Download Fragment

Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Page: 4251

Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (18:46): Firstly, on your point concerning regulations, the government does not accept your contention that there has been any process of obfuscation or avoiding the oversight of this parliament. Let us be very clear about this, Senator Nash. As I said a moment ago, the draft regulations can be found on the website; they can be found in the committee report. But having the regulations come in in the aftermath—

Senator Nash: Rubbish!

Senator FEENEY: Listen, I endured your speech; you can perhaps endure mine. You made the remark that the oversight of the parliament is important, and of course we accept and understand that—it is. But let us understand that, in the aftermath of this legislative framework coming down and the regulations being finalised, they will come before this parliament and they are disallowable. So not for a moment are you finding yourself inveigled into a process that denies you or, indeed, any other senator the opportunity to be heard.

Senator Nash: Oh, please!

Senator FEENEY: That is, frankly, how it is. Going to your other point, it is the government's view that these matters—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Nash, on a point of order?

Senator Nash: Just of clarification, Chair, and this is quite a serious question.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Nash, it is not a point of order.

Senator Nash: Then could I make it a point of relevance: I am not sure the minister was being relevant in how he expressed or indicated that the draft regulations were on the website, because I do not think they are. Perhaps it was relevant, but if you could clarify that because my understanding is they are not there.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Nash, the parliamentary secretary has been relevant in the broadest sense.

Senator FEENEY: Thank you, Chair. To be fair, Senator Nash, I was dealing directly with a point that you made in your remarks, which is from your perspective how unhappy you were that these matters are being dealt with in regulation. My answer was germane to that point.

Going to your substantive point, it is the government's view that there are a range of technical issues that are dealt with here. The Senate committee recommended that we be careful to define the list and to avoid excluding low-risk projects. We are taking an approach in the legislative framework we are seeking to establish that these matters—and they are, as you have said, important matters—be dealt with on the basis of evidence, on the basis of science, on the basis of community concerns and not on the basis of politics and the politics of the moment. I think that is a particularly important point because the amendment you are at least countenancing the idea of supporting would, in giving the minister a direct discretion, in our view change the framework unhappily.