Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Selection of Bills Committees, I present the 15th report of 2006 of the Selection of Bills Committee and move:

That the report be adopted.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Removal of Recognition of US Military Commissions (David Hicks) Bill 2006, the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2007”.

I do so because what this piece of legislation seeks to do is to remove from Australian legislation the recognition of US military commissions which were put into Australian law in the Proceeds of Crime Act in 2004 by the government and opposition at the time. These US military commissions have subsequently been found to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal by the US Supreme Court, yet they still exist in the Australian statutes. So this piece of legislation needs to be addressed and referred to committee.

I understand that in the discussion by the Selection of Bills Committee there was an indication that these matters had been dealt with previously, and that is correct, but there has not been an occasion for a Senate committee to look at the issue of whether or not Australian legislation should recognise the US military commissions that have now been found by the US Supreme Court to be illegal and unconstitutional. What the Australian Greens are seeking to do in this referral is ensure that Australian legislation does not legitimise a military commissions process in the United States that has been found by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. If we do not deal with this issue then Australian law will be the only law in the world that recognises the US military commissions that have been thrown out.

The government and the opposition may object to this legislation, but what I am seeking to do on behalf of the Australian Greens is ensure that it can be looked at by a committee. A committee has not looked at this issue since the US military commissions were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. I accept the argument that, yes, this issue has been looked at, but it has not been looked at since the US Supreme Court ruled the commissions unconstitutional. That was a fundamental change and a fundamental shift, I would have thought, in whether or not people chose to recognise the military commissions.

The Australian Greens have never supported the US military commissions that were proposed as a way to try David Hicks, because we recognise that they are a kangaroo court. They are completely unfair. They are designed and set up to convict people such as Australian citizen David Hicks. We think that the parliament should never have recognised them, and in 2004 we voted against that. That was not a time when the government had the numbers, so they only got the motion up because the opposition supported them. The government and the opposition put into Australian legislation a recognition of these US military commissions that now the opposition claim they oppose. I am sorry; they voted for them in 2004 and that is why they are still in our law.

The Australian Greens’ legislation seeks to ensure that that recognition is removed. What I am doing now is ensuring that a Senate committee has an opportunity to look at that. Whether or not people agree or disagree, it is an opportunity for a Senate committee to discuss whether we should have on the statute books in Australia, in Australian law, recognition of a system of US military commissions that has been found to be unconstitutional in the US Supreme Court. They are unconstitutional in the US but they are on the statute books in Australia. Is that the situation we want? It is certainly not the situation the Australian Greens want, and we think the Senate should look at it. All I am moving here is that a Senate committee look at this issue: should we have on our statutes recognition of US military commissions that have been found to be unconstitutional? The Greens do not think so. We want the opportunity to at least look at that matter.

Clearly, we support the bill. It is a bill that I introduced into the parliament this morning in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, because that is our position. But come on: can’t we at least look at it? The government have said, ‘We don’t want to look at this matter. We’ve dealt with it before.’ I am sorry, but that is wrong. We have not dealt with this matter since the US Supreme Court ruled that the US military commissions were unconstitutional. This is the opportunity to do that. Does the Australian parliament want to look at the matter of whether or not Australian law should recognise the US military commissions that were set up some years ago to try David Hicks and were subsequently found by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional? Does the Australian Senate think we should look at the fact that these US military commissions are recognised in Australian law? (Time expired)

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

On this motion, Senator Nettle, you do have our support. It is a matter of principle that bills can and should be referred from the Senate to committees in the way that you have asked for. The content of the bill is another matter, but in principle we would normally support these references. I think this reference is even more important because of a couple of issues that really do warrant a remark.

This marks the fifth anniversary of Mr David Hicks’s custody. Five years is an extraordinarily long time for anyone to serve in custody, particularly when there has been no charge, no trial and no conviction. The Howard government have abdicated the rule of law. The Howard government are opposing this reference. Why? Because they want to hide behind their culpability for their appalling treatment of Mr David Hicks. Whether this bill will help Mr David Hicks, the opposition does not know, but the purpose of the inquiry is a reasonable request for the government to agree to. On a day when the government have referred a ridiculous number of bills to committees, it really is astonishing that they seek to oppose this one.

The government have sacrificed one of their own citizens to a military commission process. If you take a look at the Supreme Court ruling that Senator Nettle has looked at, you see that we do actually have a bit of a window here that the government could act upon. There are currently, as I understand it, no charges laid under the new military commissions process. The government have asserted that Mr Hicks cannot be returned to Australia because he cannot be prosecuted here. I think that really does not stand up. That is the point now, given this window. The government would have liked that window to close, but it is still open.

