Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There are two matters on which I seek amendment to that motion. I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax (Former Complying Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax (Former Non-resident Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2007 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007, the provisions of the bills be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2007”.

The Selection of Bills Committee has in the past—in the previous parliament and up to now—been an effective way of ensuring that the business of the senate gets looked at in an appropriate way. It determined whether or not an inquiry was required—whether a matter should be referred to a committee or not, because it could be dealt with in here. That system seems to have broken down with the government holding the numbers in this place. It wants to take the opportunity to ram legislation through this Senate.

What we now find is that the government is seeking to bring forward legislation into the house, but through the Selection of Bills Committee, before it is actually introduced here. Where the opposition and, I suspect, the minor parties may otherwise consider the decision to request an inquiry and provide for a certain time to allow that inquiry to proceed, the Selection of Bills Committee is the appropriate place for that debate to occur, and it has always worked on consensus. What happens, though, is that bills which are yet unseen are referred by the Selection of Bills Committee to inquiry and report or they are deferred. So people are making decisions in the Selection of Bills Committee without the ability or knowledge to see what is in the legislation itself—without having read it and without it having been introduced into the parliament. Where bills have then been introduced and examined and it is considered that they in fact should be inquired into, the opportunity for that has passed, because at the time the committee held its meeting there was no ability for the relevant shadows—the opposition and the minor parties—to have a look at the bill. This system is breaking down.

What should happen—the logical process—is that bills should be introduced into this house, there should be sufficient time for a bill to be examined, and the Selection of Bills Committee should then meet. They can then decide by consensus, as they always have, as to whether that bill is required to be referred to the committee system for examination or whether it is of a type that does not require examination, is not referred and is therefore dealt with in the usual way and is available for debate in this house. That is the logical system that has been used in the past. What the government has done is seek to break from that process and seek to refer bills sight unseen—that is, they have not been introduced into this house or the House of Representatives, nor has an advance copy been provided. What happens is you get a name like ‘Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007’ and you have to make a decision as to whether that bill should or should not be referred to a committee for inquiry and report. Until you see the detail of that particular bill, it is impossible to make any fair determination of that. On that basis, we have sought these bills to be recommitted to the Selection of Bills Committee. They would not do it. So what we have now had to do is come into this house and say, ‘These bills should go back to a committee for examination and report,’ because having seen the bills there is a concern that there are matters that should be examined and reviewed by the relevant committee. (Time expired)