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

I present the seventh report for 2007 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2007

1.

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 at 3.05 pm.

2.

The committee resolved to recommend—That(a)  the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 12 June 2007; and

(a)

the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 12 June 2007; and

(b)

the provisions of the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 12 June 2007.

3.

The committee considered a proposal relating to a Bill for an Act to Amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and for related purposes (Stronger Safety Net). The committee resolved to recommend that, upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date.

4.

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

• Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007
• Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007
• Governance Review Implementation (Science Research Agencies) Bill 2007
• Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Bill 2007 • Health Insurance Amendment (Inappropriate and Prohibited Practices and Other Measures) Bill 2007
• International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007.

The committee recommends accordingly.

5.

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

• Workplace Relations (Restoring Family Work Balance) Amendment Bill 2007
• Repatriation of Citizens Bill 2007.

Stephen Parry

Chair

10 May 2007

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To look at impacts of the changes on the operation of the Authority and the management of the Marine Park, with special reference to the removal of the requirement for indigenous representation, and the details of new procedural requirements for zoning plans and changes.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

• Queensland Govt
• Recreational Fishers
• Commercial Fishers
• Queensland Tourism Industry Council
• World Wildlife Fund
• North Queensland Conservation Council
• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
• Aboriginal Rainforest Council
• Girringun Aboriginal Corporation

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

12 June 2007

(signed) Andrew Bartlett

Australian Demorcrat Party Leader

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

As this bill establishes a new entity, with new responsibilities, it is appropriate that this be reviewed to ensure it is properly established and transition arrangements are appropriate.

A review will include comparing the new entity against the Uhrig template, considering the terms of the statutory funding agreement between the new entity and the Commonwealth and other matters associated with the administration of the new entity.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

The Forestry industry, Dept of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation and the CFMEU

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

16 August 2007

(signed) George Campbell 9/5/07

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

A Bill For An Act To Amend The Workplace Relations Act 199 And Related Purposes - (Stronger Safety Net)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Examination of the bill upon its introduction in the House of Representatives.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Possible hearing date (s):

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

14 June 2007

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

(a)

and, in respect of paragraph 3, the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee report on the bill by 14 June 2007; and

(b)

the Workplace Relations (Restoring Family Work Balance) Amendment Bill 2007 be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee for inquiry and report by 14 June 2007.

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

I rise to speak on the amendment moved by Senator Abetz. What we now have is this—and I would not have expected to see it here: the Selection of Bills Committee has been unable to determine when a committee should report. The government has used, and will use, its numbers to force its position in the Senate. It is highly unlikely that this instance will not be repeated. The government has been reducing the ability of the Senate to scrutinise legislation. What it has done in this instance is seek to refer the Stronger Safety Net bill without the bill. No bill has been introduced into the Senate—none at all.

The coalition is going to support a referral to the Senate for scrutiny based on, we can only assume, the advertisements and the release by the Prime Minister, because we do not have a bill. We do not have a view yet from the government as to when the bill will in fact be introduced. I hope the government will be able to tell us that. If it cannot, we will have a position where the bill will be referred at some indeterminate time. The government has said: ‘We will refer it today and have a committee hearing on 8 June with or without a bill. It will then report on 14 June.’ Presumably—we can only presume—there will be a bill by that time. That means we will have to advertise to the public to make submissions based on, it seems, the statements by the Prime Minister and the public campaign this government has now funded. It seems that they have managed to get the campaign in motion well before writing the bill. That does not surprise me when it comes to this government.

We find ourselves in a position of being asked to support this motion. It is a piece of legislation that Labor think needs scrutiny. Labor believe it needs to have a Senate committee report and be dealt with. We are not here to deny the process; we want to engage in the process. We want to have a look at the bill; we want to have a look at what this government is doing in terms of the AWAs. Therefore, we are not going to oppose the motion. We expect the government to bring on the bill as early as it can so that stakeholders can have a look at the bill, what is contained within it and see whether the provisions that the Prime Minister has said will be dealt with are being dealt with appropriately.