Senior US legal officials have made it very clear that they do not require prosecution at home to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay. So there are no charges and no requirement by US officials. Therefore, the impediment is this government; it is not the US. This is an issue that the Australian government can resolve. Australian laws are more than adequate now to deal with any security risks that the government might think Mr Hicks poses. If Mr Hicks is assessed to pose a security risk to the community, I would be astonished to think that after the last five years you have not patched up all the holes in our security laws to such an extent that there would not be a gap. I would be keen to know if you think there is a gap in our security laws. Over the last number of years there certainly has not seemed to be one.

I am not one for generally suggesting ways or means, but there seem to be sufficient laws available to deal with any assessed security risk that Mr Hicks may pose if released into Australian custody. There are control orders that can monitor a person’s movement, but, as I said, I do not like to suggest these types of solutions. This is a government that can come up with a solution if it puts its mind to it. On that note, the opposition supports the reference of the Removal of Recognition of US Military Commissions (David Hicks) Bill 2006 to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

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

The Democrats support this motion. We believe that, almost invariably—like the opposition, I probably cannot say always—a senator, a group of senators or, in this case, a party are entitled to have a bill referred to a committee for examination. This is an important and necessary point in the assessment of whether our laws are in conflict with the reality of the laws as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States and as accepted by the President of the United States and the Congress and Senate of the United States. The matter at hand is one of the worst examples of egregious conduct I can think of by this government. That you have deserted an Australian citizen, as you have done, is unfortunately going to be a blight on this government for all time, and history will not judge you kindly. You do lots of good works in other areas but unfortunately this stain will mark this government, and some of you need to do something about it. In the meantime the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is highly regarded in this place, should be entitled to do look at this matter on its merits.

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

In relation to this matter, the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In that case it was recommended—I think it was recommendation VIII of the committee’s report on the bill—that there be a deletion of the subsections that would have the effect of restricting commercial exploitation by persons who have committed offences triable by a military commission. During consideration of the bill at that time, the government made it clear that it did not support the recommendation that references to US military commissions be removed from the act.

The government continues to believe that the provisions are appropriate. The government believes that this matter has been canvassed previously by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that it is a relatively straightforward question. The government believes that the amendments enacted to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which were contained in the Anti-terrorism Act 2004 are reasonable amendments. They ensure that persons who have committed an offence or who may in future be subject to a military commission offence can be prevented from profiting from the proceeds derived from their activities. This has been canvassed. The lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Hicks have filed a claim in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to David Hicks’s case. The government believes that the proposed reasons for the referral could seek to address issues that are now before the courts and that it would be inappropriate to progress an inquiry in the terms proposed. For those reasons, the government believes that this matter should not be referred to the committee as proposed.

As I have said at question time and in other places, the government continues to press the United States authorities for the trial of David Hicks. It has done so for a lengthy period of time and will continue to do so. In this particular case, however, the matter has been dealt with by a Senate committee before, and we have the situation of the legal proceedings which I have mentioned. For those reasons, the government will be opposing Senator Nettle’s motion to amend the report—and that is what leave was given for. I think it is a fairly straightforward matter in relation to the reference. The David Hicks matter, of course, is not a simple one; it is a very difficult and complex one, and we have acknowledged that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What appalling arrogance there is in what the minister has just said! He does not believe that a committee should be left to determine for itself whether it is able to work while steering clear of any legal matters that might be before the courts of this country. Since when did governments dictate that to committees? Never. That is a very specious argument, but it points to the government’s arrogance in believing that, since it has the numbers in the Senate, it therefore has the right. Senator Nettle has moved an amendment to, quite properly, have a committee look at a piece of legislation that she and I have brought into the chamber to remove a reference to—and an inherent subservience to—American military commissions under legislation in this country, which does not exist under legislation in any other country on the face of the planet. It is an extraordinary situation that it used to be in legislation in the United States but it effectively does not exist anymore, because it has been found that the American military commissions were illegal under the US Constitution and US law.

The only place left in the world which recognises this kangaroo court is Australia, under legislation brought in by the Howard government and supported by the then Beazley opposition. It is on the statute books in this country. The minister says: ‘Well, it was looked at in 2004 and the committee recommended against it. But we overruled that committee and we went ahead, so we shouldn’t have to look at it now. We had that advice and ignored it.’ The minister is saying, ‘We will not put this to a committee, because either it will agree with us in keeping recognition of the American military commissions on the statutes or, if it doesn’t, we’ll ignore it anyway.’ What extraordinary arrogance there is in that.

