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

I present the ninth 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. 9 OF 2007

1.

The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 at 4.16 pm.

2.

The committee resolved to recommend—That—(a)   the provisions of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2007 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);(b)   the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2007 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral); and (c)   the provisions of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 and the Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2007 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(a)

the provisions of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2007 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b)

the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2007 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(c)

the provisions of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 and the Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2007 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3.

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

• Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007
• Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007
• Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2007
• Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2007
• Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Bill 2007
• Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007
• Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007
• Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2007
• Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2007
• Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007
• Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Management System and Other Measures) Bill 2007
• Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007
• Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Restructures) Bill 2007
• Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007
• Migration (Sponsorship Fees) Bill 2007
• Migration Amendment (Statutory Agency) Bill 2007
• Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2007
• Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007
• Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007.

The committee recommends accordingly.

4.

The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 to the Community Affairs Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill 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 Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be referred (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for proposed referral).

6.

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

(Stephen Parry)

Chair

13 June 2007

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 9 OF 2007

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Consideration of the bill as necessary.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

18 June 2007

(signed) Stephen Parry

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

National Health Amendment (PBS) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Bill proposes significant changes to the PBS which require scrutiny

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Health sector, consumer groups, DOHA

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

15 June

Possible reporting date:

19 June 2007

(signed) G Campbell 12/6/07

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Consideration of the bill as necessary.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

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

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

30 July 2007

(signed) Stephen Parry

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To examine the viability and operation of the provisions of the bill which intends to impose the requirements of a Citizenship test on prospective migrants.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Prof Helena Rubenstein

Multicultural Development Association (MDA) – Brisbane

Migrant Resource Centres

Ethnic Communities Councils and other multicultural organisations

Southern Cross groups

Migration Institute of Australia

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

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

August 7 ^th 2007

(signed) Andrew Bartlett

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To examine the provisions of the bill which will introduce a formal Citizenship test for prospective citizens.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Prof Helena Rubenstein

Prof Bob Birrell,

FECCA,

MRCS

AMEP providers

Other Ethnic/Multicultural Community Organisations (especially those who made submissions to discussion paper on Citizenship Test)

Southern Cross groups

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

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

Week commencing 7 ^th August

(signed) George Campbell 12/6/07

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 07

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

On the basis of consultation with Fisheries stakeholders – principally Torres Strait representatives – to ensure their concerns have been effectively addressed by the proposed legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Toshi Kris – Torres Strait Regional Authority Chairman

Contact: Wayne See Kee, GMgr, TSRA 0740690700

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

RRATC

Possible hearing date(s):

This week

Possible reporting date:

By Tuesday, Next Week 19/6/07

(signed) George Campbell 12/06/07

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Am (Township Learning) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To consider the merits of township learning model, particularly the entity holding the land lease

Possible submissions or evidence from:

NT Land Councils and other relevant parties

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Con

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

23/8/07

(signed) George Campbell 12/6/07

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To examine the impact of the 2007 higher education Budget measures on the university sector and university students: and

To seek further information on how these proposed measures will operate.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Universities Australia

National Tertiary Education Union

National Union of Students

Group of Eight Universities

Australian Technology Network of Universities

Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Department of Education, Science and Training.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 3 August 2007

(signed) Andrew Bartlett

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

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

Before the report is adopted, it is worth commenting on two matters, but I only want to go to one. What we have in this is a process of the Selection of Bills Committee which provides the opportunity for bills to be referred to committees, to be examined by senators and for reports to be prepared and tabled in parliament. When the committee does not reach agreement with respect to bills to be referred then they are usually listed in the committee report. Two such committee bills are the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 and the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. That means the committee did not come to a conclusion about the referral to a Senate committee with respect to those two bills. In respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007, it is incumbent on the government in that instance to say why it should not go to a committee if there was a reference for it to go to a committee.

The statement by the government for the reasons of urgency with respect to that bill is this: timing is critical to allow Indigenous land tenure reform in the Northern Territory to proceed. Without more, the government needs to justify why it needs to pass the bill in the two weeks so it cannot go to a committee, so it cannot be considered, so you cannot have the opportunity of having the relevant stakeholders involved in the process. Of course what the reference provides for by the relevant senators is to consider the merits of a township leasing model, particularly the entity holding the land lease. It would seem that the Northern Territory land councils and other relevant parties should have been provided with an opportunity to have input into that process and to consider the merits of the various models, particularly the entity holding the land lease. That would be the relevant way, unless there were significant reasons as to why that bill could not go to a committee and be dealt with in August, as other bills are.

