Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report for 2008 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. 1 OF 2008

(1)

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 at 7.15 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That the Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2008 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

The committee recommends accordingly.

(3)

The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 to a committee (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral), but was unable to agree on the referral of the bill.

(Kerry O’Brien)

Chair

APPENDIX 1

13 February 2008

Senator Kerry O’Brien

Government Whip

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator O’Brien

I write to seek the agreement of the Selection of Bills Committee to refer the Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for inquiry.

The Bill was introduced to the Senate in September last year.

Alcohol is a major problem - it kills three times more Australians than all illicit drugs combined. Family First wants to address our alcohol toll to help change our binge drinking culture to a healthy drinking culture.

Family First’s Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 will:

• Require health information labels on all alcohol products;
• Require all alcohol ads to be pre-approved by a government body rather than a body rum by the alcohol industry;
• Restrict TV and radio alcohol advertising to after 9pm and before 5am to stop alcohol being marketed to young people;
• Ban alcohol ads which are aimed at children or which link drinking to personal, business, social, sporting, sexual or other success.

The inquiry could seek submissions and expert testimony from:

• Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation
• Australian Drug Foundation
• Arbias Ltd - Acquired Brain Injury Assessment and Consulting
• Dr Alex Wodak, St Vincent’s Hospital
• Professor Sandra Jones, University of Wollongong
• Australian Medical Association
• National Health and Medical Research Council
• Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia
• Australian Hotels Association

Hearings could be held in the week of 3 March and the Committee could report back to the Senate by Thursday, 20 March.

I would appreciate the Committee’s support to refer the Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 for an inquiry so that the Senate can examine how best to address the serious problem of binge drinking in Australia.

Yours sincerely

Senator Sieve Fielding

Family First Leader

Family First Senator for Victoria

APPENDIX 2

SENATOR THE HON. JOE LUDWIG

Minister for Human Services

Manager of Government Business in the Senate

Senator for Queensland

Senator O’Brien Government Whip

cc Richard Pye - Senate Table Office Senate PLO

SELECTION OF BILLS AGENDA

I write to seek your cooperation to have the following bill considered at the Selection of Bills Committee meeting on Wednesday 13 February 2008.

• Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008.

This bill is to be introduced into the House of Representatives on Wednesday 13 February 2008.

Yours sincerely

JOE LUDWIG

Minister for Human Services

12 February 2008

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Inquire and report by 3 March 2008 with particular reference to the impact of Australian Workplace Agreements on the employees and their families, employers and their businesses.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employer and employee organisations

Non-profit organisations

Academic experts

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education

Possible hearing date(s):

25-27 February, 2008

Possible reporting date:

3 March 2008

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2008”.

What we have here is a government that wants to ensure that AWAs end today by ensuring that the committee reports back to this place by 17 March; then the report will be available for debate in the March sitting period. Almost three months ago the Australian people voted for change. They did not vote for the coalition; they voted for a change. In doing so, they voted for a change in our workplace relations laws. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 delivers our key election commitment to the Australian people to change the workplace relations laws—the unfair laws that those opposite imposed on the Australian people which ripped away their conditions, took away the safety net and ensured they would suffer under the workplace relations laws.

We believe in a system which ensures that there is no place for AWAs, a system which has fairness at its heart. What the opposition believe in is a system that ensures that this unfairness and the rort under AWAs will continue. Up to the election you argued furiously for your workplace relations changes but you did not win the election. We have a clear mandate to ensure that AWAs end. This debate had an end point, and the end point was at the election. The passage of the AWA transitional amendment bill will ensure that it finishes in the March sitting. It finishes today.

We believe the opposition, particularly the opposition spokesperson on workplace relations, are now trying to pretend that none of this happened—that there was no election and that they did not lose it. Of course they did not win the election. What they are now saying is, ‘We will continue to have AWAs until such time as we think they should end.’ The Australian people have already spoken and have indicated that they should now end. What they are now saying is that they want a committee to continue on right up until 28 April and beyond so that employers can continue to enter into AWAs unfairly and hurt Australian people. They have clearly not heard the message from the Australian people in respect of this.

