Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw four notices of motion to disallow as follows:

Business of the Senate─Notice of Motion No:

(1)

Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008 made under subsection 376-260(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

Eight sitting days after today

Business of the Senate─Notice of Motion No:

(1)

Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008 made under paragraph 356(1)(a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973.

Eleven sitting days after today

Business of the Senate─Notices of Motion Nos:

(1)

Family Assistant (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 made under subparagraph 169(1)(a)(i) and paragraph 169(1)(b) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

(2)

Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 made under subparagraph 209(a)(i) and paragraph 209(b) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence concerning these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008

20 March 2008

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Suite M1.40

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

The Committee’s function is to examine all legislative instruments subject to disallowance or disapproval by the Senate to ensure that they comply with broad principles of personal rights and parliamentary propriety.

The Committee has considered the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008 made under subsection 376-260(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and identified the following matter that may not comply with those principles.

Sub-rule 12(1) of this instrument permits the Minister to terminate the appointment of a Board member for ‘misbehaviour’. The scope of this term is not defined and the sub-rule thus appears to give the Minister a very broad discretion. Similarly, it is not clear what rights of review or appeal a Board member has against such a decision. The Committee therefore seeks your advice as to the intended operation of this provision.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 5 May 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Rules. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

22 July 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator

Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2008 concerning the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008 (the Rules). I appreciate your letter and regret the time it has taken to reply.

The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (the Committee) raised the issue of the intended operation of sub-rule 12(1) of the Rules.

The issue specifically relates to “misbehaviour” as grounds for the Minister to terminate the appointment of a Board member and the rights of review or appeal should the Minister decide to terminate an appointment.

I am advised that the clause that the Committee has identified is identical to that which is included in a very large number of Acts including the Australia Council Act 1975, Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act 1973, Australian National Maritime Act 1990, National Gallery Act 1975, National Library Act 1960, National Museum of Australia Act 1980, Screen Australia Act 2008 and National Film and Sound Archive Act 2008. An identical clause is found in many pieces of delegated legislation, for example the Fuel Standards Regulations 2001, the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 and the Australian Radiation and Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 1999. I understand that the provision is used so widely that it could be regarded as a standard formulation.

The term ‘misbehaviour’ is not defined in the standard formulation on which sub-rule 12(1) is based. Because of the wide variety of circumstances in which misbehaviour may occur there would be considerable difficulty in formulating an adequate definition that covered all possible circumstances. General guidance on the meaning of misbehaviour is given by the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court (the Court) in Vanstone v Clark [2005] FCAFC 189. In that case the Court held that it was necessary to consider whether misbehaviour affected the capacity of a person to hold the particular office. The Court’s reasoning in that case would be relevant to any decision under sub-rule 12(1).

The decision to terminate an appointment under sub-rule 12(1) would be governed by the principles of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness would require that a Board member be given notice of a proposed decision to terminate his or her appointment, including the reasons for that decision and provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond. A final decision would need to take into account any response from the Board member.

I am advised that the decision to terminate an appointment would be a ‘decision of an administrative character’ taken under an enactment and would therefore be reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1975 (ADJR Act). A Board member whose appointment had been terminated could apply for review of that decision to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court under the ADJR Act.

Yours sincerely

Peter Garrett AM

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

28 August 2008

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Suite M1.40

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 22 July 2008 responding to the Committee’s concerns with the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008. The Committee appreciates your advice that members of the Board have a right of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1975 of any decision to terminate their appointment.

In your response you advised that the provision dealing with a decision to terminate an appointment on the grounds of ‘misbehaviour’ is widely used and found in many Acts that establish Boards. The Committee appreciates your argument but is concerned that the fact that such a provision is widespread does not make it any less of a problem. You directed our attention to a decision by the Federal Court in which it was held that the word ‘misbehaviour’ should be read to mean ‘misbehaviour which affects the capacity of a person to hold a particular office’. Given this clarification of the term, we suggest that the Rules be amended to use the same language as that used by the Court.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 12 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Rules. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

15 September 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator

Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2008 concerning the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008 (the Rules) and specifically the operation of sub-rule 12(1) of the Rules which relates to “misbehaviour” as grounds for the Minister to terminate the appointment of a Board member.

I note that in response to my letter of 22 July 2008 explaining the operation of sub-rule 12(1), the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has suggested that the sub-rule be amended to use the phrase “misbehaviour which affects the capacity of a person to hold a particular office”.