Of course, it now really is incumbent on this government to provide those cogent reasons. Simply stating that timing is critical to allow Indigenous land tenure reform in the Northern Territory to proceed is not sufficient reason in itself. It is a statement; it does not provide the timing. What timing is critical? Are there agreements pending? Have parties reached agreement and are now awaiting signatures? That would be helpful to know otherwise it will be assumed that this is just a bland statement without substance. It would be necessary, if the government did need the bill, to be able to at least put that case.

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

I also would like to speak about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. The Greens would have liked to have seen this referred to the committee and the committee being given an opportunity to examine it. When we briefly touched on this issue during estimates, I felt a great deal of concern about the fact that I could not be provided with clear answers to a number of my questions. Take, for example, the issue of $5 million that is to be provided from the ABA to the traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands. This is the issue we were specifically talking about. That $5 million was being given from the ABA to the traditional owners in advance of any lease money that was coming back. When I asked where that $5 million goes once the lease money has been received—nobody knew what I was talking about at first—I was told one answer and then, two hours later, I was told a different answer. The different answer was that once that money that was originally given, because it is not a loan, by the ABA to the traditional owners had been received in lease money it was then given to the entity to then fund the leases and the lease process in other towns. That sort of information and that sort of process needs to be examined. The department could not tell us the answer straightaway, nor could the minister. It took hours to get that information.

I think that is important information. I think that sort of detail is the sort of detail the committee needs to be asking about, and I am certainly not reassured that they have got this right. This legislation has been rushed, and I agree with Senator Ludwig—that is, that communities in the NT should have been able to examine this legislation and should have been able to appear before a committee to give us their opinion. This affects not only the Tiwi Islands; this also affects other areas in the NT. I bet the NLC and the CLC have fairly strong opinions on these issues. These are very significant issues that should be examined.

The other thing is that the minister said that an agreement had been reached between the traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands and the government. There was a big brouhaha about it, there was a media release, but in fact no such agreement has been reached. An MOU has been signed, with, I understand, still quite a bit of further work to be done. Information that was given to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs during estimates turned out to be incorrect. That is the information we found out about; we do not know how much more of that was incorrect. We do not know the full implications of this legislation, and we certainly will not be able to find it out in the short time that this place will have to consider it without it going to the community affairs committee to be examined.

I do not think enough information was provided by the government to justify why this lease has to be rushed through. It is the same sort of thing that was done last time with land rights legislation. It was rushed through, despite the government saying they had done extensive consultation, and everybody knew that large parts of that legislation had not been subject to consultation. It was the same thing with native title amendments: many of those changes were not subject to consultation. Now we have yet another repeat of the government rushing through legislation and not giving us adequate time to consider it and not even having the answers themselves.

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

There are a few aspects of this report that I would like to comment on. Firstly, I would like to note that the report does refer the legislation dealing with the citizenship test to a committee. That committee has about six weeks to examine that issue, which is much longer than committees are used to getting these days but still not quite as long as the Democrats would have liked, as is shown in the appendix to the report. But at least there is some opportunity for that examination, which is more consultation than was provided when the whole issue was first put on the agenda at the end of last year.

The Democrats also share the concerns regarding the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. This is compounding an error. When the very significant amendments to the land rights act were put through the Senate last year, they were sent to a committee and the time frame for that inquiry was totally inadequate. When you are dealing with an issue that is so fundamental, that is so important and that affects people’s rights so directly then you need to make sure that consultation was done properly. It was very clear that there was insufficient consultation with a whole range of affected traditional owner groups in the Northern Territory. That increased their anxiety, that increased their concern, and it was so obvious that that was going to happen.

