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

I present the 12th report of 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. 12 OF 2007

1.

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 at 4.17 pm.

2.

The committee resolved to recommend—That the provisions of the Water Bill 2007 and Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date. (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral).

3.

The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees: Independent Contractors Amendment Bill 2007Migration (Climate Refugees) Amendment Bill 2007Peace and Non-Violence Commission Bill 2007

The committee recommends accordingly.

4.

The committee considered a proposal to refer the Lobbying and Ministerial Accountability Bill 2007 to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be referred.

5.

The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees) Amendment Bill 2007

Stephen Parry

Chair

9 August 2007.

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Water Bill 2007

Water (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Purpose of the Bills

The Water Bill establishes an overriding Commonwealth water resource management function across the Murray-Darling Basin and a national water data collection, analysis and information service within the Bureau of Meteorology.

The Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill makes amendments to the Meteorology Act 1955, the National. Water Commission Act 2004, and the Trade Practices Act 1974 in order to give effect to the Water Bill.

Reasons for Urgency

The Water Bill and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill are necessary to implement the measures contained within the National Plan for Water Security.

These bills are necessary to implement the measures contained within the National Plan for Water Security.

The current arrangements for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin by consensus of the relevant states, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Commonwealth have failed to deliver timely and adequate responses to the accelerating over use and degradation of the water resources of the Basin. The National Plan for Water Security provides for these measures to be addressed subject to placing the Basin under overriding Commonwealth authority.

These bills, together as a package, provide for Commonwealth management of the Murray-Darling Basin and are a prerequisite for the implementation of the assistance and reform measures set out in the National Plan for Water Security. Failure to implement the measures quickly will delay the reforms and allow the degradation and over use of the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin to compound.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment, Communication, IT and the Arts

Possible hearing date(s):

10 August 2007

Possible reporting date:

14 August 2007

(signed)

S Parry

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Water Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Very significant change to Land & Water management in the Murray Darling system

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Farmers

Farmer organisations

Environment Groups

Local Government

State Government

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs & Trnasport

Possible hearing date(s):

10 August 2007

Possible reporting date:

14 August 2007

(signed)

Rachel Siewert

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 “and, in respect of the provisions of the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007, the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee report by 14 August 2007”.

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

The Democrats have serious concerns about the date of 14 August that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate has put forward, which the observant amongst you would realise is next Tuesday. That is, frankly, an absurdly short time frame. The Democrats’ view is that we should be seeking to have the committee report back on the first sitting date in September, which, off the top of my head, I think is 10 or 11 September, when we come back after the APEC meeting.

The water bills, as we all know, are very significant, hugely historic in lots of ways and not necessarily something that the Democrats oppose—certainly not in principle. We have made that very clear publicly a number of times. I do not know how many times I can say this in this place: we have a responsibility to do the job right. I know the Prime Minister has his political agenda and I know that state governments have their political agendas; the farming lobby and the environment lobby have their political agendas. The Senate’s job is to make sure that we look at what is actually going to become law.

Let us look at the reality of what the government’s proposal will mean. These incredibly significant pieces of legislation deal with the Murray-Darling Basin. As we all know, we have these bills because the Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis; it is at an absolute, total crisis point. If serious and effective action is not taken very promptly, that damage will be permanent. That does not mean that if we do not get these bills passed by next week that damage will be permanent. The prospects of saving the situation are dramatically enhanced if we do it right and do not pass them until September, in one month’s time.

It is ludicrous to suggest that that would be the case, given that this has dragged on all year. As we know, it came out of absolutely nowhere when the Prime Minister made his grand announcement. I will not speculate on his motivation because, whatever that was, there is no doubt that action needed to happen. So he made his grand announcement out of nowhere, as we all know, without consultation even with cabinet, Treasury, or a whole lot of people in the government, let alone anywhere else, saying that this was crucial and that we needed to surge ahead. Here we are in August and we are just now getting some legislation. Even today, we do not know if the New South Wales government is now supportive or not.