The government has sought to introduce a fake safety net. Even if we consider it to be unfair, we want to see the black letter law, we want to be able to argue about those issues and we want to be able to ensure that the government is held accountable. That is the appropriate role the Senate plays in this place. Again, a one-day hearing is inadequate. The government knows that, but the coalition is going to ram it through.

They are now treating the Senate like a sausage machine. One day they will introduce the bill—and we do not even know whether we will have a copy of the bill—and we will be expected to deal with the legislation in the last two weeks before we rise. The stakeholders will have to provide submissions and deal with the legislation—and, as I have said, deal with what legislation? The government needs to commit to ensuring that stakeholders have adequate time to deal with the legislation, to read it and to provide submissions, and that the committee has sufficient time to hear those submissions and deal with the legislation in an appropriate way. (Time expired)

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

The government announced its changes to the workplace laws a week or so ago with great fanfare and with huge expenditure of public money to tell everybody about them. They are so proud of these changes that they do not want anybody to have a look at them. That is how fabulous they think these changes are. They want to send them to a committee without having the legislation there for the committee to look at.

The title of the legislation itself, the ‘Stronger Safety Net’ bill, should be struck out on the grounds that it is misleading. This government rammed through legislation destroying the safety net, and for them to then put back a couple of threads and say that they are creating a stronger safety net has to be one of the most farcical misuses of the English language yet, and that is saying something for this mob.

This is not about opposing the legislation. For starters, we cannot oppose it because we have not seen it. As I said yesterday, it was the Democrats that played the pivotal role in ensuring that the safety net was there for the 10 or so years of the Howard government until they got control of the Senate. Anything that starts to put back in place the Democrats’ safety net we would be likely to support, even if it is only putting back a few threads. It is not about opposing the legislation. The Democrats are very proud of pointing to the safety net that we put in place against this government’s initial wishes—as was made obvious when they ripped it apart at the first chance they got.

Let us not forget what we have seen here. We have seen huge full-page newspaper advertisements all over the country paid for out of the taxpayers’ pockets to advertise the coalition’s new policy. That is corrupt behaviour and it shows how low this government has sunk. It is treating every coalition senator as a mushroom. It is assuming that they will support this sight unseen. All of the newspaper ads have gone in before the parliament has even seen the legislation, let alone passed it. That we could have public money spent telling people about a change that the parliament has not even seen, let alone endorsed, shows how much contempt this government has for its own senators, for its own back bench, for the Senate committee process, and it now expects some thanks or kudos for putting in place a derisory inquiry.

Nobody knows when this legislation is going to appear. Indications are that it might appear around the end of the month. What are people meant to put together submissions on—a newspaper advertisement or a press release from the Prime Minister? Leaving aside this government’s unbelievable record of deceit over more than a decade, the matter of basic incompetence in putting together legislation is precisely the sort of thing that Senate committee inquiries find time and time again because of the expertise from people in the area being examined. These are not all faceless, nasty, trade union bosses or thugs thundering in and giving the committee evidence. These are people from across the spectrum, people whom the Democrats always look to—as our record shows—to take a balanced approach to legislation. These are people that will not adopt mindlessly the trade union side or the big business side. They are people who have expertise in the area and will be able to say, ‘You might have put a newspaper ad out there saying that this is what is going to happen, but if you look at what is in the legislation it is not going to work like that.’ What do you do then? Do you pay for another bunch of newspaper advertisements? I am sure that you will take any chance you get to grab more taxpayers’ money to advertise. You have already put all the advertisements out there and you do not even know what is in the legislation—it is not even finished yet. You do not know whether it is going to deliver what you have already said in the newspaper advertisements, and this parliament is supposedly going to rubber-stamp it.

