John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was pleased to receive an invitation from my colleagues to speak about some of the historical imperatives and implications about the referral of a bill to a Senate legislation committee. I am very, very pleased to do so. I would have to acknowledge to the chamber that it is a very long time since I had the pleasure of attending Selection of Bills Committee meetings, but I suspect that I have done so more often and for more hours than anyone else who serves in this chamber. I thought the useful contribution—

Senator Bushby interjecting—

If the government whip would care to allow me to complete a sentence, I would appreciate it—Senator Bushby, if you would extend me that courtesy in this important debate.

I thought it would be useful to talk about the general principle that has applied—I acknowledge not exclusively, not always, but in the vast majority of cases, and the only exceptions are when there is genuine controversy about the referral of a bill. The general principle that has applied is that, when a senator or a group of senators or a party wishes to have a bill, particularly a non-controversial piece of legislation, referred to a committee, that normally is agreed to by the chamber. I suspect it is for that reason that my colleagues generously asked me to come down and perhaps point out to the chamber what the precedents have been in relation to the referral of bills.

Even though I suspect that most would consider this a non-controversial bill, I have always accepted that the role played by the Security Management Board in this place—the representation on the Security Management Board and the interaction between the Security Management Board, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the two chamber departments—is a critical issue for the parliament itself. I think you would have to acknowledge, Mr Deputy President, that I have been very consistent for a very long period of time in trying to encourage senators from all shades of political opinion to take a close interest in these matters. That goes not only to the question of representation on the Security Management Board—and in this particular case the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014 is providing for a senior officer from the AFP, nominated by the Presiding Officers, to be represented on the Security Management Board. It does one additional thing—and I think this is also worthy of consideration by the Senate through its committee processes—and that is adding to the function of the board the operation of security measures. I must admit—and I hope it assists my colleagues who asked me to come and speak on this matter—that I do not understand—