The decency of this situation in democratic terms is simply that this piece of legislation should be looked at by the committee. The world has changed. America has found that the military commissions it has set up are no longer legal. President Bush accepts that; he does not recognise them. Prime Minister Howard does recognise them. Here we have his minister saying that the government does not want to remove that recognition. That is an extraordinary thing of itself. It is tied to the sorry tale of the United States now saying they are not winning the war in Iraq. But our Prime Minister will not go along with that. He is the last leader left standing on the face of the planet who cannot face the reality of the gruesome situation which has unfolded in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

Let the proper process take place here and let this matter go to a committee. That is what should happen and that is what the government should be supporting if it thinks its position is tenable.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add “and, the following bills be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee for inquiry and report by 20 February 2007:

(a)

Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006; and

(b)

Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006.

Mr President, I do not intend to speak to my amendment motion.

Question agreed to.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the adoption of the report motion as amended be agreed to.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, is this dealing with the reference of bills to a committee, as I understand it?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, and I have just had a discussion about what I understand to be the superannuation bill that has been referred as part of the motion to do with this report. Is that correct?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I believe it is.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion that Senator Brandis and I have had suggests that that should be referred to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services rather than the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, which normally deals with such matters. I would seek leave to move that amendment.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chapman to Senator Marshall’s amending motion be agreed to.

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

Let us defer it, Mr President.

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

Mr President, as I understand it, Senator Chapman’s motion is about a referral to a joint committee, which is a little bit unusual. I think it should be deferred to a later hour of the day so that we can have a look at it. I am sure we will give leave to come back to do it. I will certainly grant leave for it to be dealt with later so that we can take advice on what it is about. A bill would normally be referred to a Senate committee, although it may not actually be so in this case, but I would seek leave for a deferral so that we can deal with it later.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter will be deferred to a later hour of the day. My advice is that I can now put the question that the report motion as amended be agreed to and that we can deal with the rest of it later. So the question is that the adoption of the report motion as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to have the 16th report of 2006 of the Selection of Bills Committee incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 16 OF 2006

(1)

The committee met in private session on Thursday, 7 December 2006 at 3.23 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a)

the provisions of the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry and report by 20 February 2007 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b)

the provisions of the Airspace Bill 2006 and the Airspace (Consequentials and Other Measures) Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2007 (see appendices 2 and 3 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c)

the provisions of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2007 (see appendices 4 and 5 for statements of reasons for referral);

(d)

the provisions of the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and 6 related bills be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2007 (see appendices 6 and 7 for statements of reasons for referral);

(e)

the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006 and 5 related bills be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 6 February 2007 (see appendices 8 and 9 for statements of reasons for referral);

(f)

the provisions of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 23 February 2007 (see appendices 10 and 11 for statements of reasons for referral);

(g)

the provisions of the Customs Legislation Amendment (Augmenting Offshore Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 8 February 2007 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral)

(h)

the Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 20 February 2007 (see appendices 13 and 14 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(i)

the provisions of the Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2007 (see appendix 15 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(3)

The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

• Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006
• Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006
• Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006
• Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Fair Process) Bill 2006
• Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006.

The committee recommends accordingly.

(4)

The committee considered a proposal to refer the Recognition of US Military Commissions (David Hicks) Bill 2006 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be referred (see appendix 16 for a statement of reasons for proposed referral).

(5)

The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

• AusCheck Bill 2006
• Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Bill 2006
• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006
• Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006.

(Jeannie Ferris)

Chair

7 December 2006

Appendix 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill as necessary.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 20 February 2007

Appendix 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Airspace Bill 2006 and the Airspace (Consequentials and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill as necessary.

Statement to the Selection of Bills Committee Justification for the Airspace Bill and the Airspace Consequentials and Other Measures Bill to be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

In the second reading speech given to the House of Representatives on 29 November 2006, the Government indicated its intention to have these bills discussed in committee. The bills underpin a transfer of airspace administration and regulation from Airservices Australia to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and form a key element in the reform agenda for Australian administered airspace. The bills will strengthen Australia’s planning and administration of airspace.

The bills are required to enable the transfer of the airspace regulatory function from Airservices Australia to CASA. The Government intends that this transfer be complete by 01 July 2007, after which CASA will be expected to operate as a best practice airspace administrator and regulator in its own right. In order to meet this timetable, it is important that the passage of the bills be completed in the next session and regulations be put in place.