I am not commenting on any of those disputes and differences of views; what I am commenting on is the Senate’s responsibility to get it right. It is totally ludicrous to suggest that we can examine this legislation and hear from the stakeholders, from the people who will be directly affected, from the state governments, from the farmers, from the environmental experts, from the scientists and from affected Indigenous people in this space of time.

The reality of this proposal from the government, if it goes ahead, will be that we hold a Senate committee hearing tomorrow. In less than 24 hours time, people will be expected to come and give evidence on these bills—people who do not even know that they are invited yet, people who do not even know what time they are going to be appearing, people who have had less than 24 hours to provide a written submission. They are all meant to suddenly get to Canberra and provide informed opinion to the Senate so we can assess whether we are getting this right. Can anyone here credibly tell me that that is a responsible process? Of course it is not. It is grossly irresponsible. It is a dereliction of our most fundamental duty.

Just yesterday, or the day before, the Prime Minister—quite rightly, in my view—slammed Queensland Premier Peter Beattie for railroading through all the changes to local government and not consulting with the people who will be directly affected, and not giving them a chance to have their say. I am paraphrasing him here, but that is basically what he said. Yet, here we are doing it. We are doing it to the people of the Northern Territory and we are doing it to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. There is no opportunity for them to have their say on the massive changes being imposed on them. We will not get to hear the views of the people directly affected, let alone take advantage of their expertise.

And we are doing it again with the water bills and the Murray-Darling Basin. It is a huge, incredibly important area. This is major, groundbreaking legislation that is a huge shift in how things are dealt with. It has serious constitutional questions to consider and address, and there are obvious differences of views about how it is going to operate in terms of the key stakeholders. And we are meant to just have a hearing tomorrow. We have just come from a meeting of the committee and we are still sorting out the witnesses for the hearing. It is just ludicrous. This is what this government has reduced the Senate to by grossly misusing its Senate power. It is a fundamental breach of the Prime Minister’s promise after the last election when he promised he would not abuse the Senate power. He has done it time and time again and he is doing it now. (Time expired)

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

The Greens wanted the water bills referred to a different committee, although we are happy they are going to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. But we do believe that the committee should be reporting on 10 September. This legislation contains fundamental, major changes to the way land and water are managed in Australia. There are a number of organisations that will want to review the legislation. At our first look at the bills, the Greens found some good areas in the legislation, but we do have some concerns, particularly about some of the environmental clauses, how the environment is going to be managed and whether it is going to be environmentally sustainable.

We need much more time to be able to consider this legislation. The community groups do too. I am particularly concerned that Indigenous organisations are not going to have time to look at this legislation properly. I have already had an Indigenous organisation contact my office to raise concerns with me about the bills and the lack of inclusion of traditional rights and Indigenous involvement in the management of the river. It is highly unlikely that organisations will be able to get a submission in by tomorrow, much less appear tomorrow before the committee, because the committee is meeting tomorrow. Organisations are being contacted now to come to Canberra tomorrow. If you are not based in Canberra or very close to Canberra, you will not be able to appear before the committee. You may be able to be on a phone link-up, but that is not as good as being able to appear before the committee and being able to listen to the evidence from the other people appearing.

This is significant, long-term change to Australia’s biggest river system and to our largest agricultural producing system. It has some of our most important wetlands and our most important rivers. It is absolutely vital that everybody has an opportunity to adequately review this legislation. Again, as happened yesterday on the Northern Territory legislation, I do not think any senator will be able to stand with their hand on their heart and say that they absolutely understand all the ramifications of the bills—there are two bills in this package of legislation. In the past, I have raised concerns about how this particular bill and water management interrelate with the natural resource management in the catchment. To date, I have not been given satisfactory answers. Unfortunately, in the limited time frame that is available for consideration of these bills, I do not think that those answers will be available.

There is a vast variety of stakeholders and issues involved here, covering an area from Queensland right through to South Australia. How, for example, are South Australian urban water users going to be able to get hold of this legislation, adequately review it and put in a submission by tomorrow? I see no reason why, other than the government’s desire to rush this through this place, we could not hold an inquiry during the September break. I think that would allow a much more thorough process. It would be much fairer for the community and it would certainly be much fairer for the senators considering this legislation. It would enable us to consider all the information that is available.

