Senator Hurley to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Economics Committee be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate on Wednesday, 18 March 2009, and Thursday, 19 March 2009, from 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the exposure draft of the legislation to implement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:

That the government business orders of the day relating to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009, may be taken together for their remaining stages.

Senator Chris Evans to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to migration, and for other purposes. Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009.

Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

the release of the Australian Human Rights Commission concluding paper of the sex and gender diversity project, and

(ii)

this ‘sex files’ project focuses on the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse individuals as a fundamental human right, in all documents and government records;

(b)

recognises the great work of the Australian Human Rights Commission in highlighting ways the Australian Government could better assist in promoting and protecting the human rights of people who are transgender, transsexual or intersex; and

(c)

encourages the Australian Government to take steps to harmonise federal, state and territory policies, procedures and legislation relevant to the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse individuals in federal documents and records.

Senator Cormann to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

Notes:

(i)

The increasing occurrence of officers of departments or agencies appearing before Senate committees refusing to respond to certain requests for information or for documents from a Commonwealth department or agency;

(ii)

That on a number of occasions, when challenged by a Senator that refusals to provide information or documents have to be based on a particular ground that disclosure of the information would be harmful to the public interest in a particular way and have to be made by ministers, that requirement was not complied with either by the officer concerned, the Minister at the table or the Chair of the Committee;

(iii)

That this is contrary to well established Senate practice and the Government’s own guidelines;

(iv)

Paragraph 2.28 of the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses, which have been in place since 1989, which states that Claims that information should be withheld from disclosure on grounds of public interest (public interest immunity) should only be made by Ministers (normally the responsible Minister in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister).

(b)

Orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect:

(1)

If:

(a)

a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document from a Commonwealth department or agency; and

(b)

an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(2)

If, after receiving the officer’s statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister.

(3)

If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(4)

A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence.

(5)

If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate.

(6)

A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate.

(7)

A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4).

(8)

If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3).

Senators Joyce and Hurley to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2009:

(a)

the international experience of sovereign wealth funds and state-owned companies, their role in acquisitions of significant shareholdings of corporations, and the impact and outcomes of such acquisitions on business growth and competition; and

(b)

the Australian experience of foreign investment by sovereign wealth funds and state-owned companies in the context of Australia’s foreign investment arrangements.

Senators Bob Brown and Ludlam to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

the unique national broadcasting service that the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) provides to the Australian community,

(ii)

the invaluable role that the SBS plays in promoting a multicultural Australia and the services it provides to Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds, and

(iii)

that the inadequate funding provided to the SBS has resulted in the SBS having to undertake in-program advertising; and

(b)

calls on the Government to ensure adequate funding and support for the SBS, free from political and commercial interference.

Senator Ian Macdonald to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate calls on the Government to establish a Royal Commission to investigate all aspects of the oil spill and loss of containers containing ammonium nitrate from the vessel Pacific Adventurer on the morning of Wednesday, 11 March 2009, including:

(a)

the response of the Queensland Government and its agencies;

(b)

the response of the Federal Government and its agencies;

(c)

the operation of the ‘National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan’;

(d)

the apparent delay in activation of the plan;

(e)

the apparent delay in other remedial action; and

(f)

possible recommendations for a change in procedures to more closely involve and fund local authorities in remedial action.