Early and comprehensive discussion of the bills in Committee will facilitate their passage through Parliament and enable the Government to meet the timeframe for the transfer of the airspace regulatory function and the establishment of the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 26 February 2007

Appendix 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Airspace Bill 2006 and the Airspace (Consequentials and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

This bill provides further responsibility to CASA at a time when confidence in the regulator is waning. Concerns have been lodged re handling of safety audits and whether CASA is sufficiently resourced to do its primary role. Recent decisions to refer Transair to DPP by ATSB is indicative that CASA may not be as stringent as should be.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Aviation industry, CASA

Committee to which bill is referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 26 March 2007

Appendix 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Airports Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill as necessary.

STATEMENT TO THE SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT

The Airports Act sets out a comprehensive regime for the regulation of the leased 22 federal airports. The proposed amendments are a balance of strengthening regulatory powers on airport development decisions and reducing regulatory burden on airports and airport businesses.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 was developed following a comprehensive review of the Airports Act 1996. The review recommended a number of changes to improve the operation of the regulatory regime in the Act. The bill implements a number of recommendations arising from the June 2000 Senate Committee Inquiry into the Brisbane Airport Master Plan. The bill also seeks to exclude Canberra Airport from the operation of the National Capital Plan, as provided for in the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, aligning Canberra Airport’s planning obligations with the other leased federal airports.

Key planning reform elements include:

• A “stop the clock” provision which allows the Minister to seek additional information and research on airport major development proposals. This will enable the Minister to better deal with any major development proposals where they consider that further information is required to assess the proposal. Currently the Minister can only approve or reject a development proposal within a 90 day period or the project is deemed to be approved;
• Better access to key planning and development proposals to be provided to the community by airports through requiring proposals to be readily available free of charge on a website. This will ensure the public have ready access to associated documents in an electronic form, free of charge, to assist in their providing comment on land use proposals;
• Streamlining the public comment and assessment periods for master plans, major development plans and environment strategies. This better aligns the consultation period requirements with State/Territory planning and environment requirements.
• A requirement that master plans provide better information for communities on flight paths and the noise exposure contours for an airport. This will require improved information regarding aircraft noise exposure levels and indicative flight paths; and
• Requiring an airport-lessee company to `demonstrate’ to the Minister how it had due regard to all public comment when preparing their draft master plans and major development plans – currently the airport company need only state that it had due regard and not explain or describe how.

These measures are aimed at improving the confidence of the community and airport operators in the planning and development regulatory regime in the Act. Early and comprehensive discussion of the bill in Committee will facilitate its passage through Parliament and enable the Government to address the number of airport development proposals currently being prepared for community consultation and regulatory approval.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 27 February 2007

Appendix 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Airports Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Non aviation development on airport precincts has become very controversial in recent years. Large retail and manufacturing developments have been approved over the objections of state governments, local councils, retailers and local residents. Reference would provide an opportunity for interested and affected parties to make submissions concerning whether issues would be addressed in the proposed bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Community groups, local retailers, local councils, state government planning and airport leasing companies, DOTARS

Committee to which bill is referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 26 March 2007

Appendix 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Private Health Insurance Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Organization Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance Complaints Levy Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Council Administration Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bills as necessary.

These Bills provide:

• Legislative authority for the Government’s announced major reforms to private health insurance coverage beginning in April 2007; and
• Simplifying the current maze of legislation regulating the private health insurance industry.

In April 2006 the Government announced the biggest revamp of private health insurance (PHI) in 50 years. Other than ancillaries what PHI can cover is now limited almost entirely to admitted-patient services – you generally have to go to hospital to claim a PHI benefit. The Government’s reforms will take it “out the hospital gate”:

• From 1 April 2007 health funds can offer Broader Health Cover: not just for in-patient hospital services but services that substitute for, or prevent, hospital admissions.
• The Government is not being prescriptive about what might in fact be covered but it could be taken to include outpatient and day procedures services, in-home services (eg dialysis and post-discharge care), condition management (eg diabetes and asthma) and wellness and prevention services such as personalised health checks, dietary and weight management advice.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 20 February 2007

Appendix 7

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Private Health Insurance Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Organization Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance Complaints Levy Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Council Administration Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

First time National Health Act is being split across public/private lines. These are entirely new bills to regulate for all aspects of private health care provision. Requires close scrutiny for implications for the health system at large, including Medicare.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

APHA, Catholic Health, consumer groups, Ombudsman, PHIAC, public hospitals, AMA, ADGP, Ian McCauley, Tim Buther.