As I said, it seems like there are some very good bits in this legislation, but there are also very significant problems that need to be adequately considered. The Greens do not support the motion moved by the government to have this committee report by Tuesday. We believe it should be reporting on 10 September to allow adequate time to fully consider the ramifications of this legislation and the very significant changes it makes to the way we manage our water and natural resources. This is probably the last time that we will be able to put in place adequate management regimes for the Murray before it dies. If we do not get it right this time, it will basically be gone. And bear this in mind: if the environment of the Murray is gone, agriculture in the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin will be permanently changed. So we have to get it right. You would think the government would allow adequate time for us to get it right this one last time, because this is our last chance to get it right.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, that the report of the Selection of Bills Committee be adopted, as amended, be agreed to.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Lobbying and Ministerial Accountability Bill 2007, the bill be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2007”.

The report reads at point (4):

(4)           The committee considered a proposal to refer the Lobbying and Ministerial Accountability Bill 2007 to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be referred.

So the committee was unable to come to agreement on that. The fact is that the committee is in default there by saying that it should not be referred. I stand to be corrected, but I would think that means that the government does not agree with this important bill being referred.

The Lobbying and Ministerial Accountability Bill 2007, which I brought into the Senate some weeks ago, requires ministers to divest themselves of all shares or move them to a blind trust within 28 days of becoming a minister. It also requires the public registration and regulation of lobbyists and it places limits on the post-separation employment of ministers for up to two years after leaving the parliament. It is a bill to increase public confidence in the body politic and in particular in the decisions made by parliamentarians. It aims to remove the spectre of undue influence being placed on ministers or, through lobbyists, on all members of parliament.

It is an important bill. It will bring Australia into line with the practice in overseas countries like Britain and Canada, through greater transparency of the activities of lobbyists in parliament and the behaviour of parliamentarians. In particular, it will remove the possibility of instant jobs for members of parliament after they leave this place, where, on behalf of sectoral interests, they are able to influence the decisions made in parliament.

This bill should be referred to a committee. It should be available for public comment and it should be on a trajectory to be dealt with and debated in this parliament during this period of government. It is not satisfactory for the committee to have determined, by failure to agree, that the bill will not be referred to a committee. I object to that. There is no reason given by the majority or the government. I do not know what is to be gained by refusing to have an analysis of this bill. That speaks volumes in itself. The inference can be drawn that the government simply does not want the accountability which this bill would bring to Australian politics. It is running away from it. Be that as it may, I am now moving this amendment so that the bill does get referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for report by October and does get the public input that it deserves.

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

The government opposes the amendment. I will outline for those who may be interested that John Howard is in fact the first Prime Minister to have established a public ministerial code. Most of these issues have been previously considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, through Senator Murray’s Charter of Political Honesty Bill. A report on that bill was tabled, I understand, some five years ago.

This is a stunt by Senator Bob Brown. Neither the parliament nor successive governments have imposed constraints on former ministers as to what employment they may take up after leaving office. It has been left to an individual’s judgement.

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

What poor judgement has been shown!

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

As Senator Brown interjects, I simply say to those who may be listening that to come to this debate you have to come with clean hands. Senator Brown does not, because of his personal conduct with his own private RJ Brown Forest Account, which he has not properly disclosed to this place. We had to bring him back for the register of senators’ interests.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. That was referred to a committee, which made no such finding. The imputation is not warranted, is unjustified and should be withdrawn.

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

I ask the minister to address his comments to the amendment.

