Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report of 2007 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

There are two matters on which I seek amendment to that motion. I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax (Former Complying Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax (Former Non-resident Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2007 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007, the provisions of the bills be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2007”.

The Selection of Bills Committee has in the past—in the previous parliament and up to now—been an effective way of ensuring that the business of the senate gets looked at in an appropriate way. It determined whether or not an inquiry was required—whether a matter should be referred to a committee or not, because it could be dealt with in here. That system seems to have broken down with the government holding the numbers in this place. It wants to take the opportunity to ram legislation through this Senate.

What we now find is that the government is seeking to bring forward legislation into the house, but through the Selection of Bills Committee, before it is actually introduced here. Where the opposition and, I suspect, the minor parties may otherwise consider the decision to request an inquiry and provide for a certain time to allow that inquiry to proceed, the Selection of Bills Committee is the appropriate place for that debate to occur, and it has always worked on consensus. What happens, though, is that bills which are yet unseen are referred by the Selection of Bills Committee to inquiry and report or they are deferred. So people are making decisions in the Selection of Bills Committee without the ability or knowledge to see what is in the legislation itself—without having read it and without it having been introduced into the parliament. Where bills have then been introduced and examined and it is considered that they in fact should be inquired into, the opportunity for that has passed, because at the time the committee held its meeting there was no ability for the relevant shadows—the opposition and the minor parties—to have a look at the bill. This system is breaking down.

What should happen—the logical process—is that bills should be introduced into this house, there should be sufficient time for a bill to be examined, and the Selection of Bills Committee should then meet. They can then decide by consensus, as they always have, as to whether that bill is required to be referred to the committee system for examination or whether it is of a type that does not require examination, is not referred and is therefore dealt with in the usual way and is available for debate in this house. That is the logical system that has been used in the past. What the government has done is seek to break from that process and seek to refer bills sight unseen—that is, they have not been introduced into this house or the House of Representatives, nor has an advance copy been provided. What happens is you get a name like ‘Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007’ and you have to make a decision as to whether that bill should or should not be referred to a committee for inquiry and report. Until you see the detail of that particular bill, it is impossible to make any fair determination of that. On that basis, we have sought these bills to be recommitted to the Selection of Bills Committee. They would not do it. So what we have now had to do is come into this house and say, ‘These bills should go back to a committee for examination and report,’ because having seen the bills there is a concern that there are matters that should be examined and reviewed by the relevant committee. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig has moved an amendment and I have a further amendment. Mr Acting Deputy President, do you want to deal with Senator Ludwig’s amendment or shall I move mine now as well?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can foreshadow an amendment and move it later, Senator Lundy.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will foreshadow moving it in speaking to Senator Ludwig’s amendment. In foreshadowing this amendment I make the same points as Senator Ludwig. We are dealing here with a process that is completely absurd if the opposition and cross-benches are to have any hope of making a considered determination about the reference of a bill to a committee. What appears to be happening is that the government are exploiting the fact that they know very well they have the numbers in this place and are trying to limit the extent to which their legislation is scrutinised by referring it, before it has even been seen, to a very limited inquiry. That really sits at the heart of Labor’s complaint on this matter and why we are raising it in the chamber today.

We are not in a position to be able to assess the type of committee hearing or the type of inquiry that is warranted without having seen the bill and having had the opportunity to absorb what is in the bill. To try to force this chamber to refer a bill to a very limited inquiry—as has been done before—completely ignores any concerns that the opposition or cross benches may have.

Senator Ludwig’s amendment refers to dates. My amendment relates to the terms of reference. Our concerns extend to the analysis of the viability of the registration process, in particular whether there are adequate proof of identity checks. We would like to see that as part of the terms of reference, as well as adequate time to allow this bill to be considered in committee.

This is not the first time this has been done by the coalition government. It seems to be some sort of exercise in ensuring that the committee system is being used, albeit, I and the Labor Party say, not used effectively. In fact it is being abused. That is not in the spirit of the processes that the Senate committee system affords. It does not allow us as an opposition to be able to investigate the bill and address all of the concerns that we are aware of and any additional concerns that may be and should be drawn out through the committee process. The committee inquiry is so truncated that we are not even able to garner the witnesses before the committee to draw out those issues, so inevitably we are going to end up with untested or unscrutinised legislation. That is not good enough in a modern democracy like Australia and I think that it does constitute a form of abuse.