Committee to which bill is referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date: March 2007

Possible reporting date(s): March – April 2007

Appendix 8

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Supervisory Levy Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006 implements the Government’s simplified superannuation reforms and rewrites other areas of superannuation taxation law into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

The bill implements the Government’s simplified superannuation reforms as announced in Simplified Superannuation - Final Decisions. www.simplersuper.treasury.gov.au

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Economics Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 6 February 12007

Appendix 9

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Bill 2006

Superannuation (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Supervisory Levy Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To obtain costings of individual measures and impact on tax increase on company-contributions where TFN not provided.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Treasury, ATO, ASFA, IFSA, CMSF, Financial Planners Association. REST, ACTU

Committee to which bill is referred:

Economics Committee

Possible hearing date: 29 January – 2 February 2007

Possible reporting date(s): 6 February 2007

Appendix 10

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Native Title Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill as necessary

The bill implements part of a package of six inter-related reforms to the native title system announced by the Government in September 2005. The object of the reforms is to ensure existing native title processes work more effectively and efficiently in securing outcomes for all parties. The four of the six elements of the reform package are:

• measures to improve the effectiveness of representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies (representative bodies)
• an independent review of native title claims resolution processes to consider how the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and the Federal Court of Australia (Court) may work more effectively in managing and resolving native title claims
• measures to encourage the effective functioning of prescribed bodies corporate (PBCs), the bodies established to manage native title once it is recognised, and
• reforms to the native title non-claimants (respondents) financial assistance program to encourage agreement-making rather than litigation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 9 February 2007

Appendix 11

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Native Title Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The new regime for Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) will have a dramatic impact on the sector yet has had no public consideration on exposure to date. NTRBs has also expressed concerns about other elements of the bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

NTRBs, industry (Minerals Council), Federal Court, NNTT, state and territory governments, PBCs, Law Council of Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner Tom Calma, ANTAR

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 16 March 2007

Appendix 12

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Customs Legislation Amendment (Augmenting Offshore Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

to examine the schedules dealing with:

• new powers for customs
• duty recovery
• implementation of SmartGate
• arrangements and licensing for customs brokers and agents.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

CBFCQA, ACS, DIMA, Law Council

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 8 February 2007

Appendix 13

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

The Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill as necessary.

The bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”) to:

(a)

allow the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) to give procedural fairness to review applicants, during a hearing, by allowing the Tribunals to orally give clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review and invite the applicant to comment on the information;

(b)

clarify that the obligation to give an applicant information and invite comment on information does not extend to information already provided by the applicant to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Department”), as part of the process leading to the decision under review, other than information that the applicant has given orally to the Department;

(c)

provide that if the Tribunals give, orally or in writing, clear particulars of the information that the Tribunals consider would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, then the Tribunals must ensure that the applicant understands why the information is relevant to the review and the consequences of the information being relied on in affirming the decision;

(d)

provide that if an applicant is given information at the hearing and seeks more time to comment on the information and the Tribunals consider that the applicant reasonably needs additional time, the Tribunals must adjourn the review and provide the applicant with that opportunity; and

(e)

clarify the Tribunal’s obligation to act fairly and justly in the conduct of a review under Division 5 of the Act.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 20 February 2007

Appendix 14

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

The Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Concerns that these amendments will hinder the ability of lawyers and migration agents to properly represent their clients.

Concerns that provisions in this bill will prevent applicants for review from receiving natural justice.

Concerns that oral rather than written particulars within 424A (2) will result in increased rather than reduced complexity of litigation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

Refugee Immigration Legal Centre.

Refugee Advice and Casework Service

Legal Aid NSW

Marion Le - Migration Agent

Micheala Byers - Migration Agent

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 20 February 2007

Appendix 15

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The current water crisis facing the Murray Darling Basin and the need to fully investigate the implications of the bill in that context.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders in the Murray Darling region

Landholders in the Murray Darling region

The Murray Darling Commission

Respective State and Federal government departments

Community members

Environmental groups.

Committee to which bill is referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee

Possible hearing date: February 2007

Possible reporting date(s): 28 February 2007

Appendix 16

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Removal of Recognition of US Military Commissions (David Hicks) Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The continued incarceration of David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay

The legality and appropriateness of the recognition of US military commissions in Australian law

The impact on Australian citizens who wish to receive literary proceeds of the inclusion of US military commissions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

The appropriateness of removing the recognition of US military commissions from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Legal practitioners and organisations including the Law Council of Australia and lawyers for David Hicks

Community organisations including those representing the Arab and Muslim Community

Media and Publishing industry representatives

Concerned citizens

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date: 12-14 March 2007

Possible reporting date(s): 20 March 2007

Sitting suspended from 6.27 pm to 7.30 pm

Sitting suspended from 6.27 pm to 7.30 pm