Tasmania has some 2.7 per cent of Australia's population but attracts around one per cent of its immigrants. The Northern Territory attracts one per cent. Western Australia, with 9.4 per cent of the population, attracts about 12 per cent, but of course with an overwhelming majority settling in Perth. A similar situation obtains in Queensland, where the great majority settle in the south-east corner of the state.This raises some very interesting issues for us to think about in relation to the migration program. The government's regional migration initiatives aim to assist regional development by encouraging a more balanced dispersal of Australia's migrant intake. We have introduced a number of initiatives to facilitate this. They cover migration to not only rural and regional areas but also other major urban centres, including Cairns, Townsville, Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart.Research into patterns of population distribution and the reasons why migrants decide to settle in certain areas of Australia have shown findings which are really not surprising. They show that there are two factors which are of primary importance in making that decision. Of course, the location of family, where applicable, is very important, and the other factor is the availability of employment. The initiatives already in place are designed to be consistent with these findings, and they focus very strongly on the settlement potential of applicants, the skill profile of applicants and, in the case of business skills, an applicant's capacity to both invest in business and create employment.There have been a number of initiatives that I will not have time to outline to the Senate tonight, such as skill matching, linking up people to available jobs and sponsoring migration to regional areas. There are some very important initiatives. As Australia faces its, no doubt, global future, I think it makes abundant sense to construct a population policy that serves the nation well for the emerging challenges ahead, and the role of rural and regional Australia in this process must receive paramount consideration.624219:40:006242Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I rise tonight to speak on education. On a day when the government and the Democrats are working closely together to put a tax on books, it seems curiously apt to be talking on this subject tonight. Education is central to Labor values. Kim Beazley went to the last election promising, if elected, to serve as the `Education Prime Minister'. In this, he is not alone. Bill Clinton in 1996 and Tony Blair in 1997 both went to the polls proclaiming education as their top priority.Education is no longer just one issue among many. Knowledge, skills, education and training are now matters that have moved to the core of the policy debate. In my own shadow portfolio of trade, education is vital. This may seem odd at first, so let me explain why. Labor believes that trade liberalisation is the best solution for Australia. The tariff cuts we put in place under the Hawke and Keating governments made industry more efficient and allowed us to lobby for comparable cuts in the tariffs and quotas of our trading partners. They put an extra $1,000 per year into the pockets of the average Australian family.However, for some Australians, particularly those in regional Australia, trade liberalisation brought mixed blessings. Over the past two decades, job insecurity has increased throughout the world, and Australia has been no exception. Some of the industries have had difficulty adapting to the removal of the walls of fortress Australia. But the answer is not to keep buttressing the fortress; the answer is to invest in people by ensuring that education and training is available to everyone. Young Australians should be encouraged to finish school and given the opportunity for further education if they want it. The philosophy of lifelong learning needs to become a reality for everyone. The days when a worker needed only one set of skills because they would have only one job during their lifetime are long gone.Labor also recognises the value of education exports. Education services are Australia's fifth largest export. They are worth around $3.5 billion per year and are responsible for employing nearly 9,000 teachers. Labor regards a successful education exports sector as important in creating a vibrant, outward looking, intellectual Australia. As Kim Beazley pointed out last year:The great thing about education is that it empowers the individual. It helps them expand themselves. It opens vistas and opportunities they never had before. What better legacy could Australia bequeath to our neighbours in this part of the world than to have provided that sort of key to the future for them. What better legacy for Australia than to have done it in a way that makes us a better nation too.Labor went to the 1998 election with a range of innovative policies to boost education exports, including cutting the cost of a student visa, boosting funding to promote Australia as a place to study and establishing an education exports roundtable. I am proud that we made education exports a high priority.I will now say a few words about Western Australia. Universities are not the first thing that people think of when they think of Western Australia. Perhaps they think of mining, deserts, the America's Cup, our precious forests or holidays in Broome. All these are things that people associate immediately with the West. But we need to change that attitude, because universities in my state of Western Australia are rapidly becoming one of our biggest industries.This was vividly demonstrated last week with the release of a report commissioned by Curtin University, the largest university in Western Australia. The report is entitled Contributing to the Community Through Education and Research—a comprehensive study quantifying the economic impact of Curtin on the WA Economy. The study team was led by Mr Peter Kenyon and the report was released by the Vice Chancellor, Professor Lance Twomey. It makes some key findings about the importance of Curtin for the local economy. Curtin is the 11th largest business in the state and the 600th largest business in Australia if you include all private and public sector