On the substantive matter, when you were in government you did not provide sufficient time for committees. You pushed through many bills by having short committee hearings: welfare to work, the IR legislation itself and the sale of Telstra. Again and again you put matters through committees but gave very little time to look at them. In this instance there is more than a month to deal with this substantive matter. It is not a complex matter; you will be able to deal with it in that time. I am sure you will also be able to listen to the employers and to the Australian people and hear that the matter of AWAs has now been dealt with. We will be able to get on with business in this Senate without your unduly delaying it and ensuring that AWAs continue to stay alive, because that is effectively what you are doing.

This government campaigned on the promise that we would take Australia forward with fairness without Australian workplace agreements. That was our promise to the Australian people and we will continue to ensure that that promise is realised in this place. We know your track record. It is a disgraceful track record. It is a track record that is mired and quagmired in AWAs and unfairness. It ensures that people will hurt under your AWAs. Be very clear about this: what you are now doing is ensuring that AWAs will continue; employers will be able to continue to enter into unfair AWAs past the time this bill could be debated in March and finalised. Every day after that you are going to ensure that it will continue. (Time expired)

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is clearly embarrassed by this, because two days ago we gave a notice of reference of this very important issue to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the government was caught sleeping at the wheel, because it did not even think of that. It knows that important legislation goes to a Senate committee, and that has been the practice for years. When it saw the notice of motion brought by the opposition it suddenly thought, ‘We’d better get on this bandwagon,’ and yesterday it rushed in a late reference to the Selection of Bills Committee with, initially, a reporting date of early March until pressure was put on them and the government then said 12 March. This was one of the most important issues in the election last year. There is no doubt that workplace relations was front and centre in the election held just a few months ago. This government was only going to give a few weeks for the review of that legislation.

What we propose is that the reporting date be 28 April. That is the alternative motion that we have put up. But to try and meet the government and accommodate its desire to move legislation along, we are suggesting that we could bring that forward to mid-April and have the Senate sit for the week commencing 5 May, before the budget, to consider that legislation and report. We have heard about the Prime Minister saying, ‘We’re back at work and we’re going to have Friday sittings in the other place.’ Let us see if he is going to put his money where his mouth is. Let us see if this bloke can really work, because I can tell you that we are willing to work. We are willing to bring back the Senate. The Senate has the lightest sitting pattern in the first half of this year that I have ever seen. I can tell you right now: it is a disgrace, because the government is scared. It is scared of Senate scrutiny.

What we are proposing is that this bill go to a Senate committee. We will bring forward the reporting date to accommodate the government but, importantly, we will set aside an extra week of sitting so that the Senate can consider that report and the legislation, and we will do it before the budget so that the government can get on to the important job of the budget. We recognise that. But let us have another sitting week beforehand. The government is refusing this. It is scared of work and it is lazy. I say to the people of Australia: you have a government here which will not front up to the parliament. It is lazy, it is scared of extra sitting days and it is scared of scrutiny of one of the most important issues that Australians looked at in the election. We believe that an issue such as this should be given close attention over a period of time to enable all those interested to put forward a submission to the Senate committee. There is nothing more reasonable than that. We are willing to bring that reporting date forward and we are willing to sit an extra week to consider that.

This government is scared. It is lazy and scared. It does not want an extra week and does not want extra Senate scrutiny. We have a Prime Minister who is trying to fool people by saying: ‘Yes, we are hardworking. We are going to have extra sitting days.’ Yet in the Senate we have fewer sitting days, and we are saying, ‘Let’s bring the Senate back earlier.’ After an extensive period of some seven weeks of recess over April, we can set aside an extra week to give this due consideration. During that recess we can have the time to examine one of the most important issues this nation considered in the recent election. What do we get from this government? We get a complete refusal—a refusal which is arrogant and which absolutely flies in the face of its responsibility to give the people of this nation a chance to look at one of the most important issues that we faced in the last election.

It is simple: we are willing to put in the hours. We are willing to bring back the Senate earlier. We are willing to bring on the reporting date earlier. What we are not willing to do is to give to this government what it seeks, and that is a couple of weeks review in the normal sitting period so it gets jammed into the normal legislative agenda. We realise that this is an important issue.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Ronaldson says, what are they scared of? Why are they so scared of this scrutiny? Why are they scared of sitting an extra week? Can’t they take the hours? This is what we are all about. Obviously the Prime Minister has not got the mettle to put in those hard yards. I say to those listening and the people of Australia: this is the first sign of a government that is not up to the task and one that not only is not capable of doing the job; it is not willing to even try to do the job. (Time expired)

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

There is a bit of a competition in hypocrisy going on in the chamber at the moment, I would have to say.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should sit down, then!

