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

I present the 13th report of 2007 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 13 OF 2007

(1)

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 4.17 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a)

the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees) Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 17 September 2007 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b)

the National Market Driven Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 22 October 2007 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c)

the provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2007 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral);

(d)

the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 11 September 2007 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral);

(e)

the provisions of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 6 September 2007 (see appendix 5 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(f)

the provisions of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2007 (see appendix 6 for statements of reasons for referral).

(3)

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

• APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007
• Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2007
• National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2007.

The committee recommends accordingly.

(4)

The committee considered proposals to refer the Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 and the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bills should be referred.

(5)

The committee agreed to reconvene to consider bills to be introduced on 16 August 2007, with a view to reporting again to the Senate later today.

(Stephen Parry)

Chair

16 August 2007

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees) Amendment Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Australians should not have to pay exorbitant bank penalty fees.

This bill will stop fee gouging by banking by:

• Ensuring fees are for cost recovery.
• Boosting the powers of ASIC, etc

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Choice

ASIC

Australian Bankers Association

Consumer Action Law Centre

Etc.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

5-7 September 07

Possible reporting date:

17 September 2007

(signed) 8/8/07

Fiona Nash

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

National Market Driven Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

To examine the provisions of the bill relating to definition of energy efficiency activities, monitoring and verification of energy efficiency savings, the energy efficiency improvement potential of the economy, the level of the energy efficiency target and the impacts to the economy and productivity benefits including impacts to GDP, inflation, employment and technology innovation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Origin Energy

Truenergy

AGL

Australian Greenhouse Office

Department of Industry Tourism and Resources

Business Council for Sustainable Energy

Energy Performance Contracting Association of Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

22 October 2007

(signed)

Andrew Bartlett

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

This Bill amends section 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take legal action on behalf of persons who have suffered or are likely to suffer loss or damage as a result of unlawful secondary boycotts.

Currently, the ACCC cannot take such action even though it is able to do so in relation to all other forms of anticompetitive conduct under Part I V of the Trade Practices Act. There is no good reason for excluding secondary boycott conduct.

The Government believes that people affected by unlawful secondary boycotts should have access to the same remedies as people suffering loss or damage as a result of all other forms of anticompetitive conduct under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act.

The relevant secondary boycott provisions are contained in sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act.

A secondary boycott involves action by two or more people acting in concert, which prevents a third party, such as a potential customer or supplier, from dealing with or doing business with the target. The innocent third party, who has nothing to do with the dispute which is the subject of the direct boycott, suffers loss or damage as a result of the boycott.

Sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act deal with two types of secondary boycotts. Section 45D prohibits two persons from acting in concert to hinder or prevent a third person from supplying or acquiring goods or services from the target of the boycott, where the purpose or likely effect of the conduct is to cause substantial loss or damage to the business of the target.

Section 45E prohibits a person from making an agreement with a trade union for the purpose of preventing or hindering the supply or acquisition of goods or services between that person and the target of the boycott.

At present, the ACCC is able to investigate and prosecute unlawful secondary boycotts under sections 45D and 45E, but it cannot bring representative actions. That is, the ACCC cannot seek compensation for damages on behalf for parties affected by a contravention of the provisions.

On previous occasions when Parliament has considered extending representative actions to these provisions, the debate has centred on whether the provisions themselves should form part of the Act or whether they should be reclassified as questions of industrial relations.

On this issue, the Government’s position is clear: this is a matter of competition policy, because trade is adversely affected in the market affected by an unlawful boycott. Secondary boycotts can have a significant impact on our economy. They disrupt trade, they reduce output and they inhibit competition. It is important that we provide a strong disincentive for those people who would target, intimidate and bully small business by applying a secondary boycott to that business.

As the provisions are part of the Trade Practices Act, it makes sense to allow the ACCC to have consistent enforcement powers across all the provisions in Part TV.

In relation to concerns about extending the ACCC’s capacity to take representative actions, it should be emphasised that the Government’s changes will not create a new cause of action. Unlawful secondary boycotts are already prohibited by the Trade Practices Act, and the ACCC can currently obtain substantial penalties against parties who contravene sections 45D and 45E. These reforms are about enabling the ACCC to bring a representative action seeking compensation and other remedies.

The ACCC takes into consideration a number of factors in determining whether it will bring a representative action, including the resources available to those affected to bring their own action. Therefore, these reforms will be of particular benefit to Australian small businesses that often do not have either the time or resources to commence legal action.

