Senator MARGETTS (4:31 PM) —by leave—I move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 5, 7, 9 to 11, 14 and 18:

(5) Clause 20, page 12 (line 29), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".

(7) Clause 23, page 14 (line 6), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".

(9) Clause 26, page 15 (line 13), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".

(10) Page 16 (after line 6), after clause 27, insert:

27A Public interest disclosures

Despite any other provisions of this or any other Act, it is not an offence for a member of the Council or a committee established under this Part to disclose any information about radiation protection and nuclear safety if the person:

(a) has a genuine concern about an issue relating to radiation protection or nuclear safety; and

(b) has first discussed his or her concerns with the CEO; and

(c) believes the disclosure is in the public interest.

(11) Clause 28, page 16 (after line 10), before paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) procedures for public consultation before the appointment of members, including procedures for public nominations;

(14) Clause 40, page 23 (line 16), at the end of the penalty, add "for each day during all or part of which the person contravenes this subsection".

(18) Clause 79, page 47 (lines 4 to 25), omit "Imprisonment for 2 years" (wherever occurring), substitute "30 penalty units".

The government has indicated that it will not be supporting these amendments, but I will still endeavour to explain them briefly. Amendments Nos 5, 7 and 9 on sheet 1183 relate to prescribed procedures for public consultation. This is still an issue which has not been resolved. It is to give effect to the stated intent of the government following the committee hearing to have a transparent and consultative approach to the appointment of members of the advisory council and committees. By all means, leave the detail to be worked out in the regulations, about which there is still to be further consultation, but let us have this locked in at this stage rather than leave it to the goodwill of the government over the next few months.

Amendment No. 10 relates to public interest disclosures. It is essential that the council and committee structures work effectively. In going onto a council or committee, persons must be responsible to the people to whom they must provide advice (the CEO), to the people who appoint them (in this case the minister), to the rest of council, to the industry which relies on them and, most importantly, to the Australian community who rely on them to be their eyes and ears in the nuclear industry. From time to time—hopefully only rarely—it may be necessary for someone or a number of people in one these councils to break ranks with the orthodoxy of their colleagues.

These committees, honourable senators will remember, are charged with monitoring radiation protection and nuclear safety. There is an obligation to err on the side of caution. We believe that it is necessary to make known concerns so people can make up their own minds and take appropriate action. If someone does have a concern and it is too urgent to wait for the annual or quarterly reports, what can they do? Clearly, they can raise it with the CEO, but more probably they have discussed it at council.

If the concern is genuine and is not shared by the majority or not shared by the CEO, it would be, we believe, in the public interest to disclose it, and this amendment will allow them to do so without fear of prosecution. This is particularly important for the community representatives on the council or committees because they represent a constituency of some kind as well as being council or committee members. The concern may be genuine. The issue has to be first discussed with the CEO and the person must believe the disclosure to be in the public interest. Then and only then can they publicly disclose any information about radiation protection and nuclear safety. If it were not for the culture of secrecy that surrounds and has surrounded this industry, this kind of specific amendment might not be necessary, but there still needs to be a way to move before the communities who have already been associated with industries, such as those associated with ANSTO, can gain that confidence.

Amendment No. 11 relates to public nomination and basically confirms in the bill a commitment given by the government to include in the regulations some process for public consultation before the minister chooses the representatives of the general public or of the community and environmental groups in the case of the committees. It takes that commitment one step further by requiring that the process include some form of nomination from the relevant community. In practice, this could be done by placing an ad in the papers or by contacting relevant local government authorities. How it is done is still a matter for the regulations, but this amendment will ensure that the process of identifying community representatives includes an opportunity for the public to be involved in nominating suitable people. You would not think that would be too difficult.

Amendments Nos 14 and 18 relate to penalties and they highlight an inconsistency in the bill dealing with penalties. Section 40 deals with the power of the CEO to issue directions to a controlled person. There are two occasions on which this applies. The first occasion is where the person is not complying with the act or regulations. When someone is not complying with an act to protect the community from radiation, or when someone is in breach of a regulation about nuclear safety, you might assume that it is a pretty serious matter. Not so, if you go by the penalties of this bill. The second occasion is where the CEO believes a direction is necessary to protect the health and safety of people or to avoid damage to the environment.

The penalties come into play where the CEO's directions are not complied with. Let us consider the seriousness of that. The CEO believes there will be a harm to people if a direction is not carried out. If the person does not carry it out for whatever reason—it is too expensive, it is impractical, tomorrow is a holiday or whatever—what happens next? The penalty is 30 penalty units, which in today's money equates to $3,300. That is hardly a disincentive if the alternative is an expensive upgrade. So then what happens? Under this regime, nothing. There is a power for the CEO to undertake to do those things required if a controlled person will not, but imagine the complications that arise then, not the least being the arguments over cost and who will pay and the difficulty people will have getting information about this at the time.

When we consider that we have a situation where—and we will deal with this in more detail later—a person can be put into prison, according to the government, for two years if they get their warrant wrong, this is way out of proportion. This is an instance where, quite clearly, the community require and need the assurance that there will be some very firm ability to make sure that those people under ARPANSA do feel the necessity to obey the legitimate instructions of the CEO—and this certainly is not good enough.

I do urge the support of the Senate for these amendments. If the government does not support these amendments, I urge the majority of the Senate to see the commonsense in them.