businesses. Curtin employs 2,500 people on campus, and is responsible for generating 1,600 more jobs off campus. Curtin adds about $370 million in human capital to the economy each year. This is measured by the increase in salaries which its graduates get as a result of having a Curtin education.The flow-on effect of spending by Curtin, its staff and its students makes a total contribution of $434 million to the Western Australian economy. Curtin receives over $25 million per year in research income, which leads to a $65 million benefit to the industry in Western Australia. In relation to international students, the report points out that, of Curtin's 24,500 students, over 3,000—or 12 per cent—are overseas students. International fee-paying students and associated family and visitors contribute nearly $70 million per year to the economy. As the report points out, this is over five times the amount contributed to the WA economy by the state's wine industry. As senators would be aware, the Western Australian wine industry is a substantial exporter. All up, the study estimates that the total impact of Curtin University on the economy of Western Australia is in the region of $700 million to $870 million, or 1.5 per cent, of total economic activity in the state.The potential is there, but this government continues to drag the chain. As Kim Beazley pointed out in his budget reply speech, 37 per cent of our labour force did not finish high school. This compares to 19 per cent in the United Kingdom, 14 per cent in Germany and 11 per cent in the United States. Fifteen per cent of Australians have at least a university level education compared with 26 per cent of Americans. We are starting from behind.Education needs to become not just a priority for this government but the priority; yet the government continues to slash and burn instead. The 1999-2000 budget delivers $800 million a year less in direct Commonwealth higher education funding than in Labor's last year in office. Taken together, all the Commonwealth support for education, training and both public and private research and development activity has fallen from three per cent of GDP when we were in office to 2.5 per cent in the latest budget.Let me end on a note of optimism. Education is a powerful force for change. Not only does it provide skills; it also engenders trust. In the long term, the solution to the xenophobic scourge that swept Australia in 1996-98 is to raise education levels. Education is also good business. It is a great export earner for this country and, with the right government policies, it will grow rapidly. When students from other countries come to study in Australia, they enrich our culture. They also take back a little of our fundamental values—tolerance, democracy and equality. I would like to commend the work of Curtin University to the Australian Senate. I hope that the government will do more to encourage this sort of evaluation of the contribution of higher education to the national economy in the future.I note in the presentation of Curtin University's report that they made some reference to similar studies that are being undertaken, or have been completed, by other universities in Australia, including the University of Western Australia. There is now a critical mass of research on the value that universities contribute to society in economic as well as in social terms on the national agenda, from which you could project the total value to Australia of having a vibrant higher education sector. Perhaps the opportunity is there to start to render this in realistic figures in terms of value so that not only can the recipients of higher education appreciate the value to them as individuals—theenrichment that it brings to their lives—but also others can appreciate the addition to our social infrastructure, as well as the economic impacts, that a higher education community can bring.In weighing those things, I would of course put most value on the social elements. But in recognising that many debates about value in Australia these days centre on the economic contribution, I would not want to overlook that. It is substantial; it is major. It surprises most Australians in terms of the extent of the contribution made to our national economy. It is the reason why industry and other sections of the community should support a stronger commitment to higher education, better training and more accessibility for ordinary Australians to those facilities. Again, I commend the work of Curtin University and the study to the Senate.19:49:006244Senate adjourned at 7.49 p.m.Documents62446244The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report—No. 55—Carpentaria Downs/Balbirini land claim no. 160 and explanatory statement by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron).Treaty—Multilateral —Text, together with national interest analysis—Amendments, done at Grenada in May 1999, to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946.Answers to Questions on Notice6245The following answers to questions were circulated:6245(Question No. 373)3736245West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:With reference to the Federation Fund program, applications that were made by organisations in the Eden-Monaro electorate for funding for the Queanbeyan indoor swimming pool, Queanbeyan showground, the Batemans Bay spine road, Moruya Heritage Centre and the Eurobodalla shire water and sewerage improvements:Given the Minister's joint responsibility for this program with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), where necessary in consultation with Senator Hill, for each of these applications:(1) When were the applications submitted.(2) Under what category of the Federation Fund was each application considered.(3) On what date was a decision made on each application.(4) On what date or dates were successful applications under the relevant programs publicly announced.(5) On what date were unsuccessful applicants notified of the decision.(6) Was the federal member for Eden-Monaro notified of the decisions; if so, on what date did this notification occur.