For over 10 years, the Government has committed itself to implementing reforms which provide fairer outcomes for small business. This commitment is in recognition of not only the significant contribution small business makes to our economy, but also of the fact that the nearly two million Australian small businesses often lack the power and resources to take action when they experience unfair treatment. This is particularly so in relation to secondary boycotts, as small businesses operating on tight margins and with limited cash flows find it difficult to bear both the cost of the secondary boycott and the burden of initiating legal proceedings.

As a result of this Bill, those who would inflict economic damage on small Australian businesses under s 45D and 45E of the Act will no longer be able to do this with impunity. Instead, they will be held to account for the economic damage that they cause as the ACCC will, for the first time, be able to bring a representative action on behalf of those small businesses.

The Government reaffirms its commitment to stand up for small business against thuggery and intimidation. It is vital, both for our economy and our way of life.

These amendments will achieve greater consistency in the administration of the Trade Practices Act and provide Australian small businesses with greater protection from unlawful secondary boycott conduct.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

5 September 2007

(signed)

Stephen Parry

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The effect of repealing section 327 of the Act

The duration of production licences in the light of amendments to the Act

Confirm at the desirability of phone provisions aimed at improving the operation of the Act

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Request submission on the above.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

11 September 07

(signed)

George Campbell

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

The bill:

• Establishes a single, national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, abatement actions and energy consumption and production by corporations from 1 July 2008.
• Eliminates unnecessary costs currently imposed on the Australian economy through streamlining duplicative reporting requirements under a patchwork of separate state, territory and national reporting programmes.
• Enables the secure sharing of nationally consistent data, under robust security and confidentiality protection arrangements, between the Australian Government and state and territory governments to better inform the climate change response and energy policies of all governments.

The Australian Government will invest over $26 million over five years to implement the national reporting system.

Key features of the system are:

• a single online entry point for reporting based on the Online System for Comprehensive Activity Reporting (OSCAR), which is recognised as a world class application;
• public disclosure of company level greenhouse gas emissions and energy data for the first time;
• consistent and comparable data provided to government for policy making; and
• reporting thresholds that avoid capturing small business.

Thresholds and timing for reporting

The first reports under the new national streamlined system will be due in October 2009. Companies will report greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and production for the preceding 12-month period from I July 2008 to 30 June 2009.

Companies emitting more than 125,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases or using or producing more than 500 terajoules of energy will be required to report at the start of the new system, as will facilities emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases or using or producing 1 00 terajoules of energy.

The threshold for companies will be phased down over time to 50,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases or 200 terajoules of energy used or produced, to allow new reporting companies to prepare for their reporting requirements. The facility threshold will remain the same.

Relationship to Emissions Trading

The Bill underpins the Australian Emissions Trading system, announced by the Prime Minister on 17 July 2007.

Robust data reported under the Bill will provide sound information to inform decision making during the establishment of the trading system, including permit allocation and incentives for early abatement action.

Development of the Bill

Introduction of this Bill gives effect to the April 2007 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) decision to establish a mandatory National Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reporting System.

The design of the national reporting system is consistent with the proposal developed through the COAG and consulted on during October 2006 with all levels of Government and industry.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment, Communications, IT and the Arts

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

6 September 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 Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Arbitrary nature of Thresholds – Part 2, 13

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Emissions Trading Experts

State Governments, Academics, Economists

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

E.C.I.F.A.

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

George Campbell

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Defence Legislation Amendment 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:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

5 September

(signed)

Stephen Parry

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the following bills, the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee:

(a)

Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007 for inquiry and report by 13 September 2007; and

(b)

Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 for inquiry and report by 10 September 2007”.

It is becoming a regular Thursday morning activity for the government to come in here and whack down its desired outcome for bills to be referred to the Selection of Bills Committee and to demonstrate its willingness to ignore the views of anyone else in this chamber. I repeat once again that, unless there has been an extremely good reason, the longstanding convention has been that any request for a bill to be referred to the committee has been agreed to. Certainly I have heard of no reason of any substance to explain why the Democrats’ request for these two pieces of legislation to be sent to the committee should be rejected by the government. The government’s attitude seems to be: ‘We don’t like it, so we’re not going to support it being referred.’ Frankly, that is not good enough. The government is quite entitled to vote against the bills should they come on for debate in this chamber, but to block the bills from being examined by committee and to deny the opportunity to seek public input into these bills are very different matters.

