Senate debates
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Committees
Selection of Bills Committee; Report
11:51 am
Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I present the third report of 2013 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 at 7.20 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend:
That—
(a) the provisions of the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013, the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013, the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2013 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisionsof the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(e) the provisionsof the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 and the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the provisions of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013, the News Media (Self- regulation) Bill 2013, the News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013, contingent upon their introduction in the House of Representatives, be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices and 7 for statements of reasons for referral).
4. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
2013 [No. 2]
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill
2013.
The committee recommends accordingly.
5. The committee considered the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill 2013 and noted that the Senate had agreed to refer the bill and a related matter to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report.
6. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
2013
Parents) Bill 2013
2013
Chair
14 March 2013
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
N am e of bill:
Reasons for referral/ principal issues for consideration:
For detailed consideration of the provisions of the Bill including:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
17 June 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Citizen's Initiated Referendum Bill2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR) promotes greater openness and accountability in public decision-making.
2. Laws instituted as a result of a CIR are more clearly derived from the popular expression of the people's will
3. Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent
4. Citizens in a democracy have the responsibility to participate in the political system.
5. The Inter Parliamentary Union's call on member states to strengthen democracy through constitutional instruments including the citizen's right to initiate legislation.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Legal and Constitutional reform groups Citizens' rights groups
Political parties
Electoral reform groups
Individual Australian citizens
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Economics (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
April2013
May 2013
June 2013
Possible reporting date:
24th June 2013
(signed)
Senator Bushby
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To give close scrutiny to this major change to the EPBC Act
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Victorian Farmers Federation National Farmers Federation NSW State Government
QLD State Government
Any Coal Seam Gas Companies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
22, 27, 28 March.
4, 5 April
Possible reporting date:
April / May 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Schedule 1
To examine whether Part IVA amendments are appropriately targeted
Schedule 2
To examine:
De minimis threshold
Documentation requirements
ATO's power to 'reconstruct'
Financial impact
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ATO
Treasury
Australian Tax Institute
Impacted companies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
April2013
Possible reporting date:
May 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Examination of the proposed tax impost on the water supply industry as a means of collecting a fee.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Water Supply Association of Australia Australian Plumbing Association
State governments
Australian Water Association
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
March/April
Possible reporting date:
April/May
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill2013
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill2013
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Diversity) Bill2013
Public Interest Media Advocate Bill2013
News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013
News Media (Sell-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Referral is proposed because of the extremely short timeframe the Government has proposed for consideration of these laws. The Government's so-called 'media reforms' are the largest shakeup of media regulation since 2006. Some of the most important elements of these measures, such as the precise criteria defining the 'public interest' which the legislation will apply to changes of media ownership, have not been publicly disclosed prior to introduction of these bills. As a result there has been no opportunity to consider any unintended consequences or conflicts with existing laws and regulations. The laws also propose the first direct government controls over material published in newspapers in peace time in Australian history. To expect the Parliament to debate and vote on such far-reaching bills without the opportunity to call witnesses, to hear evidence and to undertake the detailed, objective scrutiny only a committee process provides would be an abuse of the democratic process.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Free to air TV broadcasters
Fairfax
Telstra
Apple
Foxtel
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
April/May
Possible reporting date:
17th June 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other
Measures) Bill 2013
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013
News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013
News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill2013
Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Legislative committee to examine bills for quick report.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Media Organisations and Interest Groups
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy
The Australian Communications and Media Authority
The Australian Press Council
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
15-19 March 2013
Possible reporting date:
9:30am 20 March 2013
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
I move:
That the report be adopted.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move an amendment to the motion to adopt Selection of Bills Committee report No. 3 of 2013 to provide for a reporting date of 17 June for the package of broadcasting and media bills at item 3 in the report:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013, the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013, the News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 17 June 2013".
The Selection of Bills Committee process this week has told the chamber all that it really needs to know about both sides in this place. The Selection of Bills Committee referral proposal by the government states in relation to this package of bills that the reason for referral is: 'Legislative committee to examine bills for quick report.' What that says is that the government wants to have essentially a 'tick and flick'. It is not interested at all in having serious, careful examination of the legislation, and that is confirmed by the fact that the government has proposed a reporting date of 20 March. Can I just point out that between now and 20 March is the 15th, the 16th, the 17th, the 18th, the 19th and the 20th, so there are four business days for what are far-reaching proposals to alter the media landscape in this nation.