I remind the Senate and the public again of the Prime Minister’s pledge when he got control of the Senate. He said that he would not misuse his power, that he would not let it go to his head, that he would not use it arrogantly or inappropriately. This is yet another breach in a very long line of breaches of that most basic promise about an area which is fundamental. The government itself says that it is fundamental and for years the Democrats have said that it is fundamental. It is a key part of our economic prosperity, work and family balance and opportunity for people throughout the community. That is why we have got to get it right. It is not about being for or against the legislation. It is making sure that whatever is in it, whatever policy intent there is behind it, actually works properly. This is total contempt for the Senate process. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens also are opposing the referral date for this committee report. Of course we support it being referred to committee; we think it is absolutely essential. I remind this place of the pages and pages of amendments that came here to the original Work Choices legislation and the week we sat here trying to come to terms with them.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is because you wrote the pages.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We put in a lot of amendments, yes, but the government put in pages and pages and pages of amendments to the legislation due to mistakes and loopholes that were identified through the committee process. Though that process was rushed, I think the committee sat for five days going through the legislation. We identified many loopholes—for example, for clothing workers, where there was a huge gap, and there were many other loopholes. We identified those through a rigorous committee process, fast-tracked as it was during that time. Many of us thought we needed a longer time to consider the legislation.

But here we are faced with the legislation hitting the deck sometime at the end of May, at a time when the committee can only meet in the week between 4 June and 8 June—so pick a date during that week. At most that gives us around a week from when the legislation hits the deck and is tabled to when we are sitting as a committee to review the act.

That gives stakeholders and the public about three or four days to look at the legislation and get a submission in. It gives the committee members only that amount of time to look at the legislation and, say, two or three days to read what will be a substantial number of submissions. We had dozens and dozens of submissions to the original Work Choices legislation. You can expect that we will get a number of substantive submissions from the community on these amendments. They will have to be studied very closely. The community will have a week and the committee will have less than a week to review these changes, to see if they are doing what the government say they will do—whether they are actually carrying out their intent or whether there is another series of loopholes that you could drive a truck through. We will have basically a week to consider these changes which are supposed to be substantive ones that will, supposedly, bring reform to the way that AWAs work.

I do not know if the Greens are going to be able to support the legislation, because I have not seen it. I suspect—in fact, I am pretty certain—it will not go as far as the Greens would like it to go. So we need time to assess the legislation, to assess what the community and the stakeholders say about the legislation and maybe even draft some amendments that will fix some of the holes that may or may not be there. But the point is that we need time to do that. The government are treating this place and the community with contempt if they think that a little over a week is enough time to consider substantive changes and to see if they are really going to deliver on what they have said and on what the community needs in terms of a safety net for the government’s new, so-called reformed, Work Choices. We need to see if the legislation actually addresses the fundamental flaws and provides the safety net that the government are saying is needed. A week is a contempt; the government are treating us with contempt. If the government were serious about getting real input they would allow the committee and the community a substantial amount of time to consider these changes. The Greens will not be supporting this referral date, although I reiterate that we support the referral to the committee. But, quite clearly, the government are treating that process with contempt by limiting it to 14 June, particularly in light of the fact that we will not be seeing the legislation until the end of May. The time for us to consider it as the committee is so short it is laughable.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First is pleased the government has agreed to have the Family First bill on restoring family-work balance with regard to Work Choices referred to an inquiry. Even though we would have preferred more time, it is better to have the legislation referred through than not at all. Work Choices is a huge issue for the Australian public. People are concerned about whether the right balance has been struck, given that it was a very high risk strategy to say, ‘No problems, no changes,’ and that ripping up Work Choices and AWAs was another position that people were not looking for. They are looking for something in the middle. Family First’s bill was to guarantee public holidays, meal breaks, overtime and penalty rates and redundancy entitlements. These are matters of real concern to Australians, as is getting the right balance. So Family First is pleased that it has been referred through to an inquiry.

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

I also want to speak briefly on this matter because I am Deputy Chair of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee to which these bills are being referred and will have to deal with the practical problems in developing a report after scrutinising the legislation which is not before the Senate at this time. While we can have political positions about the legislation, when it comes to the practical task of reviewing and scrutinising this legislation it becomes incredibly difficult for us and demeans the Senate processes when we do not have the opportunity to have the legislation in advance and when people who wish to make submissions do not have the opportunity to fully consider the legislation. I do not know how long the bill will be, but the act it will seek to amend is a significant and complex one. The last amendment bill was the Work Choices amendment bill, which was a 600-page amendment bill and created a new bill which sought to fundamentally restructure existing legislation. There are still issues that people are trying to work out. There are still court determinations being made to interpret some of this legislation. To re-amend that bill and to get some proper advice and considered opinions from those interested—the public, trade unions, employer organisations—will take time. If they do not have the time to consider it and if the submissions that they make to our committee are not properly considered, then the task of the committee in scrutinising the legislation is made even more difficult.