The concept of an access card has been around for quite some time. Because of the amount of community debate that has already been had on this issue, one would have expected that quite a lengthy inquiry was indeed warranted. If this issue is as profound and as important and as groundbreaking an issue as the minister claims—and I heard him yesterday say that it is a substantial renewal of this type of identity mechanism—then why would the government be hiding it? Why wouldn’t they want the utmost scrutiny of this bill? Why wouldn’t they want to test it with all of the constituencies and stakeholders that have an opinion about it? Why wouldn’t they want it tested in this forum both with the cross bench and, particularly, the Labor opposition that has been exploring these issues and participating in the public debate about the access card for some time?

It runs against the rhetoric that we have heard from the minister in this place and, again, just points to a form of abuse by the Howard government of the Senate committee system. Like my colleagues, I certainly urge the government to support our amendments and not to be pigheaded about this, to understand that it is about appropriate processes and scrutiny of these bills. I urge them not only to support these amendments but to allow a suitable date for reporting that will permit the committee to organise a series of decent and reasonable hearings so that all witnesses and stakeholders who want to appear have the opportunity.

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

by leave—I foreshadow a further amendment to the motion relating to the Selection of Bills Committee report:

At the end of the motion, add “but, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee report by 12 June 2007”.

We are seeking to move a number of amendments and I intend to speak to this amendment for a couple of minutes. What needs to be made clear here today is that in terms of the access card—if I can use that short phrase—the government’s intention is to ram that through before Easter. That will not allow privacy interests, civil interests, the Australian Federal Police, who might have an interest, and all of those other relevant bodies and the community to be involved in the debate about the access card. It is imperative that this government allows sufficient time for this committee to be able to examine the access card.

I have already heard murmurings from the government backbench about this. It is necessary and desirable for this committee to have sufficient time to call for submissions, deal with those submissions and properly hold hearings through the committee process—it is not desirable that this government shorten the time frame to such an extent and use its numbers to ram this through. It is inappropriate and wrong of the government to take this tack on such an important card. It is clear that this is the type of bill that requires scrutiny, and this government should be ashamed that it is taking this course. The minister has allowed me a short time only to put this point; I would otherwise take a lot longer. On that basis, I will reserve my comments for another opportunity.

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

In the short time available I want to canvass a number of issues. Firstly, there is the ludicrous proposition of the opposition that this government has restricted time for scrutiny of bills. When the opposition was in government we used to have a Friday committee. A bill would be introduced one week, you would have the Friday to sit to consider that bill and then you would report the following week. I remember that as a matter of practice when I sat on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That was what we experienced as an opposition when this opposition was in government—a Friday committee system applied.

I want to foreshadow an amendment to the motion which has been moved by Senator Ferris, and that is:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee report by 15 March 2007.”.

That will allow a five-week period of consideration for the bills that are considered in the Senate. That is not an unreasonable time. The government has previously released this bill in the form of an exposure draft for public comment—four weeks of exposure in December. When you add that to the five-week period which we are seeking, that is nine weeks of public scrutiny. Of course, the early passage of this bill is required to ensure that a legal framework is available to support the implementation of the proposed smartcard system, to enable registration for the card to commence in early 2008 and to provide sufficient time to provide meaningful information to the public about the proposed changes. Of course, the June date which has been suggested by the opposition is farcical. It would totally dismantle the time frame regime I have mentioned that is so essential. This legislation will provide certainty to achieve cost-effective procurement of technological services which will be required to support the smartcard. If any amendments are proposed to the bill by the committee, the 15 March reporting date will allow time for them to be considered by the government. That relates to the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007.

The opposition is also seeking the referral of a number of tax bills and superannuation bills to a committee for reporting during the week of 1 March. These bills are technical; they relate to matters which have previously been scrutinised in detail. They have been examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics and there would be little benefit referring these bills to a Senate committee. That would simply delay matters. We know that we have a heavy legislation schedule for this sitting period and referring the bills to a committee will delay them. The amendments in these bills are minor and technical in nature; they raise no significant policy issues. All the policy issues have been dealt with previously and have been scrutinised by the Senate Economics Committee, as I said earlier. It is essential that we get these bills passed as soon as possible so that these changes can be put in place for the benefit of the Australian public.