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

I appreciate, Senator Macdonald, that there is no way I could win that particular competition. So you can have it hands down—there is no doubt about it. We have had the coalition here suddenly saying, ‘Yes, we need proper time to look at this legislation,’ when everybody in this chamber and in the wider community knows, because it is part of the reason you got thrown out, that you debauched the Senate committee process as comprehensively as possible by preventing proper scrutiny of legislation and by railroading through bill after bill, including the massive changes of Work Choices itself. These were huge, revolutionary reforms bulldozed through without adequate scrutiny.

The Democrats complained at the time that there was inadequate time. We always agree with the principle that there needs to be adequate time for examining legislation. It is concerning that the Labor government, in the very first piece of legislation it puts forward, wants to try and push it through very quickly. It is also ironic that, having complained all of last year about the then government using the Selection of Bills Committee process to refer their own bills to committee to try to use that to push them through as quickly as possible, the Labor government then start off straightaway by also using the Selection of Bills Committee process to refer their own bills to committee when there is already a motion on the table.

Having said that, the government has now put forward a reporting date of 17 March—I think that is what I heard Senator Ludwig say—and that does provide slightly more than a month for the committee inquiry. That is hitting about the minimum acceptable level. I draw the Senate’s attention to the answer from the Department of the Senate to a question on notice in estimates in February last year that my colleague Senator Murray put forward seeking an outline of a reasonable minimum time for a committee inquiry on a bill. It detailed a time line of about 28 days. So this does go slightly above that. This is an important issue. It is not about the whole of Work Choices; it is just one part. We know that all of the argy-bargy about Work Choices and AWAs has been a key political point-scoring exercise and a key political football over the last 12 months or longer. We here in the Senate now should not just be about continuing the political point-scoring; with this particular matter before us now we are considering what the law will be. It is one thing to look at the point-scoring opportunities for vote winning leading up to an election, and that is all part of the political process; it is another to make sure that you get the law right and look at what the actual impact will be beyond the political impact for the main parties. That is part of what we are doing and that is why we have to do this properly.

Having spoken yesterday in this place to the motion about sitting days—and, I might say, I was the only person who spoke to that motion—I am pleased to now hear the coalition joining with the Democrats in expressing concern about the inadequate number of sitting days. I wish they had shared my concerns last year and the year before that when I expressed concern about the inadequate and historically low number of sitting days that the then coalition government inflicted upon the Senate. I wish they had supported my motions to create extra sitting weeks. Of course now that they are in opposition suddenly they see that there is a problem with an inadequate number of sitting days.

I would say that you had the opportunity yesterday to amend the motion that was put forward to create that extra sitting week. I should also emphasise that it is not the government that sets the sitting days for the Senate; it is the Senate that sets the sitting days. So you can move a motion to amend the sitting days and put it through. You do not need to rely on the government to agree; you can do it—and I will support it. I spoke about that yesterday. The coalition were silent. If we were that keen on getting back into the job then we should have been sitting last week.

I put on the record yesterday how there is a historically low number of sitting days for this year, so of course we would support an extra sitting week. At least as I understand it, it does not need the government’s agreement; it is a decision of the Senate. The Senate should decide that, and we would support it. So we are left with the obvious fact that this is all about politics again. I can understand that, but let us not forget that we are actually about considering the impact of what will go into law. I would suggest that that is much more significant to the Australian people than whether or not there are some more political points to be scored on the floor of the parliament here today.

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

The Greens will be supporting the motion for the reporting date of 17 March. We were very deeply concerned about the reporting date of 3 March as first proposed by the government. We thought that was an abuse of the process. We believe that the reporting date of 17 March will give us enough time to discuss the legislation that we all knew was coming and that the government did foreshadow. It is so surprising, although I guess we should not be surprised, to see that the opposition is now all of a sudden really keen on having a thorough Senate process and a thorough committee process—and there are three more proposals soon to come before us to set up committees that they want to control—when they changed the committee system in the first place so that the government could control it. Now there is a different government and all of a sudden the now opposition want to change the committee process. For 2½ years the former government systematically abused the Senate process, abused the committee process and treated this place like a sausage factory. All of sudden they are throwing their arms up in the air and saying, ‘It’s not fair. The government are abusing the process to try to push through legislation that actually does away with Work Choices.’

