Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will shortly seek leave to amend a motion, but I first seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I am seeking to amend the motion which has at paragraph (5)(e) the list of bills which we have circulated as being those which we will consider during this sitting fortnight. The amendment I seek is to include the Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006. This comes about as a result of the Cole commission of inquiry report. It is part of the recommendations made by Commissioner Cole. I would suggest that it is an uncontroversial bill and one which would enjoy widespread support—although I do not want to pre-empt things. It is something that Commissioner Cole has asked for. It is essential for our task force to be set up to carry out investigations as a result of that. That is what I am seeking to amend in this list of bills. I ask for leave from the Senate to amend it accordingly.

Leave granted.

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

by leave—Having not been informed of this prior to it being brought before the Senate, I accept that there is a need to amend the list to include the bill. We have not seen the bill at this stage, so we will reserve our position in respect of that. However, it seems to be appropriate to amend the list accordingly to ensure that the effect of the commission of inquiry is brought in as soon as possible. The government would always have the ability to amend the list in any event by giving notice today and then effecting it tomorrow. On that basis, we will not object, but we reserve our position in respect of the bill itself.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I amend the motion by adding to paragraph (5)(e) ‘Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006’, and I move:

That—

(1)

On Tuesday, 28 November and 5 December 2006:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

(b)

the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and

(c)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(2)

On Thursday, 30 November 2006:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.40 pm;

(b)

the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only;

(c)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

(d)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.

(3)

The Senate shall sit on Friday, 1 December 2006 and that:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 4.25 pm;

(b)

the routine of business shall be:

(i)

notices of motion, and

(ii)

government business only; and

(c)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.

(4)

On Wednesday, 6 December 2006, the routine of business be varied to provide that:

(a)

matters of public interest be called on at 1.15 pm; and

(b)

questions without notice be called on at 2.30 pm.

(5)

On Thursday, 7 December 2006:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

(b)

consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(c)

the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only;

(d)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

(e)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the Senate has finally considered the bills listed below, including any messages from the House of Representatives:

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006

Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Copyright Amendment Bill 2006

Customs Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2006

Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Bill 2006

Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006 and Broadcasting Services Amendment (Collection of Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees) Bill 2006

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006

Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006

Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006

Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006 and Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006

Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006

Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006

Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 4) Bill 2006

Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2006

Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly to the motion. With the extra piece of legislation that the minister has added, the motion seeks to require the Senate to consider and vote on 24 pieces of legislation—18 packages, I think, but 24 bills in total. I accept that it is not unusual for a government to try to put through a large pile of legislation in the final couple of sitting weeks of a session, but it is also not unusual for the Democrats to make the point that this is a less than desirable way of doing things. Perhaps it is all just part of that fine old Christmas tradition that we go through this pattern, but I think it is appropriate to once again make the point that this is a legislature, this is a law-making body, and to put through such a large number of pieces of legislation in such a short time frame increases the prospect of bad outcomes.

It is not just an issue of disagreeing with the policy content; it is an issue of ensuring that we get it right. It is more important to get it right than just to get it through. Some of these bills are very significant, as we noted yesterday in debating a related motion which exempted some of the bills from the cut-off and enabled them to be fast-tracked. They are very complex. They are very large. Some of them will have amendments that  are to be seen. Some of them will have very longstanding consequences for the wider community. In that situation it always needs to be said that the process is less than ideal.

The motion requires the Senate to sit relatively late tonight and Thursday night and to sit on Friday as well. I am sure there will also be late-night sittings next week which are yet to be determined. Again, this is not unusual, so in that sense I am not accusing the government of any particular new type of malfeasance, but it is more dangerous now. In previous times when there was an attempt to rush through a large amount of legislation, if there was a general view amongst all non-government parties that a particular bill needed more examination then there was the prospect of deferring it, unless there were very strong grounds for urgency. That possibility is now much reduced, almost to the point of zero. Therefore, the risks are increased when we take actions like this. So it is appropriate to put on the record the Democrats’ continued concern that this is a less than ideal process. It is not a new one, but the risks involved are greater now than they were previously because of the reduction in the checks and balances that the Senate was able to provide in the past.

Question agreed to.