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

The amendment is in relation to standards. If somebody wants to come into this chamber and try to impose standards on others, I think it is more than appropriate for us to consider the standards they apply to themselves—such as raising money on the basis of saying: ‘This is a rock I found in the Franklin River. Who will buy it at auction?’ You get $1,000 for it and never disclose who was the purchaser of that rock, and then the person gives the rock back to Senator Brown at the end of the auction. Just imagine if a minister of the Crown were engaged in such funny money deals. Senator Brown would be the most outraged of any individual, with all the puffed up, faux outrage that we have now come to expect from him. Senator Brown is the one who gets personal loans from lawyers in Hobart and discloses them a long time after they should have been disclosed. It is about time the Australian people knew the facts about Senator Brown, whenever he puts his hand on his heart and asserts integrity in public life, money and public disclosure. If we were to behave in the way that Senator Brown does, there would be outrage, especially from our friends in the media.

We believe that the standards that have been applied are the highest that have ever been applied. One thing the Australian people can be assured of is that we will never descend to the sorts of rock auctions that Senator Brown has engaged in and his failure to disclose. When he disclosed to the Senate about his donations, he only put names—sometimes only with initials—so you had no idea where the people lived. We now know that some of those people were overseas donors. I think it is about time that Senator Brown got his own house in order, before he tries to assert these standards and before he tries to clean the few specks of dust that may exist in other people’s houses.

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

I would like to get back to the debate at hand. I am not quite sure how this has degenerated into personal attacks, but nothing surprises me in this place at the moment. I want to place on record that the Australian Democrats are happy to support the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens. One of the reasons for us supporting that is the policy matter that is before us for debate. As the then Leader of the Australian Democrats back in 2002, I introduced a comparable piece of legislation. I note that Senator Abetz also acknowledged Senator Murray’s charter of honesty legislation—the Minister of State Post Retirement Employment Restriction Bill 2002—which was reintroduced in 2004.

This is worthy legislation that deserves examination and report. For that reason we will be supporting it. It is because of the policy matter only—on that basis—that we are happy to support this amendment. Mr President, as you would well be aware, my colleague and the Democrats deputy leader, Senator Bartlett, has repeatedly placed on record our views in relation to the selection of bills process.

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

We have before us a motion to refer the Lobbying and Ministerial Accountability Bill 2007 to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. In the Selection of Bills Committee, individual senators seek to have matters or private members’ bills referred to a particular Senate committee for an inquiry and its report. Under the previous system—before we combined the two Senate committees—it may have been a more general reference that would have been referred, and it would have come here. The usual answer that the opposition gives to these things is that references by individual senators should generally be referred to committees. Those committees then are able to inquire into them within reasonable time frames to look at the particular issues. That is the general principle that Labor has supported.

Since the government’s changes to the committee system, we now have one committee that deals with both legislation and references. With the matters that go to the Selection of Bills Committee for determination, if the committee cannot come to a reasoned conclusion or agreement on these matters—as clearly it did not do, because the government was not able to agree, it seems from Senator Abetz’s statements today—then we have to have the argument here. That does not always reflect all the matters that should be taken into account in dealing with the issue.

To Senator Brown, through you, Mr President: one of the matters that concern me is that the time frame is a little bit short. Firstly, there is the workload of the particular committee. Also, the committee usually advertises these matters once they have been referred and, depending on the committee’s workload, there may be a return date of four to six weeks for people to make reasonable submissions. That is what happens in the usual course of events where someone wants a proper inquiry; we are not so much talking about the situation where the government wants a short inquiry.

The committee’s time frame before reporting back is particularly short. In this instance, I am not sure whether an October return date will actually end up happening. We may end up in a position where we have been prorogued at that point. It is, of course, in the government’s hands when that is likely to occur, but we have heard that there is going to be an election some time at the end of this year—most likely in November. The government are obviously not going to confirm that—although it would be helpful if they did—but that seems to be the broad suggestion. It concerns me that, if you have an October date, we may not be back here to be able to deal with the matter in any sense. Then the committee itself will have to make a general consideration as to what resources it will put into these things and how the submissions will then be dealt with. After the election, it is a question of whether the committee will pull that report back up again and continue on. Having said all that and hopefully explained the matter to Senator Brown, I emphasise that this underlines the difficulty that the committee might have in dealing with this particular reference.