The government was very clear about bringing this legislation in. They went to the people with it. The opposition said, ‘Yeah, Work Choices is dead,’ but it seems like it is in name only. They’re just going to create another name for it. The same people who dreamed up Work Choices are still there and still pushing it. It is clear that Work Choices is not dead; they are just going to use another name for it. This is not about a proper Senate process; this is about the opposition not wanting to see AWAs go. They want to see them there as long as possible. If you were genuine about using the Senate process then why did you refer this in the way that you did? Why not use the selection of bills process that you were so keen on last time? This is just about frustrating the government’s AWA process and reform of IR. The Australian community will be in no doubt about what the opposition is trying to achieve—that is, to frustrate the reform process. That is what this is about. It is not about all of a sudden having a road to Damascus experience about how important committee review is.

The Northern Territory intervention was supposedly at the time the most significant government package on Aboriginal reform ever seen in Australia. There was a one-day Senate hearing. The then government did not even call the authors of the report which supposedly kicked it off in the first place. That is how serious the then government—the now opposition—was about using the committee process and having fair review of legislation. What a joke that only a couple of months down the track they are back in this place all of a sudden championing the committee process. Get real. Everybody can see through this, and the Australian public will see through it. All you are trying to do is stop the AWA reform process. All the opposition are currently trying to do is to stop the review and reform of the IR process. Everybody can see through that. The Greens will be supporting the amendment as proposed by the government to have a review and to complete the committee process by 17 March. We believe that the people of Australia have been looking forward to this legislation coming in. They will be able to read about it, able to get their submissions in on time and able to appear before the committee during that process because they have been primed to the fact that this is happening. We do not normally support a review process of just one month but in this instance we think it is particularly important because we believe that the public of Australia have voted on and are keen to get rid of AWAs. That is what this legislation is about. They will have time to get their comments in and we will get time to review this legislation.

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

Just for the record, Family First opposed Work Choices because it went too far. Look at what is being proposed: a four-week inquiry. If the Senate is serious, it can go through this inquiry and make sure that the relevant areas are looked at and considered and make sure that people who do not have a voice, like small business and families, can have their say on it as well. Certainly at the last election there was a lot of talk about undoing Work Choices, and this bill goes in that direction. A delay until 28 April is too far out. I think a balance has been struck. The government were looking at having an even shorter time frame for the inquiry which I think was too short, but going out to 17 March would give the Senate inquiry time to look at the aspects of the legislation that is being proposed.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chamber knows that I have been the Democrats’ workplace relations spokesperson since 1996. For nine years we had the balance of power. Of course, we were pressured constantly by the government to pass their legislation and get committee inquiries done in a short time. During the time the Senate was not in the hands of the government, committee inquiries took their proper course, reports were produced and the legislation was dealt with properly. It is my view that neither the Democrats nor the Senate should change their standards. Governments are governments and oppositions are oppositions. Governments will always argue for mandate, for short sitting times and for having their legislation rushed through, and oppositions have a duty to look at it from a Senate perspective. So I am less interested in the hypocrisy of the past, even where that exists, than I am in the standards we should apply now. I am always very disappointed when I hear those who argued previously for higher standards arguing the reverse just because it suits their particular political case at the time.

I would note with respect to sitting days that, given this is the first year of a new government—with, I assume, a great deal of legislation and new policies to be assessed and debated—both the Senate and the House each probably need to sit at least up to 100 days, or 20 to 22 weeks. I remind the Senate that the House sits for 82 days and the Senate sits for 52 days this year. The Senate sits for 21 days in the first half and 31 days in the second half of the year. Frankly, that is an absolute disgrace. Senators who belong to the Labor Party should never have allowed themselves to be railroaded by the House of Representatives, which determined these sitting times.

I would also support my colleague Senator Bartlett, who holds the view that the Senate is entitled to set the sitting days it wishes. That should normally be done cooperatively. But, frankly, the Senate cannot deal with the sort of legislative program that is before it with the number of sitting days that we have this year. We started too late in February; we have far too few sitting days in the first half of the year; the recesses are too long. It is going to be a lazy Senate and that is not the right look for a new government. I suggest that the opposition go away, decide on when it wants extra sitting weeks, put the motion to the Senate and let the Senate decide when it wants to sit and then sit accordingly to deal with the matters. I would urge the opposition to do that and, if possible, do it today and bring it on as special business.