We take it as a matter of course these days that the government does not allow us adequate time to scrutinise these matters in the first place. But it makes a mockery of the process, with even that short time to scrutinise the legislation, if the submissions cannot be fully considered because people do not have enough time to fully reflect on the legislation in front of them. The government seeks to refer these bills and we appreciate that; that is one of the fundamental roles of the Senate. But if you are referring them just so you can say that the Senate has gone through its process, again it makes a mockery of the whole system. If we are going to do the job of scrutinising legislation as we should, we should be afforded the necessary time, resources and ability to do our work properly. Having rushed reports and rushed inquiries does nothing for the reputation of this place. I am disappointed, as deputy chair of this committee who will have the practical responsibility of trying to pull together this report, that it is being conducted in such a way. The government should reconsider and should give a reasonable time. Once the legislation is in the public domain or introduced in the Senate, that is when we should start determining times for submissions and times for the Senate to do its job through the committee process. Adequate time should then be allowed for us to reflect on the submissions, reflect on the arguments put before us, reflect on the legislation we have actually seen and be able to prepare a considered report for the Senate as a whole.

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

by leave—I thank the Senate. The circumstances in which the Senate finds itself are quite clear. This legislation is about providing an extra strand or two to the safety net that is already there for Australian workers. There is a perception, right or wrong, that the safety net that has been provided thus far should be amended and strengthened. We are of the view that that should occur. Given that we are of the view that that should occur, we believe that the sooner it occurs the better for all Australian workers. So it is quite disingenuous of those who feign support for the Australian workers to then seek to delay the consideration of this legislation.

Why are we moving this amendment today? Very simply, if the motion does not go in today, we cannot refer the bill to a committee out of session. We would therefore have to move it on 12 June and then, with all the delays of advertising, hearings and a committee report, we would be a considerable distance further down the track, thus denying the protection those opposite demand be provided for the Australian workforce. When you take all that into account, you can understand why the government is eager for this to occur as expeditiously as possible.

We had a bizarre contribution from my friend from the Democrats suggesting that, on the one hand, the government was corrupt in advertising its proposed changes and then, in the next breath, saying that we were hiding our proposed changes from the Australian people. You cannot run those arguments in tandem. Either we are putting them out there for the Australian people or we are hiding them. You cannot really have it both ways. Of course, that is the great thing about the Australian Democrats. They always like to have it both ways. That is why they have fallen between the stools of Australian politics.

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

Where’s the legislation?

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

And where is the legislation? I remind Senator Bartlett of the problem: a very distinguished predecessor of his from Queensland, Senator John Woodley, moved in this place referral of legislation to a committee before the bill was introduced, as I understand it, for the very same sorts of reasons we are doing so today. So there are precedents in this place that people like Senator Bartlett deliberately shut their eyes to, even when the precedent is from their own side, albeit a very small side, of Australian politics.

Senator Siewert tells us that chances are the legislation will not go as far as the Greens want it to go. Can I tell her? I reckon she is spot on, and I agree with her; it will not be going as far as the Greens want it to, because we will not countenance ‘no ticket, no start’. We will not countenance bargaining fees, and we will not countenance union officials being allowed into workplaces uninvited et cetera. In fairness, the discussion here is in relation to a fairness test for those employed on salaries of $75,000 or less. It is a fairly discrete area in relation to the current industrial relations system that we are seeking to amend to provide extra protection, and that is why we as a government are anxious to get it through as quickly as possible to afford the extra protection for the benefit of the Australian workforce. I would have thought that anybody who professes a concern about protecting the Australian workforce might at least be gracious enough to say, ‘It doesn’t go far enough but at least something is better than nothing and therefore we support the government.’

Once again, this is an example of opposition for opposition’s sake, no matter what the argument might be, even if it means not providing urgent protection for workers, which they claim is absolutely vital. They are prepared to delay it for an extra month or two on the basis of opposition for opposition’s sake. It is very disappointing. We are pleased to have the practical input of Family First into this inquiry. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.