Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Committee, Senator Ronaldson, I present the Hansard record of proceedings on the committee’s inquiry into the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006.

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

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the Hansard record of proceedings.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the Hansard record of proceedings.

I had expected Senator Ronaldson to be here and I would have given him the opportunity to speak. But he will get the opportunity to respond at some other time. I want to raise a point about this before the substantive matter is dealt with by Senator Stephens, who will go to the report proper. I will only take a short time; I know there is a limited amount of time to deal with these matters. The matter I want to raise is this, and the opposition is not going to let it go by: this matter was referred on 8 February 2007, the close of submissions was on 16 February 2007 and, by all accounts, the first opportunity to have a hearing was on Monday, 26 February. The report was tabled on Tuesday, which is yesterday, not even with the Hansard. What we are now seeing is the Hansard follow the tabled report.

It is more than unacceptable because there is no rush in respect of this bill. An easier course, and a course often followed here, is to provide an interim report, which could have been tabled tomorrow if need be. It certainly is not going to be dealt with this week; it has not been on the red to be dealt with this week. The next opportunity for it to be debated is likely to be not until late March. We have an arrogant government that seeks to table a report prior to the availability of the Hansard. You then get this ridiculous situation where you download the report to have a look at it and instead of Hansard page numbers for witnesses and submitters you get the committee secretariat’s notes. It seems to me that that is not only unacceptable but also beyond the pale. It is a shabby way of dealing with it. That is no reflection on the committee secretariat; I am absolutely sure they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. It is the chair’s responsibility and the government’s responsibility to ensure that they do not treat the submitters and the Senate in that shabby way.

As I said, it is not listed for debate so what is the rush? I would certainly like to hear the government’s perspective as to why they want to use the Senate in this way, or are they just simply doing it because they can, because they have the numbers to be able to push these reports through? Hold on a minute and do it properly, at least. The proper way to deal with these things is to ensure that at least you have the Hansard, and that the committee report is written in such a way that everyone has their Hansard record acknowledged, rather than dropping it in a printed form yesterday when it was not even until today that we could gain a copy from the tables office. The only opportunity people had to see the report was to download it. And, as I said, if you tried to download it you got the silly circumstance of committee notes. It simply should not have happened.

There are two explanations. Either the chair is new, and that is true, or the government is being arrogant and forcing these reports through unnecessarily. It is not necessary to do it in this way. I am not going to let it go without commenting on the version we now have of the way the government treats the Senate. Once upon a time, the chair, in his committee role, acted as a gatekeeper to this place. What you have now is the government acting arrogantly and pushing through reports for no other reason than it can, since it has control of the Senate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Senator Abetz interjects on the basis that we have moved a long way. We now have committees functioning. We have moved to a point where the committee system does work, and it works not because of the work the coalition have put in; it works because of the work of the Labor Party and the minority parties in getting it to function and work effectively. What the coalition are now doing is pulling it down, piece by piece. And each time that they do that I am going to come into this chamber and point it out, because the system that they have now condoned will lead to errors, omissions and corrections that will have to be made. It is unacceptable, and I will make that point.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of this presentation of the Hansard record of proceedings of the inquiry that the Senate Standing Committee on Economics held on Monday. Senator Ludwig has raised the issue of the undue haste with which the committee was required to deal with this legislation. We will get the opportunity to debate the legislation when it finally comes to this place, but there are some important issues that need to be placed on the record.

One of those issues is that what has happened is unprecedented for our committee. Our committee was presented with a report when there had been quite complex evidence provided to us in the hearing on Monday. Members of the committee were not able to actually consider the text of the evidence prior to considering the report before it was presented here yesterday. We received evidence that was not only quite complex but also raised some very important issues for those of us who wanted to make additional comments to the report and wanted to reflect the accuracy of the evidence that was provided to us. So there is a very important issue here.

My concern is that we have been leveraged into such a hasty consideration of this report that we now have on record an extraordinary precedent where we can have significant legislation inquiry reports being footnoted that they are in fact secretariat notes from the public hearings. The substantive issues that we had to deal with included a recommendation from the minority members of the committee that the bill actually be split and that one section of the bill not be considered, based on the evidence that we received on Monday. I think that is something we in this place need to bear in mind for the future.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened intently to Senator Ludwig and Senator Stephens. While I appreciate the commentary in relation to this matter, regrettably their argument fails, I am afraid, on one very basic test. That test is that when this matter was first introduced the Australian Labor Party had the opportunity to refer the bill and they chose not to. When the matter came back again, they made that choice. One of two things would have driven that, one would assume: either there had been changes, which there were not; or there is another issue at stake, and that is that it is an election year and this is being used no more or less than to continue running the line the opposition is running—that somehow the processes are corrupt, that there is an abuse of the position in this place. The bottom line with this debate today is that, having had the opportunity to refer, if this matter was of such significance to the Australian Labor Party that it was to be referred then surely it would have been referred. The fact that it was not indicates that there must be other reasons for this; and those other reasons can only relate to the politics of this situation, and nothing else. I think that, quite frankly, is very sad.