It is very important to maintain the distinction that referring a bill to a committee does not indicate support for what is in the bill; it indicates support for the concept of enabling a bill and the matters that the bill addresses to be examined. Putting forward policy proposals in a legislative form is, I think, probably the key task of a parliament or a legislature. To refuse to allow that to be done without good reason or without any reason of any consequence at all other than, ‘We don’t feel like it,’ or ‘We don’t want that issue to be raised,’ is, in my view, just not good enough.

It should be emphasised that the Selection of Bills Committee Report No. 13 of 2007 is referring six bills, including—I accept—two private senators’ bills. The government is going to request the referral of the four other bills to committee later this afternoon. This has also become a consistent pattern: bills that we have not seen or bills that have just been introduced that morning are referred across to a committee.

The two Democrat private senators’ bills would require only short inquiries. This is partly a reflection of the reality that there is a real prospect that the next sitting could be the last before the election. It is also partly a reflection of reality that, whilst the legislation that we are seeking to refer has not been examined previously, despite what the government might say, it is an attempt to put into legislative form issues that have been raised. I point particularly to the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007. The Democrats have had legislation seeking to remove discrimination in this area in this chamber since 1995. So the broad issue is not new, but the form in which it is being put forward here is new. This is new legislation, and it is being put forward in the first sitting week after a report was brought down by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, following a comprehensive inquiry. It is a new piece of legislation; it is in a new format. It might be addressing an old issue but it is addressing it in a new way, following a comprehensive inquiry.

That is one reason why the Senate inquiry does not need to be particularly long. It is simply examining whether or not the legislation adequately addresses the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. I emphasise that support for the principle of this report has been expressed by people across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, we keep seeing support expressed for the principle, but any efforts to enact that principle in law continue to be blocked. This seems to be another example of where an effort to implement a principle that everybody says they support is blocked by the government. This shows that the government’s words cannot be believed. The government are not genuine about addressing this issue of discrimination against same-sex couples, because they keep blocking every attempt to address it—and this is yet another one.

Migration is another area where the issues are old. These issues were raised and debated here in 1998. However, the context in which migration laws are operating is new, so I believe that it is appropriate for them to be examined. A new bill has been put forward; it was introduced last week. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I congratulate you on your new position. I want to make a short contribution on the Democrats motion. We will not be opposing it but I want to make a particular point: the strength and test of a government is its ability to allow dissent. In this instance, the government has demonstrated its inability to allow matters to be aired, to be scrutinised by the Senate and to be dealt with by the Senate, particularly where the government may fundamentally disagree.

Senator Bartlett has encapsulated what is the ability of the Senate—the ability to scrutinise, to look at the issues and to have debate in the committees, which then report back to the Senate. That is all that Senator Bartlett has asked for. He has not asked for a view from the government about the veracity or otherwise of the particular piece of legislation. Senator Bartlett understands that there may be differing views in the Senate on the bill and the difficulties that might surround how it might be progressed. Senator Bartlett accepts that.

This is the difficulty that I see with what this government has turned the Selection of Bills Committee into. We now have a situation where the government refers bills that it thinks the committee should look at, it accepts references—even, sometimes, when we may indicate as part of the Selection of Bills Committee that we do not have a view on whether the bill should be referred—and it denies references, based on the grounds that it thinks that the matter has already been looked into. I suspect that its argument in this instance will be that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has looked into this issue significantly and therefore no further work needs to be done. In this instance, there is a difference. This is about a legislative outcome and how that would be progressed. It is a different issue, in truth. The government simply rejects bills that it thinks should not be referred, because it wants them dealt with quickly in the chamber, or it sends them off for a short inquiry.

We now have a situation which is a far cry from where we used to be. The position which we adopted as a general principle in this place was that, within the usual confines, senators should be able to allow bills to be referred to committees for inquiry and examination. That does not predetermine the position that any party might adopt when the bill comes back here for debate—if it were to come back for debate, because sometimes they do not. The government has now sought to exert control over the outcome—and this is a poor outcome for the Senate more broadly.

The beauty of this place is that it allows debate and it allows committees to examine matters. Part of the ability of the committee structure is to allow scrutiny, to throw light into dark corners and to allow us to have arguments—and not to have them in here. That is part of the position as well, because, if you will not allow the committees to do work such as that which Senator Bartlett has put forward, the debates will come back into the chamber. Senators understand that, if they want matters to be progressed, they will have to progress them in here. We will then lose more time dealing with these issues on the floor of the chamber, instead of allowing the Senate committees to deal with them. I am also concerned about that. By not allowing the committees to do their work, more business is generated in here. You will then complain that not enough government business is being done. May I remind you that it may, in fact, be by your own hand.