When you get these comments about how little scrutiny of legislation we have had, it is interesting to take a look. Just last year we had a record number of bills referred to committees—100 bills were referred to committees last year. That is hardly an indication of a lack of scrutiny. In this case, we are saying that there are a number of bills which should be referred to committees, with realistic time limits. We have to get these bills in place so that these policy initiatives can be implemented.

The issue of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is one which we have to address because the committee is not sitting regularly enough to consider bills which are introduced. As soon as a bill is introduced we want to consider whether it needs to go to a committee so that we can give it as much time as possible. What we have been experiencing is that we have to wait for the committee to sit. This is not a criticism of that committee; it is just that it meets at a certain time and we have to wait until that committee sits so that we can refer a bill and consider its reference. (Time expired)

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

This is a very important issue and the Senate needs to recognise that this is not just some minor spat to start the day. I have been involved with, or one step removed from, the Selection of Bills Committee process for a long time now. It worked perfectly well throughout all the period of this government—very cooperatively, very smoothly. There were occasional disagreements which were sorted out here in the chamber, but basically it worked quite well until this government got control of the Senate. It took them about six months after that before they started really mucking around with this process. The simple fact is that now we have the absurd situation where the government is referring its own bills, sight unseen, en masse and with the shortest possible time frames, to committees without any reason for their referral, without adequate time for the community to have input or for the committee to consider bills, and then railroading them back through here.

We had the ridiculous circumstance in the final sitting week in December last year where we had, through two reports of the Selection of Bills Committee, a total of 25 bills referred through 13 different packages to a whole range of different committees, almost all of them to report back either this week or the next sitting week in February, with all of that Christmas period in between. If people think it is possible for the community and different interest groups to keep track over the Christmas period of 25 different bills in a whole range of different areas and for the committees to do that work during that break, then they are kidding themselves. That is the sort of ridiculous circumstance we are in. The way it always used to work and the way it has to work is for there to be enough time after the bills are introduced to at least see what is in them before we can figure out what issues are being raised and whether or not they merit an inquiry and what sort of inquiry they merit.

This myth that is now being regularly put about that somehow or other, once upon a time, bills used to be introduced one week, we would have a Friday hearing, and then they would be debated the next week is just not true. I do not know why it continues to be said, but it is simply not true. I would like to get Senator Robert Ray in here; he has an elephantine memory and could detail in fine points the reality of what happens—I have heard him do it once or twice. He has probably given up bothering to come in and actually talk about the reality of what happens. But it just did not happen that way.

It does not matter how often you keep repeating it, it is not true. I have been around in various guises before I came into this chamber back to 1990 and I saw the changes that were made to the committee system in 1994—a number of which have now been reversed with the government taking all of them over again—and this notion that there was a one-week turnaround with a Friday hearing is not the way it worked. The simple fact is that for significant pieces of legislation that do require proper examination and do require community input, we are doing our job. It is not politics; it is not looking for advantage—it is doing our job. We are not looking for where the votes are; we are passing laws that are in place for decades that affect the entire Australian community and the government do not think we should take the time to look at them.

We have this proposal from the ALP that a raft of tax bills be examined for quite a brief inquiry and the government’s response is just: ‘No, not negotiable. We’re not even going to think about it, you just can’t do it.’ Who is the Treasurer to dictate to the Senate and say, ‘You can’t look at these tax bills’? What a disgrace that those are the depths to which we have sunk. The Treasurer can sit in his office over there, dictate to the Senate and say, ‘You’re not allowed to look at these tax bills.’

There are a bunch of five tax bills, and the people who have looked at them say, ‘These need some further examination only for a month or six weeks.’ What is the problem? I bet you anything you like those bills will not be debated here by the time that they would have been reported back on, as is being proposed in this amendment. It is complete contempt and complete arrogance and that is what we have sunk to. Do not let anybody kid you that this is business as usual. This is a serious undermining of the core business of the Senate. It is an absolute travesty and it is the key reason that the role of the Senate and the composition of the Senate after the next election has to be of major focus and major interest to the people of Australia because, if the coalition gets away with this this time around, you ain’t seen nothing yet. (Time expired)

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

One of the bills that we are currently debating, relating to the access card, raises issues which have engendered considerable debate within the community. The government has not provided the opportunity for the public to look at the detail of the legislation. The legislation was introduced into the parliament yesterday. The idea of a national ID card, firstly in the form of the Australian Card in the eighties, has been around for a long time, but the public cannot understand the consequences if they do not have the details in front of them. That bill was only introduced into parliament yesterday. Sure, it has been in discussion—it has engendered debate because 80 per cent of the Australian population do not want a national ID card. People need the opportunity to look at the legislation to be able to see whether this so-called access card is, as the Greens and many others have said, actually a de facto national ID card.

