Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the motion as amended:

That, upon their introduction in either House, the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 June 2006:

Customs Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006,

and that the committee limit its consideration of the bills to reviewing the alcohol taxation measure contained in the bills with respect to their likely consumer, social and economic effects and their effect on industry.

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

I will be brief. I just want to make the point that I think this is the first time that the reference for a legislation committee has been confined in this way since this government has taken office. It is often the case that references to legislation committees are confined. They are usually confined by agreement. In this instance the opposition would have preferred a much wider inquiry into the legislation. I am happy to be corrected if I am not right about this but, as I understand it, if the opposition does not agree to this motion—and clearly we do not have the numbers in any event—then this is the only opportunity we are going to get for a legislation committee to examine these bills.

The government has acquiesced to Senator Murray’s amendment. As I understand it, there would not have been a legislation inquiry otherwise. If that is not right then the government can say that they will allow a legislation committee inquiry irrespectively. But the position, as I understand it, is that there would not have been a legislation committee inquiry at all if not for Senator Murray’s amendment which confines it to a certain area. So this government would not have permitted a legislation committee inquiry. Certainly this matter did not go through the Selection of Bills Committee in the ordinary way. It has had to come back into this parliament to be dealt with. I did not want to let the point go that the opposition does not agree that the Selection of Bills Committee should not have the ability to refer legislation for proper inquiry.

When a bill has already been to a legislation committee, it is acceptable if it comes back and is confined. Sometimes it is the case that there has been extensive examination through a reference or some other method. But in this instance there was a white paper, and this is the first time these bills have come into this parliament as legislation. Therefore, the government has only agreed to an inquiry on the basis of the confines put by Senator Murray’s amendment. It has not agreed to allow a wider range of debate on the legislation itself. What that means is that those issues that legislation committees sometimes pick up—poor drafting, inability to cover all the matters, obscure phrases which should have been picked up and the policy not being expressed correctly in the legislation or more broadly across all of the legislation—are now not going to be dealt with. Those issues will be confined by the amendment of Senator Murray.

I know that is not Senator Murray’s fault. I am not seeking to hold him to account for that. Without Senator Murray’s amendment there would not even be a legislation committee looking into those important issues he has mentioned. This government would have struck it out and said, ‘No, there won’t be a legislation committee inquiry,’ and that would have been the first time. I suspect the government is warming up to that. I suspect the government is warming up to saying that we will not have a legislation committee inquiry into a particular bill, but it has not gone that step thus far. I want to put on record that when that happens there will be a much longer debate.

Question agree to.