Senator FORSHAW (3:50 PM) —I would like to make some comments at the outset of the committee stage of the debate on the Pig Industry Bill 2000 bill. Firstly, the amendments that I referred to in my speech on the second reading have now been circulated to the chamber and they are set out on sheet No. 2164. Secondly, I want to respond briefly to the comments made by Senator Woodley and the parliamentary secretary about our amendments. We were not in a position until this morning to provide a draft of our proposed amendments to the parties in the Senate. The reason for that is that we have been waiting for some time—indeed, up until late last week—to have access to important documentation associated with this bill, in particular the draft constitution of Australian Pork Ltd and also the final draft of the proposed contract between the Commonwealth and Australian Pork Ltd. I indicated in my speech on the second reading that we did have the opportunity of discussions with the industry and also some briefing from the government in the lead-up to the bill being introduced, but we did not get a real opportunity to have a briefing on the constitution and the draft until fairly recently.

As the Senate is aware, it has been a concern of ours for some time that this government and particularly this minister often proceed to introduce legislation in parliament and attempt to have it dealt with without all of the documentation being available. I refer in particular to such things as regulations and, in the case of this legislation and similar legislation for other industries, the proposed contracts and constitutions of the new corporations that are to be established. This was a problem we encountered in relation to horticulture and during the wool industry debate; and I believe that, if we went back through the records, there would be a number of others that we could make similar comments about.

It is important, in considering whether or not one can support the bill before the chamber, to have access to that material. As the minister himself has stated in his correspondence to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the particular and important provisions on how the new company will operate are contained not in the bill but in the contract. After I had the opportunity to come to Canberra last Thursday for a final briefing from the government on the final draft of the contract in particular, we decided to proceed with amendments that we had earlier indicated we were considering moving. Those amendments were really only able to the prepared in a draft form late last week and consequently were only able to be provided to Senator Woodley this morning. I am advised, Senator Woodley, that efforts were made to contact you and also that a copy of the draft amendments was faxed your office at about 11.40 a.m. Similarly, the government had a copy of the draft amendments at an earlier stage, and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that the amendments that have now been circulated in the chamber are the same as were provided to the government in draft form earlier.

I now turn to our amendments. Madam Chairman, would it be appropriate for me to formally move the amendments at this stage?

The CHAIRMAN —Yes. Are you seeking leave to move Nos 1 to 3 together?

Senator FORSHAW —Yes, as they are interrelated amendments I seek leave to do that.

Leave granted.

Senator FORSHAW —I move opposition amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3:

11 Declaration of industry services body

Note: Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides for the repeal, variation etc. of instruments.

I will briefly indicate what each of the amendments deals with. Amendment No. 1 is to insert into the definitions clause of the bill a definition of `Presiding Officer'. That is necessary because the following two proposed amendments make reference to the presiding officer of each house. So amendment (1) would put in a definition that `Presiding Officer' means, in relation to the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and, in relation to the Senate, the President of the Senate.

The two important amendments are (2) and (3), which deal with the powers of the minister to make declarations and to issue directions. Firstly, amendment (2) would vary clause 11 of the bill. As it currently reads, clause 11 is very short and just says:

Then there is a note which says:

We are proposing to replace that clause with a more extensive clause, which I will not read into the Hansard. I will just draw attention to the key points in the amendment. Basically it would require that, where the minister does make a declaration that a body or a company is to be an industry services body for the purposes of the act, the minister must then cause a copy of such declaration to be laid before each house of parliament or, if a house is not sitting, presented to the presiding officer of that house for circulation to members of that house and tabling on the next sitting day within five days after the declaration is made. That would be the first substantial requirement upon the minister: to lay a copy of the declaration before the houses of parliament. The second would be that it also be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the declaration is made.

That will, we believe, provide the sort of accountability and opportunities for the parliament which are lacking at the moment and to which the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has drawn attention. I referred to this in my speech in the second reading debate. Indeed, I think I can say that this proposed amendment is along the lines of that which was agreed to by the Senate to be inserted into the bill dealing with the restructuring of the horticultural industry.

Amendment No. 3 proposes to amend clause 12, which deals with ministerial directions to industry services bodies. This amendment would insert a new subclause 3, which would provide—and I am summarising again here—that the minister must cause a copy of the direction to be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after giving the direction and, secondly, that it be tabled in each house of the parliament within five sitting days after the giving of the direction. Further, the annual reports of the body—in this case, the company—should contain references to the particulars of the direction made by the minister and an assessment of the impact that the direction has had on the operations of the body or the company during that period.

I covered the arguments in favour of the amendments during my remarks in the second reading debate and I would hope that the government, now that they have had an opportunity to consider them, would agree to them. Hopefully, Senator Woodley can see the merit of what we are doing and agree also. As I have said, this continues a similar approach to that which was adopted in regard to earlier legislation, particularly in regard to the horticulture bills. I also indicated in my speech in the second reading debate that there were some other issues on which we—and I believe other senators also—would seek clarification, but possibly I can leave that to another intervention during the debate.