Download Fragment

Monday, 12 September 2011
Page: 5680

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (12:39): The Australian Greens do not support the opposition's amendment. As I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate, despite initial concerns about the effects of schedule 2 which were raised prior to the inquiry, during the inquiry and with me subsequently, I have now satisfied myself that schedule 2 is not intended to and will not effectively change the previous practice in relation to offsetting. I am satisfied that it will affirm and clarify the existing situation and that it is appropriate that schedule 2 remain in the bill. The Australian Greens are not prepared to jeopardise the passage of the beneficial provisions in schedule 1 of the bill nor the sensible rationalisation provisions in schedule 3 and to hold up consideration of the bill because of concerns that have been raised about schedule 2, having satisfied ourselves that those concerns have been adequately addressed in changes to the explanatory memorandum.

I have been able to come to this view because I have been at pains to consult with and consider the concerns of the RSL and the VVFA and to discuss those concerns in some detail with the government. Although my motives have been somewhat impugned today, I would like to just put on the record that when looking at legislation I am keen to seek the best outcomes possible through consideration of the legislation, consultation and, where possible, collaboration with inter­ested parties. I initiated these discussions both with the organisations that I consulted with and with the government and, having heard those concerns, negotiated to address them to see if an alternative way of addressing the concerns was available. I have acted in good faith.

I cannot answer on what attempts the opposition made to enter into fruitful negotiations with the government about their concerns. I cannot be held responsible for that and the Australian Greens cannot be held responsible for what negotiations were carried out. What I do know is that, having heard the concerns of the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia, and having had further discussions about those, I was satisfied that the changes to the explanatory memorandum would address those concerns. Although I was not at liberty to necessarily show the explanatory memorandum to the organisations, because that was not within my control, I conveyed to those organisations my view that that was adequate. I felt that I had heard their concerns and that they understood that their concerns had been addressed in the explanatory memorandum, although of course they might not be fully satisfied.

The suggestion that somehow the current situation is enshrined only in legislation is misleading in that there is already an administrative practice and discretion, and I am satisfied that schedule 2 of the bill will not change that situation and that indeed there will be further steps taken as set out in the explanatory memorandum to develop guidelines in consultation with ex-service organisations to direct and guide the decision making of the officials of the Department of Veterans' Affairs so that there will be no effective change to what has been agreed to be an effective, fair and good working system up until now. So the Australian Greens are not able to support the opposition's amendments.