There are members of the government’s back bench who have also pointed this out. We need the opportunity to properly look at the legislation provided yesterday so that this issue of public debate can be resolved. While little pieces of information about this access card dribble out, more and more Australians have become concerned about the consequences of setting up a database where everyone’s information is in there and a card which has a biometric photo and a microchip that is going to hold far more information than was ever proposed with the Australia Card. As these details start to come out people have become more and more concerned about the fact that this so-called access card is a national ID card. The minister said yesterday in question time that the concerns people had on these issues were legitimate and that the majority of Australians did not want a national ID card. Come on, Minister, come on, government, give us the opportunity to look properly at the legislation you introduced yesterday so that Australians and parliamentarians in particular can decide for themselves whether what is being proposed by the government is in fact a national ID card that Australians do not want.

We need to have a substantial Senate inquiry. The government said that there would be a public inquiry into this issue yet they released an exposure draft at the end of December just before Christmas, with the January break to follow. That is the opportunity that the government proposed for people to be able to have a public debate about whether we want a national ID card. That is ridiculous. It is a complete failure by the government to be genuine in any way whatsoever about consulting with the public on this issue when they introduce a piece of legislation into the parliament and limit the capacity for the public again to discuss a vitally important issue.

We all know in here how concerned Australians are about the idea of a national ID card. We all know in here how concerned Australians are about privacy and we know the community groups who have been speaking out on this issue and have raised concerns about this issue. That is why we have in this Selection of Bills Committee report massive lists of all the groups who should be invited to appear before the Senate inquiry. You cannot hear their evidence if you limit the opportunities for the Senate inquiry to exist, particularly after the government have said, ‘We’ll have a public inquiry; we’ll allow people to talk about this.’

The minister was in here yesterday in question time saying that people had legitimate concerns and did not want a national ID card. He is right: people do have legitimate concerns and do not want a national ID card. Not just the public but parliamentarians as well need a proper opportunity through an open and public Senate inquiry look into this legislation and determine for themselves if this so-called access card that is being proposed is in fact a national ID card. The Greens believe that the public need to have the opportunity to look at this information to determine for themselves what is being proposed by the government and for parliamentarians in particular to be able to determine how they should vote on this issue.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important issue today because it is a clear example of how this government intends to abuse its majority in the Senate. This is as clear an example as you will find of the arrogance and contempt with which the government now treats the Senate and the Australian people. This is an absolute abuse of power. The government is using its majority in the Senate to deny Australians the right to understand and debate the introduction of an access card—or national ID card.

This is an issue that is fundamentally important in Australia; it is fundamentally important that Australians have the right to understand and debate the issue. But the government comes in here today having abused the selection of bills process, which is generally operated on the basis of cooperation, and says: ‘No, you can have an inquiry. We can pretend the Senate still works, we will keep up the farce, we will pretend that we respect the institution of the Senate, but we’re going to slip through one of the most contentious bills in the history of the nation by having a quick and dirty inquiry that we will control. In a matter of weeks we will have had the inquiry, we will have had the facade of a democratic process, but the Australian people won’t have seen the bill and they won’t have had a chance to debate the issues. We will have had a couple of days of public hearings, chaired by a government senator with instructions to keep a lid on the proper debate, and then we’ll ram the legislation through the chamber, as has happened with all the previous legislation of significance.’

The government has attempted to put the Senate to sleep by pretending to follow due process and pretending to allow the Senate to continue its function, but, in effect, it has been abusing its majority time and time again. The arrogance of this is breathtaking. The government would have us slip through a process which allows a very cursory examination of a major piece of legislation that no-one has seen yet, that no-one has any understanding of and which the government’s own Liberal backbenchers are deeply concerned about. Their own party room talked about how this was equivalent to giving the Nazis more of an opportunity to exterminate Jews. The Attorney-General himself talked about the dangers of this legislation down the track. This is an issue that is of deep concern to a whole range of people in our community, but the government is saying to us: ‘We’ve got the numbers; we’re going to roll the legislation through and we’re going to give you this facade of the Senate continuing its function in order to be able to defend ourselves against the accusation of abuse of our majority.’