We will not take a position of opposing it, but we do note all of those problems that might arise. I think that Senator Brown should consider these matters if he really wants these things to be proceeded with in a sensible way and to be dealt with. We are not going to take the government’s view about these things. The government provides for short committee inquiries. In our view, it does not allow the time to have these inquiries dealt with in a proper way and we are not going to buy into its argument. We make the point with regard to Senator Brown’s particular inquiry that he might be falling into the same trap that the government falls into when it makes these types of committee arrangements.

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

I want to place a couple of things clearly on the record in relation to the specific matter that we are dealing with here. It is a proposal, through Senator Brown, for a private senator’s bill of his to be considered by a Senate committee. I am not going to go to the merits or otherwise of what is in the bill; others have done that. That is what Senate committees are actually for.

Once upon a time there used to be a convention in this place whereby, if anybody wanted a bill referred to a committee for examination, unless there were extraordinarily pressing reasons, the Senate would agree to it and the Selection of Bills Committee would agree to it. There might have been a difference of opinion over reporting dates, but if somebody wanted to refer a bill—if even one senator wanted to refer a bill—because they thought it merited examination then the Senate would agree to it. I do not know how many times you have to destroy a convention before it no longer applies at all. I suspect we are already at that point. That is one of the problems with the government’s approach as they have got control of the Senate: they have degraded and debauched and besmirched the Senate process and the whole nature of the Senate’s activities so thoroughly that you have to wonder—even if they do lose control of the Senate at the coming election, and whoever ends up in government—whether the Senate will go back to having some of the more thorough and more independent accountability and examination processes that it had in the past. That to me is a real concern, and that is why I am pleased that Labor have taken a position of being prepared to support this. It does not mean they think it is a great idea. They are not convinced that the timing is right. But, with respect to appropriate recognition of the role of the Senate, if somebody wants to put a bill forward, unless there is a really strong reason not to do so, you do it.

That goes to the second point I wanted to make. The Senate is not a house of government. The Senate should be an independent chamber examining legislation and private senators’ bills. This even goes to the point that Senator Ludwig was making about time frames. Particularly with private senators’ bills, we bring them back at a certain time; that does not mean we bring them back at a certain time so we can bring them on for debate straightaway.

As we all know, in many cases we put forward private senators’ bills not because we are expecting them to come on for debate, much as we might like them to, but to try to get issues considered, to try and inform the Senate more fully about the sorts of matters that are contained in the legislation and to try and get all of us to think about the possibilities of inserting those sorts of legislative principles in laws, perhaps in other contexts, including in government legislation that comes through. That is why it is totally valid for a Senate committee to examine something—even, I might say, in the lead-up to an election.

We know there will be an election sometime before the end of the year, and I would assume that has significantly influenced Senator Brown’s choice of date. But, given that this legislation that is proposed to be referred to the committee is not going to be brought on for a vote before the election, even that becomes somewhat academic. The level of interest from those on the committee who are focused on the election may be less than 100 per cent. But there is more to Senate committees than the senators who sit on the committees. There are the people in the wider community who have the expertise and the views, and there is the opportunity for those things to go on the public record through submissions.

I would point to my experience in referring one of my own private senators’ bills, relating to animal welfare. That had massive public interest. I think we had over 200 submissions. The rest of the committee were so uninterested they did not even bother to hold a public hearing and brought down what I thought was a derisory, perfunctory report. That is fine, in one sense: that is their view and that is the process they decided to take. But the opportunity to have all of that material, all those views, collated in one place on the public record for everybody to make use of in formulating public policy in a particular area down the track is important. So it is not all about the government. It is not even all about us. It is not all about just pushing legislation through. It is about getting a more informed public policy debate and a wider range of ideas about potential legislative reform in a much broader and ongoing context. That is why, unless there are very good reasons, we should not be opposing references of private senators’ bills to committees. It does not get in the way of the government’s program in the chamber at all. It does not even necessarily distract senators on committees. They do not have to hold public hearings if they do not want to. What it does do, by blocking it, is prevent the issue from being examined more thoroughly by the people in the wider community. The government might be happy to silence the rest of us in this chamber regularly, but they should not be so readily silencing people in the wider community.

Question put:

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