The Film Certification Advisory Board (the Board) fulfils an important role in providing expert advice on film production budgets and administration of the Location and PDV Offsets. The government and the Australian public need to have confidence in the integrity of the Board members. Past experience shows that misbehaviour can arise in a wide variety of situations, both in and out of office. Unethical behaviour outside of office, which might be unrelated to a member’s technical capacity to perform his or her duties, nonetheless can raise serious questions which ultimately go to the integrity of the Board’s decision making.

I understand that the suggested amendment is based on the conclusion of the Federal Court in Vanstone v Clarke that misbehaviour is connected to a person’s capacity to hold a particular office. In that context the court was considering a reference to misbehaviour without any further qualifications such as you have suggested. Based on advice from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), I understand that amending the Rules as suggested could have inadvertent and undesirable consequences. The amended provision could be given an unduly narrow interpretation by a court. In particular there would be a question as to my capacity to act in respect of “misbehaviour” that does not directly relate to a member’s capacity to provide expert advice on film production budgets and other related issues but which goes to broader considerations that could reasonably raise issues of general suitability to hold a particular office. These issues could include, for example, criminal conduct or fraud. Such conduct would undermine the credibility of the Board and its ability to effectively perform its functions.

As I have previously indicated, the form of words in sub-rule 12(1) is widely used and is generally regarded as a standard formulation for an extensive range of Commonwealth advisory and statutory boards. The standard formulation clearly applies to misbehaviour, both inside and outside of office, which would call into question the integrity of the member and the member’s continued suitability to hold the office. For this reason, and also for reasons of consistency, it is desirable that a regulation should be based on a model that has been extensively used in Commonwealth legislation. The standard formulation also provides a Minister with the capacity to act where appropriate, which is balanced by the principles of procedural fairness and other administrative law principles to protect a member’s rights. Legal advice to my Department from the AGS confirms this view.

The Government and the Australian public need to have confidence in the integrity of the Board members. I would hope never to have to take action in respect of sub-rule 12(1). However, in the event a member’s behaviour is such that it adversely impacts on that member’s ability to provide independent expert advice on relevant matters, or adversely affects the ability of the Board to effectively perform its functions, I would not wish to be constrained in my ability to terminate that member’s appointment.

Yours sincerely

Peter Garrett AM

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008

19 June 2008

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Minister for Education

Suite MG.41

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008 made under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973.

Paragraph 10(c) of this Determination permits relevant information to be disclosed if it is necessary to brief a Minister in relation to issues that are, or will be, raised publicly by the person to whom the relevant information relates, so that the Minister can correct, amongst other things, “an incorrectly held opinion”. It is not clear what this expression means. Other expressions used in the same paragraph refer to correcting matters about which there can be an objective assessment, such as a ‘mistake of fact’ or a ‘misleading statement’. It is not clear how an opinion can be ‘incorrectly held’. The Committee therefore seeks clarification on the intended meaning of this term. The Committee also seeks your advice on whether any safeguards are available where information generally is disclosed or becomes public (for example, is the person affected informed that disclosure has taken place?)

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 18 August 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this Determination. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

29 July 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 19 June 2008 concerning the Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines (the Guidelines)) Determination 2008, made under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Student Assistant Act 1973.

In your letter you refer to Paragraphs 10 and 11(c) of this Determination and seek clarification of the wording in the Guidelines of the phrase ‘an incorrectly held opinion’─specifically the intended meaning of this term and the safeguards around the disclosure of personal information.

The relevant provision the Senate Committee has raised was replicated in the Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 from previous instruments. The provision has been included in the former Departments of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Education, Science and Training (DEST) and Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) instruments since 2006 and is currently contained in the following determinations:

• Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (DEEWR) Determination 2008
• Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008
• Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008
• Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008

The provision was originally included in the social security guidelines as the result of a request from Department of Human Services (DHS) seeking the capacity to disclose protected information should it be necessary to brief the Minister for Human Services on matters that arise in the public arena in relation to social security payments which may require clarification.

The intention of this provision is to capture the situation where an opinion in the public arena is based on misinformation or lack of information, or a misunderstanding of a situation, and it is considered that the opinion is therefore incorrectly formed and held because it has been formed on a false or incorrect premise. Where this occurs it is appropriate that the Minister be briefed to ensure he or she can properly respond to the incorrectly held opinion that may impact negatively on the integrity of the social security system.

In relation to safeguards for the disclosure of information, information will not be disclosed unless it is certified by the Secretary (or the delegate where appropriate) that the disclosure is in the public interest in accordance with the Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008. In each circumstance the Secretary (or delegate) will have regard to the circumstances and the information that is to be disclosed.

The clarification for the disclosure of information is provided in the Guidelines, specifically under Sections 10 Mistake of fact and under Section 11 Ministerial briefing.

I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee.