The reality is that the government will have a quick and dirty inquiry. There will be limited hearings and a limited opportunity to debate the legislation and the government will bring the legislation in and ram it through the Senate very quickly. No major bill in the past was treated like this before the change of power that happened when the government got its majority. It is outrageous. I know it concerns a lot of government senators; it certainly concerns all senators on the non-government side. This is an abuse of the Senate. The government goes too far when it prevents senators from doing the job we were elected to do. That government has to be held up to examination for its abuse of the Senate. This proves to people why the government should never have been allowed a majority in the Senate. It proves why this is a dangerous thing for democracy.

Yesterday the government denied us the capacity to inquire into the Qantas sale. The Australian people were denied the ability to examine the issues involving the sale of Qantas, the future of the national icon airline and the future of jobs in the airline industry in Australia because the government did not want the debate. Now they are saying to us that we have no right to have a proper debate about the introduction of an access card. It is a disgrace—

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

Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement in this debate. I do not believe there are any other speakers left.

Leave granted.

I rise to talk not about the specifics of the bill but about the process, to support the comments of non-government colleagues and also to offer a compromise in this debate. Honourable senators would be aware of the Selection of Bills Committee proposals that were volunteered by the Australian Democrats and I understand that, as of today, the Labor Party has put forward a reference proposal for selection of bills and has now foreshadowed that with a change to a 12 June reporting date. I think that is preferable for all of us on the non-government side. But, having said that, given how desperate we on this side of the chamber are to debate in some detail these complex technical, technological, political and legal bills—65 pages on the access card were tabled yesterday—would the government even consider the dates that were put forward by the Australian Democrats in the selection of bills process? That proposal was for hearings to begin in the weeks beginning 5 March or 12 March, with a reporting date of 26 March or indeed 20 March, which was the date we were prepared to put forward directly to the minister and today in the chamber.

I am aware that these access card bills, in the form of an exploratory draft, have been around for some time. I do not know about you, but I cuddled up with mine over the summer holidays and read it, along with Andrew McGahan’s Underground and Anna Funder’s Stasiland just to get me in the mood. I think that there is a strong argument for an inquiry into these bills, even given that there has been an exposure draft, and especially given that there is a changed piece of legislation, which was tabled in the House of Reps—not the Senate; the House of Reps—yesterday. So will the government even consider a compromise, given the desperation on the non-government side about not just the complex nature of this legislation but the fact that it is a large volume of legislation which in the case of the access card potentially represents the greatest single privacy intrusion into the lives of the Australian people ever?

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee also inquire into the analysis of the viability of the registration process, in particular, whether there are adequate proof of identity checks”.

Question put.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee report by 12 June 2007”.

Question put.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee report by 15 March 2007”.

Question put.

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

I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

       The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 1 OF 2007

(1)

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 4.18 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a)

the provisions of the AusCheck Bill 2006 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2007 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b)

the provisions of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 2 and 3 for statements of reasons for referral).

(3)

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

• ACIS Administration Amendment (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 2007
• Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Bill 2006
• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006
• Pregnancy Counselling (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2006
• Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006.

The committee recommends accordingly.

(4)

The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the following bills to the Economics Committee:

• Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007
• Income Tax (Former Complying Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007
• Income Tax (Former Non-resident Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007
• Income Tax Rates Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2007
• Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007.

The committee was unable to reach agreement on whether the bills should be referred (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for proposed referral).

(5)

The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007, upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, to the Community Affairs Committee. The committee was unable to reach agreement on the reference and deferred the matter to a subsequent meeting, to be held on 8 February 2007 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for proposed referral).

(6)

The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006 to the Economics Committee. Again the committee was unable to reach agreement on the reference and deferred consideration to its next meeting (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for proposed referral).

(7)

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

• Family Law (Divorce Fees Validation) Bill 2007.

(Jeannie Ferris)

Chair

8 February 2007

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill

AusCheck Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

55(d)       Such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations.

58(1)(c)   For such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations.