Turning to the matter at hand: frankly, if I were the government, given the importance of the workplace to the people of Australia, I would have introduced an exposure draft in January, referred it to a committee in January and advertised for submissions in January. We could have been reporting in March and had it all done in time. Again, we are dealing with a lazy government that has come at this far too late. The issues are not that difficult. I am unimpressed, frankly, with being presented with a bill of this importance this late. Having said that, we need a minimum of 28 days for advertising, submissions, hearings and report writing, and then we need considerable time for debate and writing amendments and reports. I would suggest, based on historical circumstances, that somewhere between 28 days and 42 days is the right period for this particular bill—28 being the minimum. I certainly think the coalition is too far out with the date of 28 April, but, given the fact that you think it is unlikely that the bill would be ready for debate and the report ready by the time the last week of March sitting comes, it probably does not matter that much. However, introducing an extra week of sitting at a time other than the last week before May makes sense, frankly—I would not be disturbed by that—and of course the Senate can always give leave to those who have already fixed other engagements. I would urge the government to accept a compromise date which allows the Senate to properly consider legislation which needs to be examined carefully and reported on, as the Senate always should with legislation that matters enormously to the people of Australia.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The timing of the report that we have proposed—28 April—is, as Senator Murray quite rightly says, a function of the government’s extraordinary lethargy with respect to sittings of the parliament. The first six months of the parliament reflect the laziness of this government and its unwillingness to face Senate scrutiny. If you have a reporting date of 17 March—which I gather the government was originally going to set as 3 March—you will effectively have only two weeks for an inquiry into this bill, and if you report on 17 March you will have just three days to debate the bill before we have a seven-week recess. I suspect that this bill is not going to get through in three days, so inevitably this bill will carry over to the budget sittings. In good faith, the opposition has said to the government: ‘We’re prepared to have a reporting date of 14 April if you, the government, will agree that the Senate will resume in the week of 5 May—that is, the week before the budget. The report can be received and debated, and the legislation can be considered in that week. We are prepared to devote as much time as you like in the week of 5 May to consider this legislation.’

The legislation is not insignificant. The bill runs to 121 pages and the explanatory memorandum runs to 98 pages. This is not idle legislation; this is significant reform of Australia’s industrial relations arrangements. And for all the rhetoric we had from Senator Ludwig about AWAs, this bill introduces the Labor version of an AWA: an individual statutory agreement called an individual transitional employment agreement. This is significant legislation. It will have significant impact on employment, on the economy and on industries all over Australia.

The Senate should properly scrutinise this legislation by conducting, right across this land, inquiries that consider this bill in detail and give everybody an opportunity to comment on significant changes to our industrial relations arrangements which, as I said, allow the Labor Party to introduce its own form of individual statutory agreement. The Senate should properly examine that—examine its impact on the inflation which the government is so concerned about. The Senate should examine its impact on employment and on our great mining industries in Senator Murray’s state of Western Australia, which are genuinely concerned about what Labor proposes to do with individual statutory agreements. It is worthy of proper examination.

Of course, governments will always try to have short inquiries. I am not going to pretend that we did not, but we are now the opposition and other non-government parties in the Senate ought to hold this government to account for the proper scrutiny of its legislation. Therefore the coalition, in good faith, have said that we are prepared to compromise. We are prepared to bring it forward. If there were more sitting weeks we could have a more relevant and probably earlier reporting date, but if the government stick to 17 March the Greens say that we have effectively two weeks only, because there is a week of estimates next week, two clear weeks and then the Senate resumes. The Greens are saying that they are prepared to join with Labor in having a two-week inquiry into, as I just said, a bill of over 100 pages and an explanatory memorandum of about 100 pages. This bill demands greater scrutiny than that, and the opposition, in good faith, offer 14 April. If that is rejected then we believe the appropriate reporting date is the 28th, allowing this bill to be considered in the budget week. As I said, our offer still stands. We are here ready, willing and able to return to this parliament on 5 May if the government wishes.

Question put:

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