Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the scrutiny of bills report. I want to make three points in relation to the scrutiny of bills report. First, from page 10, there are multiple scrutiny issues which are reported with respect to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022. That's what happens, colleagues, when a bill is introduced in the place, as it was last December, at short notice. Members in this place only received a copy of the bill at 8.25 pm on the night before the sitting, and then it was debated in this place without the benefit of going through a scrutiny process. We are now in a situation where, in early February, for the first time, this Senate is looking at the carefully considered scrutiny issues with respect to that legislation. That is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable way to make laws in this country.

These are major issues that are raised in in report. There are principle 4, significant matters in delegation when they should have been the legislation; principle 3, broad discretionary power; section 96, Commonwealth grants to the states—and it goes on. There is the exemption from disallowance, that old bugbear that keeps coming up, yet the scrutiny issues carefully considered by the scrutiny committee are first presented in this place in February after the bill was debated in December. I've been watching the commentary from senators in this place—not necessarily of my own party, but others such as the crossbench and elsewhere—who raised surprise and concern about some of the ramifications, some of the flows of money under that legislation after it was debated and passed but before it went through about appropriate scrutiny process. It is unacceptable that that should occur with respect to such a major piece of legislation.

The second point I want to raise in relation to this digest is that we keep getting the same issues. When is there going to be change with respect so some of these fundamental scrutiny concerns? I point to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The scrutiny concerns include exemption from disallowance. Again and again bills are introduced into this place, with important regulation-making power and important instrument-delegated-legislation-making power, and they are exempt from disallowance. For those sitting in the gallery and for those listening to the debate, what does that mean? It means you have a bill passed in this place for which the minister has discretion to introduce a regulation. That goes through and, even if a majority of the senators in this place disagree with it, we've got no process to stop it. It defeats this institution as a democratic institution. We're meant to be a house of review, and yet our ability to review is gutted every time delegated legislation is made exempt from disallowance.

The point I wanted to point to in this scrutiny digest is with respect to the Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022. A number of scrutiny concerns were raised in relation to that bill, and we're now in a situation where the bill has passed and the committee raised scrutiny concerns as to how it was calculated that the criminal penalties in a whole raft of legislation should go up by 24 per cent. The basis for that was queried by the scrutiny committee, and this is what the Attorney tells us: 'The Attorney-General also noted that the bill had already passed both houses of the parliament at the time of writing.' Isn't that wonderful? The bill goes through before fundamental scrutiny concerns are considered by senators in this place.

The scrutiny processes in this place are of the utmost importance to protect the rights and liberties of the Australian people. It's an important check and balance in our democratic process. But, if legislation is pushed through before the scrutiny process can even begin, as in the case of the gas price control legislation, or at such a pace that scrutiny concerns aren't reasonably answered and the relevant minister simply says, 'Well, the bill's been passed. What's the point?' that is unacceptable. It undermines the democratic institutions of our country and it impedes the Senate's role as an important house of review and a check and balance on the executive.

Question agreed to.