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

The government opposes the motion put forward by Senator Bartlett. What Senator Bartlett and Senator Ludwig have told the Senate would, on the face of it, make a fair degree of sense, until you realise that the selection of bills proposal that the government is supporting is the referral of six bills to various committees. When you look at those six bills, you see that two of them are from the minor parties: one from Family First and one from the Leader of the Democrats herself, the National Market Driven Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007. The government has some questions about the policy intent of that bill, as it does with the Family First proposal, but it is more than happy for those bills to be referred to Senate committees. The bland argument that the government will not consider any dissent, that the government will not allow the reference of anything which it does not agree with, falls flat at the very first hurdle, which is: what are we actually debating? Out of the six bills being referred, two are from minor parties and the government has not indicated its support for them.

We as a government make a considered decision—and it would be good if every senator would do this—in relation to each bill that is proposed. We then look at the work, at the timing and at the particular value of each of the bills. In the case of the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007, we simply advise the Senate—and I dare say that this is, perhaps, where the idea of this bill came from—that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission reported on this very matter, and its report was tabled in this place on 27 June 2007.

Are we trying to stifle consideration? No. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which this government funds, received 680 submissions. That is a lot of public input and a lot of public consideration, and guess what? The government wants to consider the report. That is not unreasonable. Given that another arm has already investigated this—namely, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which received over 680 submissions on that particular issue—we believe it is a bit premature to have such a Senate inquiry.

The government does not support the referral of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 because most of the provisions the bill would seek to repeal—and that is what we are discussing—were enacted with the support of the then government and opposition. So this issue had a lot of public debate at the time the government and opposition agreed to it and now somebody is wanting to revisit the issues and repeal some of those sections. We are saying no, the Senate has had a fair crack at this already, has had a look at that, and, therefore, this is not a fresh and new debate—matters have already been considered.

We have taken a very principled and considered approach to all the bills put before us—the two new ones, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fair Bank and Credit Card Fees) Amendment Bill 2007 and the National Market Driven Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007, things that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have not looked into and things that the Senate has not debated before. These new and fresh matters are worthy of a Senate inquiry and that is why we support them, but we do not support the other matters which have already been given considerable airtime. When you manage these things, you have to determine value in consideration of each measure.

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

What a failure that was to respond to the submissions from the two earlier senators from the Democrats and the opposition. The government is simply dictating, through its numbers, which bills it will allow to go to committee and which it will not and which topics it decides it wants to have analysed by Senate committees and which it does not. It is a policy-driven decision made by an arrogant government which has taken over the committee system, which has the majority in the Senate and is dictating which topics affecting the Australian populace will get Senate scrutiny and which will not. This is a breach of the promise by the Prime Minister himself that he would not allow hubris to interfere when the government got the numbers to control this place. If ever there was an argument for the government to be stripped of seats in this Senate and put back into a minority, where it deserves to be, we are seeing it here this morning. Senator Abetz has fostered that argument and put it beautifully by his presentation—that sheer arrogance to deny oxygen to topics which should go to the Senate committee, such as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 and theSame-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007. The government says: ‘No, we don’t want to see those scrutinised. We don’t want to see how they might best be implemented. They’re complex pieces of legislation and we, in particular, don’t want to see our government’s failure in these areas under scrutiny.’

Senator Abetz has by his reverse argument, his negative presentation, really stated for us all how out of control the arrogance of the government is now that it has the numbers in this Senate and how we are going to see this Senate continue to be sidelined and its role under the Constitution put on the sideboard if this government continues to have a majority in this place.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might be helpful to the debate if the minister could give the Senate some indication of when the government expects to make a decision on the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007, or proposals therein, and whether the minister is prepared to provide—something which has been missing so far and is a good reason for sending this bill off to committee—details of the cost implications of these changes. We have heard some fairly rough, rubbery figures expressed here and there, but there are certainly big differences and gaps in the information that is needed. That was one of the reasons not to revisit the whole issue. I think HREOC did that very well indeed. We do not need to do that but we do need to look at the implications of this bill coming into force.

When is the government going to make up its mind on this issue? Will we have to wait until after the election or can we expect something fairly soon? After all, HREOC did an extensive inquiry. It seems to me there is only one consideration and that is: how soon can we implement it? Are we going to get a decision in the next few days, weeks or months or after the election? When will it be? Will the minister see to it that information about the cost implications that were mentioned are made available?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, Senator Abetz has already spoken and we are not in the committee stage of a bill, so I will put the question.

Question put:

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