(7) (a) What criteria were used to make decisions on applications; and (b) how did each application rank against the criteria.6245Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Senator West refers to Senator Alston having joint responsibility with Senator Hill for the Federation Fund program. As Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, I am now responsible for the $29.6m Federation Community Projects Program (FCP) and Senator Hill and I are co-responsible for the $70.4m Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects (FCHP) program. Overall responsibility for administration of the Federation Fund lies with the Prime Minister's Department, although administrative responsibility for all individual major projects already announced has been devolved to a number of Departments, including the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.I have not received applications for assistance in relation to the Bateman's Bay spine road or the Eurobodalla shire water and sewerage improvements under the FCHP.I am advised that applications for assistance from the Federation Fund in relation to the spine road and the extension of the Deep Creek dam were submitted to the government on 22 May and 16 July 1998 respectively. These two projects were not successful and the applicant was advised in writing of the outcome on 4 February 1999. All applications for funding under the Federation Fund have now been finalised and the Fund has been closed.I provide the following information in respect of applications under the FCHP:(1) Queanbeyan Indoor Swimming Pool—24 June 1998; Queanbeyan Showground—26 June 1998; Moruya Heritage Centre—25 June 1998.(2) Queanbeyan Indoor Swimming Pool—FCHP; Queanbeyan Showground—FCHP; Moruya Heritage Centre—FCHP.(3) Queanbeyan Indoor Swimming Pool—28 August 1998; Queanbeyan Showground—28 August 1998; Moruya Heritage Centre—28 August 1998.(4) There were no successful applications under the FCHP in the electorate of Eden-Monaro(5) Letters to unsuccessful FCHP applicants were dated 13 October 1998.(6) The Offices of all Federal Senators and Members of Parliament would have received the joint media release on the outcome of the FCHP through the standard fax-streaming of press releases from the offices of Senator Hill and Senator Alston on 15 October 1998.(7) (a) In considering projects submitted under the FCHP, Ministers took into account the following factors:* the General and Specific Assessment Criteria published in the FCHP information kit (see Attachment A);* the assessment of projects undertaken by the Federation Task Group (FTG) (comprised of officials from both responsible departments) against those criteria; * the assessment of projects by the National Council of the Centenary of Federation;* the desirability of ensuring an adequate spread of projects in regional and metropolitan areas and between cultural and heritage projects; andthe notional State and Territory spread of funds between States and Territories, prepared by the FTG.(7) (b) Scores prepared by the FTG on individual projects will not be made publicly available.ATTACHMENT AGeneral Assessment Criteria(a) SignificanceProjects must be able to demonstrate regional significance as a minimum and preference will be given to applications which can demonstrate national significance. In considering whether a project has national significance, consideration will be given to the uniqueness of the proposal, its place within Australia's national cultural heritage and its benefits beyond its immediate locality. National significance could be demonstrated for a modest project in a remote locality if it could be shown that the project would contribute to our national cultural heritage as well as having regional benefits(b) A lasting natureSupport is principally available for capital works projects of a lasting nature, the construction or enhancement of permanent cultural facilities and their collections, or the restoration and conservation of heritage buildings(c) Appropriate for the Centenary of FederationApplications must demonstrate the proposed projects capacity to suitably mark the Centenary of Federation. A high priority will be given to projects which demonstrate a capacity to:enhance community awareness of Federation and its achievements, andcontribute to an enhanced understanding of the achievements of Australians.(d) Benefits to the broad communityPreference will be given to applications which demonstrate a capacity to provide one or more of the following:on-going employment or economic benefits; andopportunities for use by, or availability to, a broad cross-section of the community.(e) Good managementApplications should provide evidence of:* realistic budgeting for the project;* the financial and project management capacity of the applicant; * well defined work plans with achievable outcomes rather than inputs to it;* project completion by or during 2001; and* evidence that arrangements are in place, to ensure the ongoing viability of the project.(f) Partnerships in fundingPreference will be given to applications that contain financial and other support from the private sector, local community or other sources.Specific Assessment CriteriaApplicants for some projects will need to complete both the heritage and cultural facility specific criteria, for example, a proposal to construct a new cultural facility in a heritage building or precinct.(a) Heritage ProjectsIt will be an advantage for projects to be listed on the Register of the National Estate (or the Register's interim list), by the National Trust, or on a State register. National significance relates to those places which are worth keeping for the nation as a whole.Projects seeking assistance for the restoration of heritage properties must also demonstrate:* sound conservation management planning during restoration and for future use—the involvement of heritage professionals is important;* interpretative and promotion strategies;* compliance with all relevant proposals;* best practice innovative heritage approaches and adaptive re-use of significant heritage buildings (where any new construction is involved, adherence to the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry should be demonstrated); and* strategies to encourage partnerships with industry and community groups that promote conservation.