As the new Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, I would have hoped that no honourable senators would have viewed the process—and you yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, were involved in that process—and the way that process was conducted as anything but open and frank. Every senator was given every opportunity to raise questions of concern. We had a reporting deadline. In terms of where we met, we had some up weeks and the committee unanimously agreed to meet on Monday. Indeed, I received congratulations from one non-government member on the speed with which the chair’s draft report was turned around—and I am not going to name that person because that would be unfair. Every part of this process was done to facilitate the work of the economics committee to consider this bill. There was not one part of that process that was in any way bastardised to the detriment of committee members. Indeed, everything was done to facilitate due consideration of this matter.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except the Hansard report.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. Senator Stephens is acutely aware—and I do not want to betray conversations between chair and deputy chair—that we made endeavours to meet in an up week and it was not possible to coordinate arrangements to do so. My preferred course of action, as the new chair of that committee, was to have that hearing prior to the Monday, but the members could not be accommodated, for a variety of reasons. Endeavours were made by the secretary, by me and, indeed, by the deputy chair to try and facilitate that, but it could not be done. This is not the first time in this place that people have had to accommodate time frames to get matters dealt with before reporting times. This is not something new that has jumped out of someone’s Weeties. This is a process where there are time lines and people have to meet those time lines. We could not facilitate a meeting beforehand. The meeting was held on the Monday, and as much time as possible was given to everyone. I did not close that meeting. That meeting closed because everyone had had their opportunity to speak in relation to this matter.

Having listened to Senator Ludwig, what concerns me is that there is some implication of impropriety on my part, which I categorically reject, or on the part of the government, which I equally categorically reject. The disappointing aspect of this is that, having been dealt up the pie once, the Australian Labor Party put it in the fridge. They could have put it in the oven and they chose not to do so. This time around, given another opportunity, they have suddenly, for the cheapest of political reasons, chosen to put the pie into the oven. To me that indicates a duplicitous approach to taking up time in this chamber. There are other matters that we should be debating. This has been a duplicitous approach to score a cheap political point. That should disappoint all the senators in this place, not just those on this side. The opportunity had presented itself, but the Australian Labor Party had not taken that opportunity.

I invite any member of that committee to say that due process was not given to the committee’s deliberations on this matter. In fact, I will go through the process. The submissions were sent out. The committee distributed a list of potential witnesses. The secretary requested indications from all senators of other witnesses whom they might want to call. There were no other requests from the Australian Labor Party senators for anyone else to appear at that committee other than those who did appear. Ample opportunity was given. When senators were asked whether they required anyone else, there was not one response requesting other attendees for that hearing. Therefore, the whole committee agreed on a group of attendees as the most appropriate ones to attend that hearing. Ample time was given. In fact, if my colleagues look back they will probably find that the anticipated finishing time was 12.30—that time had been allocated by the committee. That hearing finished at 11.20, from recollection.

The allegation that there was not due process, that there was not an appropriate opportunity for these matters to be canvassed, I categorically reject. The principles underlying this debate this afternoon are about scoring a cheap political point, which is totally in line with other commentary in relation to the way the government’s majority is utilised. This is a political line which bears absolutely no relevance at all to the substance of the matter before the chamber today. This is only to reinforce a cheap political point, which we will all hear time after time between now and the federal election. The process in this matter was appropriate. The Labor Party had the opportunity to pull the pie out and put it in the oven. They chose not to do so. Now, they come in here bleating about the fact that they put it in the oven rather than the fridge, and they do not like the outcome of it. For someone to plead that this matter is deserving of 45 minutes— (Time expired)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps while Senator Ronaldson is still in the chamber, I will point out that I am also a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics but, unlike him, I am also a member of the Selection of Bills Committee. I suggest that he look at the full process of the way this place handles an inquiry before he embarks on such a point as he has. He is right to say that the opposition asked for the bill to be reconsidered by the Selection of Bills Committee, because when it was first on the agenda it had not been introduced anywhere and was simply entitled ‘Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006’. No briefing was provided to the shadow minister nor had there been any discussion anywhere—nothing. How was the opposition to know what the legislation contained? Never mind whether it contained contentious matters.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why wouldn’t you refer it?

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want us to refer every bill just on its title without getting a briefing from the ministers then that is the way this place will operate from here on in—you may have some issues with your friends in the government. There was bad process in this matter and bad faith on the part of the ministers in the other place, which is how we ended up with this mess, just as we ended up with the mess with the aged-care bill initially. Perhaps you should check with the members of the Selection of Bills Committee.

On the other things that Senator Ronaldson has said: indeed, the process of the conduct of the hearing and what have you was done in a very harmonious way. I think it was, yet again, good work by the economics committee in exploring some detailed issues of public policy, and we drew out some quite complex issues. To that extent, Senator Ronaldson did handle the process quite well.

He also did give us the chair’s draft of the report with a lot more speed, perhaps, than his predecessor—who I notice is also in the chamber—had done from time to time. To that extent it has been a good process. But this committee, this chamber, Senate committees, will not work when it comes to inquiring into legislation if the government will not actually give us the brief on the legislation. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to continue my remarks later and to have this matter stay on the Notice Paper.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.