We think the criteria and scope of the Bill should be in the Act not the Regs.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

MUA, TWU, AMWU, Aust Pilots Association

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal & Const

Possible hearing date(s):

Your choice

Possible reporting date:

28 March 2006

(signed) Ruth Webber

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007-02-08

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Analysis of the privacy and security implications of the legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Allan Fels; Australian Privacy Foundation; Law Council; Australian Medical Association; Australian Consumers’ Association; Electronic Frontiers Australia; Australian Law Reform Commission; Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner; Department of Health and Ageing; Consumers’ Federation of Australia; Department of Family and Community Services; Office of the Privacy Commissioner; attorney-Generals Department; banks and other service sectors; others

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration

Possible hearing date(s): Week beginning March 5 or 12

Possible reporting date: Week beginning March 26

Andrew Bartlett

Australian Democrats Whip

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Analysis of the viability of the registration process: in particular, whether there are adequate proof of identity checks.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Attorney Generals

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration

Possible hearing date(s):

Week beginning March 5/12

Possible reporting date:

Week beginning March 26

(signed)

George Campbell

Kate Lundy

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2007 AUTUMN SITTINGS

HUMAN SERVICES (ENHANCED SERVICE DELIVERY) BILL 2007

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill will streamline and modernise Australia’s delivery system for health and social service benefits and reduce the opportunity for fraud in relation to such benefits.

The Bill:

• sets out the scope and purposes of the use of the access card and Register;
• sets out the information to be included in the Register and in the chip of the card and on the surface of the card;
• provides a registration process for obtaining an access card;
• vests ownership of access cards in card holders;
• allows card owners to use their access card for whatever lawful purposes they choose; and
• creates a range of offences to prohibit persons requiring an access card for identification purposes and to prohibit other improper uses of the access card.

Reasons for Urgency

To ensure community consultation on an exposure draft of the legislation prior to introduction in Parliament, it was not possible to introduce legislation in the 2006 Spring sittings.

The early passage of the Bill is required to ensure that a legal framework is available to support the implementation of the proposed access card system, to enable registration for the card to commence in early 2008 and to provide sufficient time to provide meaningful information to the public about the proposed changes.

The legislation will provide the certainty required to achieve cost-effective procurement of technological services required to support the access card.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Human Services)

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Appendix 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007 and others

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Same as for Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006 plus state/territory governments due to provisions of chapter 4 unclaimed money.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s): Wed 21 to Fri 23 February

Possible reporting date:

Tues 27 February

(signed) ..............................

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Upon its introduction into the House of Representatives

Name of bill:

Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

See attached.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date{s):

Possible reporting date:

1 March 2007

(signed)

Jeannie Ferris

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE 1N THE 2007 AUTUMN SITTINGS

AGED CARE AMENDMENT (SECURITY AND PROTECTION) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act) to:

• implement new aged care complaints investigation arrangements, including a new Aged Care Commissioner;
• introduce the requirement for approved providers of residential aged care to report to the Department of Health and Ageing and the police allegations and incidents of sexual and serious physical assault; and
• introduce protection for approved providers and staff in residential aged care that report allegations and incidents of sexual and serious physical assault.

Reasons for Urgency

The amendments to the Act will give effect to the decision made by the government in July 2006 to implement new complaints investigation arrangements for Australian Government-subsidised aged care services, including the establishment of a new Aged Care Commissioner, as well as the introduction of compulsory reporting of alleged incidents of sexual and serious physical assault in residential aged care, and protection for approved providers and staff who report such incidents.

In the Minister for Ageing’s announcement of 27 July 2006, he foreshadowed an implementation date of 1 April 2007 for the aged care complaints investigation arrangements, compulsory reporting and protection measures. In order to meet this implementation date, the bill needs to be introduced and passed in the 2007 Autumn sittings.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Ageing)

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006

Specifically Schedule 2

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

• Schedule 2 makes substantial changes to the interest withholding tax exemption
• Proposed changes in Schedule 2 may have an impact on the ability of Australian companies to raise finance
• Inadequate consultation with industry

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Institute of chartered Accountants

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s):

Week of 19 February 2007

Possible reporting date:

Week of 1 March 2007

(signed)

George Campbell

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE-REPORT NO. 1 OF 2007- AMENDMENT TO REPORT

MINISTER:

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, the Finance and Public Administration Committee report by 15 March 2007.”.