(b) Cultural Facilities ProjectsProjects seeking assistance for cultural facilities and/or their collections must also demonstrate that the proposal:* is part of a cultural plan for the region and/or State/Territory and has the capacity to link with regional cultural networks;* is financially viable including evidence of feasibility plans; and* strives to achieve best practice standards, including adherence to the NationalCode of Practice for the Construction Industry. 6247(Question No. 538)5386247Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.6247Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) $3,328.95 (relates to Senator Minchin for the period 15 October 1997 to 30 June 1998)(b) $450.00 (relates to Senator Minchin for the period 15 October 1997 to 30 June 1998)(c) Nil.6247(Question No. 856)8566247Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, orany agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4).6247Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS(1) 1073 internal courses during the period 3 March 1996 to 25 May 1999.(2) Not known, as records cannot differentiate between internal and externalcourses. The total cost for internal and external staff development courses is $2,142,373, during the period 3 March 1996 to 25 May 1999, excluding internal salary and administration costs.(3) 7513.(4) (a) 4,(b) (i) 4, (ii) None.(5) Nil, excluding internal salary and administration costs.COMCARE(1) Records of internal courses were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 to 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998 there have been 45 internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare.(2) Records of internal courses held were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 to 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998 the salary cost of attendees of internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare has been $64,000.(3) Records of internal courses held were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 to 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998, 171 individual staff members have attended internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare.(4) (a) Records of internal courses held were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 to 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1997, 23 internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.(b) (i) Nil and (b) (ii) 23.(5) $56,000—this amount comprises the salary cost of staff who attended thesecourses (based on average salary cost for Comcare staff).DEFENCE FORCE REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(1) Nil.(2) Not applicable.(3) 3.(4) (a) Not applicable.(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY COMMISSION(1) Nil. (2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) (a) None(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGENCY(1) 5.(2) $12,250(3) 71.(4) (a) None.(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE(1) 66.(2) $47,306.(3) 808.(4) (a) Nil.(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL REGISTRY(1) 124.(2) $165,888.(3) 2 415.(4) (a) Nil.(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.6248(Question No. 874)8746248Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others. (4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).6248Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS(1) Not known, as information is currently not available on the number of staff attending external courses. However staff have attended 1095 external courses in the period 3 March 1996 to 25 May 1999.(2) Not known, as records cannot differentiate between internal and external courses. The total cost for internal and external staff development courses is $2,142,373, during the period 3 March 1996 to 25 May 1999, excluding internal salary and administration costs.(3) (a) 11, (b) (i) 11, (ii) None.(4) Australian Government Solicitor.(5) $4,720.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGENCY(1) 65.(2) $64,782(3) (a) None, (b)(i) None, (ii) None.(4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY COMMISSION(1) 918.(2) $317,894.20.(3) (a) two, (b)(i) one, (ii) one.(4) Attorney-General's Department and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.(5) $450.DEFENCE FORCE REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(1) 3.(2) $3555.(3) Nil.(4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE(1) 286.(2) $87,134.(3) (a) 1, (b)(I) Nil, (ii) 1.(4) Institute of Public Administration Australia. (5) $350.COMCARE(1) This information can be provided on a financial year basis only. An averageof 306 officers per year have attended external staff development courses since 1 July 1995.(2) This information can be provided on a financial year basis only. $1,722,000 has been expended on external staff development courses since 1 July 1995. This amount comprises both course fees and the salary costs of the attending staff.(3) (a) Records of individual external courses attended were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996—30 June 1997. Since 1 July 1977, 2 external staff development courses attended by Comcare staff have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act. (b)(i) Nil, (b)(ii) 2.(4) The Australian Government Solicitor.(5) $2,400.AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL REGISTRY(1) 604.(2) $198,152 (only includes direct course or consultant fees).(3) (a) Nil, (b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.6249(Question No. 991)9916249O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the Department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6249Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC has not been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the Department since March 1996.6249(Question No. 997)9976249O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6249Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. 6250(Question No. 1001)10016250O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so; (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6250Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)—(e) Nil(2) Nil(3) (a) & (b) Nil(4) (a)—(e) Nil(5) (a) & (b) Nil(6) Nil6250(Question No. 1006)10066250O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 May 1999: Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6250Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:No.