Yours sincerely

Julia Gillard

Minister for Education

28 August 2008

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Minister for Education

Suite MG.41

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 29 July 2008 responding to the Committee’s concern with the Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008.

In your response you advise that the provision ‘an incorrectly held opinion’ is intended to refer to the situation where opinions are formed on the basis of incorrect information. Given this explanation, the Committee considers that the Guidelines should make this clear by referring to ‘opinions formed on the basis of incorrect information’ rather than ‘incorrectly held opinions’.

The Committee has also written to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs making the same comment in relation to similar instruments that contain the same provision.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 2 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this instrument. If the matter cannot be resolved by this date, the Committee will give a notice of motion to disallow these Guidelines to allow further time to resolve the matter.

Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

16 September 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2008 concerning the Student Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2008.

In your letter, you note that the Guidelines should be clearer on the point that an incorrectly held opinion is an opinion formed on the basis of incorrect information. I have reviewed paragraph 10(c) of the Guidelines and am of the view that the words ‘or an incorrectly held opinion’ should be removed. The words ‘correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, [or] a misleading statement’ will cover the circumstance that an opinion is held on the basis of incorrect information.

Similarly, I propose to remove those words from similar guidelines made by me under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. I will amend paragraph 10(c) of the Guidelines and the equivalent paragraphs of the other instruments at the next available opportunity.

I note you have written to the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig, Minister for Human Services, and I have copied this letter to them for information.

I trust the above satisfies the Committee’s concerns.

Yours sincerely

Julia Gillard

Minister for Education

Family Assistant (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 and the Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008

26 June 2008

The Hon Jenny Macklin MP

Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services  and Indigenous Affairs

Suite MG.51

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following instruments that provide for public interest certificate guidelines under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999:

• Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008
• Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008.

Each of these Determinations specifies guidelines for the exercise of the power of the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so. Section 11 in each instrument states that information may be disclosed for the purposes of Ministerial briefings. Subsection 11(c) in each instrument states that this is permissible in relation to issues raised, or proposed to be raised, publicly by or on behalf of the person to whom the information relates, so that the Minister can respond by correcting, amongst other things, “an incorrectly held opinion”. It is not clear what this expression means. Other expressions used in the same paragraph refer to correcting matters about which there can be an objective assessment, such as a ‘mistake of fact’ or a ‘misleading statement’. It is not clear how an opinion can be ‘incorrectly held’. The Committee would appreciate clarification on the intended operation of this term.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 18 August 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Determinations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

5 August 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2008 about the Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 and the Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008.

Section 11 of the above Determinations provide for circumstances when the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs may disclose information to brief a Minister. Subsection 11(c) of both Determinations provides that information may be disclosed if it is necessary to brief a Minister in relation to issues raised or proposed to be raised publicly, so that the Minister can respond by correcting an ‘incorrectly held opinion’, amongst other things. The Committee asked for clarification on the intended operation of the expression ‘incorrectly held opinion’.

The intention of this provision is to capture the situation where opinion that is in the public arena, is based or formed taking into account incorrect facts, evidence, lack of information, or misleading information and it is therefore considered that because of this, the opinion is incorrectly held. That is, the opinion is incorrectly formed and held because the opinion has been formed on an incorrect premise.

Thank you again for writing. I hope that this information clarifies the matter for the Committee.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Macklin MP

Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

28 August 2008

The Hon Jenny Macklin MP

Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Suite MG.51

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 5 August 2008 responding to the Committee’s concern with the Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 and the Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008.

In your response you advise that the provision ‘an incorrectly held opinion’ is intended to refer to the situation where opinions are formed on the basis of incorrect information. Given this explanation, the Committee considers that the Guidelines should make this clear by referring to ‘opinions formed on the basis of incorrect information’ rather than ‘incorrectly held opinions’.

The Committee has also written to the Minister for Education making the same comment in relation to a similar instrument that contains the same provision.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 12 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these instruments. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

17 September 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2008 about the Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 and the Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 (the Guidelines).

In your letter, you note that the Guidelines should be clearer on the point that an incorrectly held opinion is an opinion formed on the basis of incorrect information.

I have reviewed paragraph 11(c) of the Guidelines and am of the view that the words ‘or an incorrectly held opinion’ should be removed. The words ‘correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, [or] a misleading statement’ will cover the circumstance that an opinion is held on the basis of incorrect information. Accordingly, I will amend paragraph 11(c) of the Guidelines at the next available opportunity.

I have copied my letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, and the Minister for Human Services, Senator the Hon Joseph Ludwig.

I hope the above satisfies the Committee’s concerns.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Macklin MP

Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

I also seek leave to make a short statement about a matter that arose during the committee’s consideration of the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules.

