Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That:

(1)

The provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.

(2)

That, upon its introduction in the Senate, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 have precedence over all other business till determined.

I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills mentioned in paragraph (1) to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The reasons read as follows—

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2008

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) a discretion to consider late applications for renewals of community broadcasting licences that are made up until the expiry date of the licence. 

Reasons for Urgency

Currently the ACMA has no discretion to accept an application for renewal of a community broadcasting licence after twenty six weeks prior to the licence expiry date, regardless of the circumstances giving rise to the late application. 

There are in excess of 250 Community Broadcasting Licences currently issued by ACMA.  Despite the ACMA monitoring of renewal applications there is a real possibility of late renewal applications being received in the near future.   

There is a moderate to high risk that ACMA could be prevented through legal action from renewing a licence following a late application, even one lodged only a short period outside the 26 week limit.  Such action could be taken by someone wishing to take over the licence from the current holder in order to provide an alternative service, particularly if they had been an applicant in the original licence allocation process. 

If the proposed amendment is not made urgently there is a real possibility of good community broadcasting stations which provide a valuable public service unreasonably losing their licences.  It is the primary purpose of these amendments to avoid a situation where a community broadcaster, providing a valuable public service, could lose its licence as a result of a late application where the broadcaster can show good reasons why that application is late.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TRUSTEE BOARD AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008

Purpose of the Bill

The proposed bill:

• makes minor amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 in relation to changes to the earnings base for superannuation contributions to comply with the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 from 1 July 2008;
• makes consequential amendments to a range of legislation following the introduction on 1 July 2006 of a single superannuation board to administer the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) and the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan (PSSAP);
• makes consequential amendments to the invalidity retirement provisions for employees and office holders contained in a range of legislation following the introduction of the PSSAP;
• makes technical amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Superannuation Act 1922, the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Act 1990 and the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 as a consequence of a new regime for managing legislative instruments provided for under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003; and
• repeals the Schedule to the Superannuation Act 1990 which has been obsolete for many years.

Reasons for Urgency

The bill includes provisions which ensure that the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 comply with changes to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 that come into effect on 1 July 2008.  These provisions must therefore be in place before 1 July 2008 or the benefits provided under those Acts will not comply with the requirements of the Superannuation Guarantee framework.

I want to make some brief comments about the importance of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 taking precedence. As the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, the government regards this bill as key to delivering on aspects of our election commitments. We set out in detail prior to the previous election our approach on industrial relations. It was a matter well litigated. Despite the fact that some on the other side appear not to have understood this, the Australian people made their views in relation to this legislation and the government’s policy abundantly clear.

The government will proceed with this legislation. We expect this legislation to be passed prior to the Easter break. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that this is a priority for us. It is a matter for the opposition. Is the opposition still slavishly tied to its failed Work Choices agenda or will it accept that the Australian people at the last election voted to abolish Work Choices, voted to remove this legislation and voted for Labor’s policy, which was set out in detail prior to the election? I want to emphasise that this was an issue that was well litigated and well traversed prior to the last election. There is a lot of talk in various quarters about mandates. Even the most cynical political observer would say that the government has a mandate on this issue. This was an issue which formed a key and central aspect of the previous election campaign and the months leading up to it.

I would like to also remind the chamber that prior to the last election the Labor Party released two very detailed policies. One was our Forward with Fairness policy and the second was the implementation plan. The bill that is being introduced into the chamber delivers on the commitments that this government made to the Australian people at the last election, and we look forward to its prompt passage through this chamber.

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

by leave—At the outset, I indicate to the Senate that the coalition will not be opposing this motion. In fact, we have been working with the government to progress the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. But two things need to be made clear here. Firstly, in the draft legislative program for the Senate, it was envisaged that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 would be in the Senate by now. I appreciate the minister’s comment that there is a degree of urgency in relation to this bill—that is why we are not opposing the motion. But what I would say is that the minister could use her good offices to impress upon her colleagues in the other place that some speed is needed there. When you look at the speakers on this bill in that other place, the majority were government speakers. It was the time taken in the other place by the government that has caused the delay in the bill coming to the Senate. That should be made abundantly clear for the record. We, the coalition opposition in the Senate, stand ready to cooperate as much as we can. But the government has to get its act together in the other place in order to get the bill before us here in the Senate.

The other thing is that as a result of this other legislation has been brought on. The manager of government business and I have been working on the issue to get an appropriate order. I acknowledge that there has been a reordering of business because the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 was one which we have not yet had a chance to take to our party room for consideration. We requested that that be put down the list to give us that opportunity. It is a principle—and this is the second issue I raise today—that we normally allow legislation to pass through the respective processes of all sides of the chamber in order for their respective positions to be determined. We do not oppose the motion that the exemption from the cut-off be applied. But I simply restate the principle that, when bills are brought on, normally an allowance is made so that the respective parties can put them through their processes. In this case, the reason why we have to bring these bills on is because the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 is not yet in the Senate, and I have outlined the reasons for that. We do not oppose the motion. The government can be assured that we will continue to cooperate with them in any reasonable way that we can.

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

by leave—The Democrats also will not oppose this proposal to allow the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 to be exempted from the cut-off. Nonetheless, the reason for the cut-off should be emphasised, and that is to prevent legislation from being rushed through without proper scrutiny. Workplace relations are, of course, immensely important politically. They were pivotal, I think we would all agree, in the last federal election. They are also immensely important in terms of the law and the impact it has on Australians—including the ubiquitous working families. That is a reminder to us all about the dangers of actually rushing through legislation without ensuring proper consideration of it.

I appreciate the new government wants to press home its political advantage and its political win in regard to this issue, but we do need to be careful that in pushing through legislation as quickly as possible and trying to force through the political gain we do not end up with legislation that is not as effective as it would otherwise be—even taking into account whether people agree with the policy aims of the government. I do get nervous when I hear the new government and the new minister, Ms Gillard, making noises very similar to the previous government about how they have got a mandate and they have to push this legislation through, they are not going to agree to any changes except, possibly, for technical amendments and the Senate should just get out of the way and let the legislation through—it does not sound terribly dissimilar.

I understand the political reason for that but let’s not forget that this is not just about politics; it is about what laws the people of Australia end up with. This legislation does not scrap Work Choices; it modifies some of it—it does not even scrap individual statutory agreements. I will not get into debating the legislation, but we will have a lot of spin and a lot of posturing over the next week. I am not naive enough to suggest that should not happen but I think that we do need to at least leave some part of our consciousness cognisant of the need to ensure the legislation is actually effective in a real-world sense in terms of what it achieves, rather than just effective in terms of the immediate political needs of the government.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I note Senator Ellison’s comments about the procedure and I thank the opposition for their decision to support this motion and their cooperation in relation to this bill. We look forward to their support and its speedy passage through the chamber.

One comment in response to Senator Bartlett: I appreciate the position which he is putting which, to be fair to him, is consistent with the position he has put regardless of who was in government. I would make the point in relation to mandate that I do not believe anyone in this chamber argues seriously that the former Prime Minister had a mandate to do what he chose to do with Work Choices. I do not believe the Australian people were told the detail of what that legislation would encompass. I suggest, by contrast, that the details of this legislation were included in significant part in Labor’s two election policies on this issue.

Question agreed to.