Indeed, I can remember speaking in this chamber when such notions as changes to the land rights act were first floated by the government and saying that I welcomed the opportunity to debate those and that I did not have a closed mind; but the one thing the government had to do was to make sure that those changes were put forward and that the people who were directly affected were given an adequate opportunity to consult and to consider those changes. It was not so much that I or other senators should have been given the opportunity to look at them; it was that the people who were directly affected should have been given the opportunity to look at them so that they could inform us and inform themselves.

That process was so flawed that eventually even the minister himself—after it had gone through parliament, of course—did concede that there were a few flaws with the process and that it could have been done better. Yet what do we see here—legislation, admittedly much narrower in its focus but still dealing with issues and concerns that are very current, very alive, very controversial and very much surrounded in uncertainty, and the committee is being prevented from looking at it at all. If there were a start-up date of 1 July that relied on a budget measure or something like that then maybe you could justify it, but there is not.

There is simply not sufficient reason to say that this has to be rubber-stamped now and that there is no opportunity for community input or examination of the issues surrounding the legislation. It is an extremely serious abuse, I would argue, of the Senate’s power. It is a very dangerous precedent, one of the many precedents that have been set in this area in the last couple of years. But the trouble, of course, is that this becomes an ingrained practice and we all become used to it.

There are a couple of other Senate committees that are reporting back on Monday. Maybe we can get away with that sort of time frame for those bills, but we are getting more examples of grossly inadequate time frames that are simply not allowing the people who are directly affected to be consulted—let alone allowing the Senate, which is making these decisions, to consider the issues. If we become used to that practice being the norm, to that being usual—another rubber-stamped Senate committee—it will become ingrained in the community as well.

I am certainly starting to hear from people who are saying: ‘There’s no point in putting in a submission to a committee because the time frame is not long enough. It is not being taken seriously, it is being rushed through and it is all going to be rubber-stamped.’ Even if that is not accurate 100 per cent of the time—and it is not accurate 100 per cent of the time; I accept that the government does sometimes listen to recommendations in committee reports—and if that is the attitude that is developing out there then that is a serious problem and it is degrading the Senate committee system.

I would also note that the Democrats wished to have the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 referred to a committee. That has not been agreed to. I will not push that point in terms of an amendment, because there is no point. We all get used to not bothering anymore, but the point still needs to be raised that we believe it merited examination. Indeed I would suggest that other legislation dealing with journalists’ privilege—which I know is important and which I know people want passed but which only appeared less than a month ago—would have merited some examination as well. It is a serious concern and one that we need to flag every time. Otherwise, these sorts of things will become accepted practice and the Senate will not be the only loser; the community will be as well.

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

I thank most senators in this debate for having kept their contributions very brief, and I will be doing the same. In relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007, I think it needs to be recalled that the substantive bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, was in fact referred to the relevant committee for detailed consideration. The amendment bill deals with the issue of being able to allow the first township lease to be in place on the Tiwi Islands by July, when it is expected to be signed. We hope this legislation will come into force at the end of this financial year so that Aboriginal landowners will be actually given some degree of choice, which I understand the stakeholders in fact want.

In relation to Senator Siewert’s comments on this piece of legislation, in fairness, questions that you think are important at Senate estimates are not necessarily answered as the information is not at officials’ fingertips. In Senator Siewert’s contribution she indicated that she was provided with an answer a few hours later, which I think indicates that we are as responsive as we possibly can be and, of course, so are the departmental officials present. The fact that they do not have all the information at their fingertips all the time is not a matter for which any criticism ought to be levelled. It is good news for anybody listening that the officials go away and, within a matter of hours, are able to provide the answers that are being sought.

Regarding Senator Bartlett’s contribution, I think we got a tick and a cross in relation to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. That is a new bill and we thought it appropriate that it be given appropriate time for consideration. We are looking forward to seeing full consideration by the committee in relation to that. As I said regarding the Aboriginal land rights legislation, it is just an amendment to legislation that was looked into substantively by the relevant committee only last year.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 is a budget measure and needs to be passed as soon as possible to provide certainty to universities who will start receiving first-round applications in September this year. Universities need to make plans now for the courses they will be offering next year. Those are the reasons: it is a budget measure and it is something that universities need to prepare themselves for by 1 January 2008. That is why we want this piece of legislation dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Question agreed to.