Leave granted.

On 24 June this year the Regulations and Ordinances Committee gave notice of a motion to disallow the Film Certification Advisory Board Rules 2008. One of the provisions in this instrument permitted the minister to terminate the appointment of a board member for misbehaviour. The scope of this term was not defined and seemed to give the minister a very broad discretion to dismiss. The committee sought advice on this issue as well on the availability of review rights.

The minister responded that this provision was, essentially, a standard term used throughout much Commonwealth legislation. However, some general guidance on its interpretation could be found in the Federal Court decision in Vanstone v Clark. In that case, the court held that it was necessary to consider whether the misbehaviour affected the capacity of the person to hold the particular office. Given this clarification, the committee thought that it would be helpful if these rules were amended to use the same language as that used by the court. In other words, the minister would have a discretion to terminate an appointment for misbehaviour which affects the capacity of a board member to hold office. The minister responded that advice from the Australian Government Solicitor suggested that such an amendment could have ‘inadvertent and undesirable consequences’. For example, it could be given an unduly narrow interpretation by the courts.

The time for resolving this disallowance notice has run out, and the committee has today given notice of its intention to remove the notice. It is decided to remove it because what we face is a general issue of legislative drafting rather than a problem with a specific provision. In addition, to disallow this provision would simply remove the minister’s right to terminate an appointment, which is not a desirable consequence. However, because the issue is a general one, an issue of consistency in legislative drafting, the committee will seek the advice of the Attorney-General, the Australian Government Solicitor and the legis

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

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That—

(1)

On Tuesday, 23 September 2008:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to 11.40 pm;

(b)

the routine of business from 7 pm shall be government business only; and

(c)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.

(2)

On Thursday, 25 September 2008:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;

(b)

consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(c)

the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm, and from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only;

(d)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

(e)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed when a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister; and

(f)

if the Senate is sitting at 11 pm, the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended till 9.30 am on Friday, 26 September 2008.

(3)

On Friday, 26 September 2008:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.30 pm;

(b)

the routine of business shall be:

(i)

notices of motion, and

(ii)

government business only; and

(c)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.50 pm.

I thought it was worth me speaking briefly to the notice of motion for the chamber’s benefit. It provides that the Senate will sit on Tuesday until 11 pm and, in addition, on Thursday until 11 pm, plus the usual 40-minute adjournment. Then the Senate will suspend and sit on Friday. I thought it was worth providing that quick overview to the Senate today. I have given notice of this motion. We can have further discussions on this today and tomorrow when it comes up. At the moment it is being circulated and we are seeking comment from the opposition, the minor parties and Independents about how we proceed. The government is serious about achieving legislation this week, and we can entertain discussions about how we proceed this week. This notice of motion is effectively a protective notice of motion so that we can use the time between now and tomorrow to confirm this notice or, alternatively, come to a mutually agreeable position on what the hours should be to ensure that we do sit. I thought it was helpful to inform the Senate that the government’s intention is to deal with the luxury car tax, and there may be other bills that need to be passed this week to ensure that they can commence. I also wanted to provide notice to the Senate that we will be sitting late on Tuesday and on Thursday and possibly on Friday as well.

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

by leave—I do not want to prolong matters, but suffice to say the coalition wants to work with the government in relation to times to accommodate the government’s agenda. Can I suggest that a leaders and whips meeting could well assist in sorting out matters and I strongly urge the government to have such a meeting. We would be more than willing to participate.

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

by leave—The leaders and whips idea may be a good one to pursue. I can foresee more of this coming down the line. I want to reiterate the Greens position on sitting Fridays. If it becomes necessary to sit on Fridays, we would expect that would mean Thursday night did not cope and Friday is going to be a fairly full sitting. We believe that under those circumstances there should be a question time. If it is important enough for the Senate to sit, it is important enough for a question time so that the urgent, important other matters of the day can be taken into account.

Senator Siewert to move on 24 September 2008:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment of a Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal to decide and make recommendations on claims for reparation and other matters, and for related purposes. Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill 2008.

Senator Ludlam to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

Sunday, 21 September 2008, was the International Day of Peace, declared by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2002 as a day of non-violence and a global ceasefire, commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples,

(ii)

on this day, a general ceasefire across Afghanistan lasted from midnight Saturday through to midnight Sunday, 21 September 2008, and was observed by the military forces of the United States of America, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and

(iii)

on Thursday, 18 September 2008, the Senate voted against a motion calling on the Government to participate in the International Day of Peace ceasefire and encourage other nations to likewise; and

(b)

calls on the Government to reconsider its support for UN initiatives such as the International Day of Peace.