Chapter 2
Submitters' views
2.1
This chapter discusses the evidence received from stakeholders regarding
the amendments contained in the bill. Five submissions were received.
2.2
The Industry Capability Network (ICN) reiterated the recommendations in
their original submission to the inquiry into the exposure draft of the bill.
ICN's broad position is that the Australian Industry Participation Authority
established by the bill 'should work hand in hand with ICN offices around
Australia'.[1]
2.3
Similarly, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia
(CCIWA) reiterated the concerns expressed in their submission to the inquiry on
the exposure draft. Their position is that:
Regulation of the use of Australian Industry Participation
Plans is an unnecessary burden on Australian industry, at a time when the level
of Australian industry participation in major resources projects is already
high.[2]
2.4
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA)
adopted a similar position to the previous two organisations arguing that:
Overall, APPEA does not believe that a case has been made to
justify the imposition of a complex and potentially time consuming regulatory
process.[3]
2.5
APPEA commented that the proposed changes do not improve the bill.
While it is noted that there have been some minor amendments
to the legislation made after the initial review by the Committee, a number of
proposals included in the Bill potentially impose additional regulatory burdens
on companies.[4]
2.6
In relation to the 'trigger date', APPEA noted that the change
'complicates an already complex framework'.[5]
2.7
Section 2A of the bill introduces a requirement for companies to provide
notification of estimated completion dates. APPEA questioned the practicality
of this change noting that 'a completion date provided at this time would
likely be highly speculative and subject to change...'[6]
2.8
APPEA also noted that reference to the Minister has been removed from
some sections of the bill and replaced with a reference to the legislation.
APPEA requested that a clear statement be provided explaining why these changes
are required.[7]
2.9
The Law Council of Australia, while broadly supportive of 'efforts to
raise the participation of Australian suppliers of goods and services in major
projects in Australia'[8],
expressed some concerns about the bill. It was concerned that the bill would
'impose additional regulatory requirements on proponents of major projects in
Australia'. The Council was also concerned about the involvement of the AIP
Authority in overseeing how proponents of major projects comply with their
obligations, and the extent of the Authority's information gathering powers.[9]
2.10
The Council also expressed some concern about the extent to which the
bill is compliant with Australia's international treaty obligations.[10]
2.11
The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) reiterated the arguments made in
their submission to the previous exposure draft of the bill and added that 'variations
from the Exposure Draft Bill released in April have increased concerns.' The
MCA cited concerns with the trigger date, disclosure provisions, reporting
requirements, indexation arrangements, and obligations regarding global supply
chains. [11]
Committee view
2.12
While acknowledging the views of the five organisations above, the
committee remains of the view that the Australian Jobs Bill 2013 will be good
for Australian businesses.
2.13
The committee does, however, draw to the government's attention that the
removal of indexation as identified by the MCA will mean that over time more
and more projects will be required to comply with the new requirements. The
committee is concerned that this may in time place a burden on lower value
projects not originally intended to be captured under the legislation.
2.14
Indexation notwithstanding, the requirement to develop Australian
Industry Participation Plans and the establishment of the new Australian
Industry Participation Authority represents an effective way to help Australian
businesses win work on large domestic projects and in global supply chains.
Recommendation 1
2.15
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Mark Bishop
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page