Mr President, can I just share, in contrast, the reasons for referral that I put down, with the advice of Senator Birmingham. These are as follows. Referral is proposed because of the extremely short time frame the government has proposed for consideration of these laws. The government's so-called media reforms are the largest shake-up of media regulation since 2006. Some of the most important elements of these measures, such as the precise criteria defining the public interest which the legislation will apply to changes of media ownership, have not been publicly disclosed prior to the introduction of these bills. As a result there has been no opportunity to consider any unintended consequences or conflicts with existing laws and regulations. The laws also propose the first direct government controls over material published in newspapers in peacetime in Australian history. To expect the parliament to debate and vote on such far-reaching bills without the opportunity to call witnesses, to hear evidence and to undertake the detailed objective scrutiny only a committee process provides would be an abuse of the democratic process. They were our reasons and our rationale for referral. Compare that to the government's, which was: 'Legislative committee to examine bills for quick report'. It is a stark contrast.
As you know, Mr President, these wide-ranging reforms include a proposed new public interest test to determine future media mergers and also a government appointed Public Interest Media Advocate that will have oversight of the Press Council. Freedom of speech is one of the bedrocks of our free and democratic society. A free and independent media who can hold governments or, for that matter, oppositions to account is a key part of freedom of speech. We know that what is happening here, what is proposed here, is the current government seeking to retaliate against its critics in the media. We always predicted that this would happen and we are seeing it come to fruition. We do have concerns that a public interest test risks becoming a political interest test for the government of the day. Who knows—maybe we should trust Senator Conroy, but maybe not all future communications ministers will be as serious and sober and professional as Senator Conroy.
The coalition think it is important that the committee of this Senate has the opportunity to carefully examine the proposed winding back of centuries of press freedom. Despite not having the actual legislation when Senator Conroy announced these reforms, he has threatened that he will not negotiate on any measures and that they must be passed in full by the end of next week. This is not the way that public policy should be made in this place. We know that this government is not a big fan or defender of free speech. It is certainly not a big fan or defender of a free press, so we are not surprised that this legislation is being brought forward. Equally, we are not surprised that the government is seeking to deny this Senate and its committees the opportunity to fully and rigorously examine this legislation.
11:57 am
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As Senator Fifield has just made extremely clear, it is an outrageous abuse of process in this place for this legislation to be rammed through the parliament, as is proposed by the government, by the end of next week and for the scrutiny of this legislation through the usual processes of a Senate committee to be curtailed in the way that is proposed. Just four business days, as Senator Fifield said, stand between now and 20 March, when the government expects the Senate committee to report on this package of bills.
Senator Conroy comes into this place and proclaims, 'There's been plenty of time for debate and everybody knows what we were proposing to do.' Well, we realised today that cabinet did not even have any written paperwork before it when it considered these matters on Tuesday, so they did not even know what was being proposed. We understand today that caucus had to have rules changed to allow for the consideration of the matters, so the Labor caucus did not even know what was being proposed.
The reality is that these bills deserve far more scrutiny than the government is proposing. Six bills were dropped this morning in the House of Representatives that have never been seen before outside of the inner workings of this government. Six bills totalling 133 pages of new regulation of Australia's media are going to be, if the government gets its way, rammed through this parliament with minimal debate in less than a week and with the scrutiny of the Senate committee for less than four working days. Accompanying the 133 pages of new legislation in these six bills are 123 pages across five explanatory memoranda.
Significant and sweeping changes to Australia's laws and to the governance of our media are being undertaken for the first time in Australia's peacetime history. It will be an outrage if the government gets its way on these reforms. It will be an outrage if this Senate allows the government to get its way on curtailing the consideration of these reforms. It is critically important that the minister's assertions that these in no way impede freedom of the media be tested, and tested properly. It is critically important that the minister's assertions that these in no way change existing self-regulatory standards be tested, and tested properly. It is critically important that the stakeholders in the media sector and those who care about matters of free speech, and, indeed, those who have concerns about the operation of the media in Australia, all have their chance to properly have their say. If the Selection of Bills Committee report is adopted in its current form today, with a 20 March reporting date for these significant reforms, then stakeholders will have virtually no chance to properly assess these matters or properly have their say as to the impact or adequacy, depending on your perspective in this debate. Stakeholders will be given perhaps just a day to put in any written submissions. There will be just a few hours, perhaps, of hearings, with witnesses given, if they are lucky, a few hours or a day or two's notice to appear. There will be minimal time for anybody—senators or those outside this place—to seriously scrutinise what is proposed here, and we should not forget that what is proposed here is government incursion into the operation of the newspaper industry for the first time in Australia's peacetime history.
These are very significant reforms. I know there are those on the crossbenches who believe they are inadequate. They deserve the chance to have their views heard as well, and to scrutinise these reforms around their arguments, just as much as those of us on this side of the chamber should have the chance to go through the detail of whether or not these reforms do, in fact, pose the threat to the freedom of the media and speech that many of us are so concerned by.
I urge the Senate to support Senator Fifield's amendment to the motion on these reports and to ensure that we actually get the scrutiny of these media reforms that they deserve, rather than the curtailed debate that the government wants to enforce.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.