Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 March 2015."

We believe that it is most important that a bill of this kind, which is looking at security issues in this place, be referred to the appropriate committee. We have a very effective and very hardworking finance and public administration committee in our parliament which takes great interest in issues which are going on within this parliamentary precinct.

We have a standard process that, when any person in this parliament seeks referral of a bill, it is usually, through the selection of bills process, discussed and approved. There are often some very robust debates in the selection of bills process, and it is often around timing, when the deadline will be, what kind of process will take place and how many meetings of the committee there will be. But the inherent process of the openness to scrutiny of any piece of legislation that is put forward is something that we tend to support in this place. There are exceptions, of course, and I am sure the government will be able to point to exceptions in the past, but they are very specific. They are when there are issues of key urgency—issues of national security or processes that make it important that the bill be passed immediately. We do not believe the government has made these arguments effectively in this case.

My understanding is that we put forward a recommendation to refer the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The bill is looking at changing the way security operates in this building and engaging with the Australian Federal Police in a more direct way, something that we think is realistic but should be considered. My understanding is that we agreed in our party that this particular bill would move through the House of Reps, as it did, but that when it came to the Senate it would be subject to the scrutiny processes which are standard in this place. Agreement was reached between the offices of the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker to pass the bill, and there was very little debate in the other place.

One of the reasons that happens is the understanding that, when a bill gets to the Senate, there are clear procedures to ensure that that legislation is considered effectively. That is facilitated by the committee process, which is open to anyone who is interested in learning about the legislation or making a submission on it.

What was put to the Selection of Bills Committee last night was not a referral for a six-month inquiry with all the bells and whistles. What was put forward was a straightforward inquiry into the issues around how this will operate, exact roles and, particularly, the definition of 'operation' as part of the proposed expanded remit of the security management board. Those issues would then be subject to our expected process.

The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, as I said, has extensive experience in these areas and is made up of knowledgeable senators from across this place who have already proven that they have the experience and have a professional interest in what makes this building operate best. Those senators should have the opportunity to consider this legislation, to ask questions of the appropriate people about how it will work and also to ensure that any concerns in the wider community are considered. And there are people who are very, very involved in how security here operates—not the details. This is not an argument for finding out security details; it is about just how the protection of this building, and the people in it, will work.

So we strongly believe that there should be a committee review of the bill, which is an inherent part of the way the Senate operates—a short-term review: my understanding is that we asked for a reporting date of 2 March. That is not asking for too much. We know that Senate committees do not operate in the January period. We do not come back to sit until February. We believe it is an entirely appropriate process for a piece of legislation that impacts on the security of this building. At a time when there is real interest generally in security issues, a request put forward to the Selection of Bills Committee for a committee review of this bill should not be rejected out of hand. The government has not made it clear why it should not happen. We believe that it would work effectively to ensure that there was scrutiny and we strongly believe that our straightforward amendment— (Time expired)