Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the Chair of the Selection of Bills Committee (Senator Kroger), I present the ninth 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. 9 OF 2013

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 7.28 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend:

That—

(a) contingent upon their introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 3 and 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Above the Line Voting) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting Wednesday in March 2014 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 6 and 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) the provisions of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 2013 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(f) the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting Wednesday in February 2014 (see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend:

That the following bills not be referred to committees:

The committee recommends accordingly.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

(Helen Kroger)

Chair

14 November 2013

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 & related bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Detailed consideration of the Government's legislation to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employer associations Employee associations State Governments

Department of Employment

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date: 2 December 2013

(signed)   

Senator Fifield

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMI TTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity Bill) and related bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for adequate consultation and consideration of the potential impact of the re-establishment of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner on the building and construction industry.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Unions and union members, employer bodies and trade and labour councils.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 30 March, 2014

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill (s):

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

costs to households and businesses from Labor's Carbon Tax; and

the impact of the Carbon Tax on business costs including mining, manufacturing and small business.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment & Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

2 December 2013

(Signed)

Senator Fifield

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Clean Enemy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy)_Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal' Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013

Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013

Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure proper scrutiny of these Bills and their impact on Australia's efforts to tackle climate change and carbon pollution.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Climate scientists, economists, business groups,

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

March 2014

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of Bill:

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Above the Line Voting) Bill 2013

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

In undertaking the Inquiry, the Committee should consider:

1. Whether the current Senate voting system Is still able to represent the will of the people;

2. The role of group and Individual voting tickets, and whether they are open to manipulation; and

3. The outcome of the 2013 election and whether this indicates the need for Senate voting reform.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Electoral Commission

Professor Clement Macintyre, Adelaide University

Professor Dean Jaensch

Antony Green, ABC election analyst New South Wales Electoral Commission

Committee to which the bill is to be referred:

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

Possible hearing date(s):

January/February 2014

Possible reporting date:

March 2014

(signed)

Senator Kroger

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Detailed consideration of the Government's legislation to provide for greater accountability and transparency of registered organisations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employer associations Employee associations

Department of Employment

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

2 December 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for adequate consultation and consideration of the potential impact of the proposed amendments on registered organisations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Officials and employees of registered organisations.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

30 March, 2014

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The repeal of the legislation will provide a boost for the mining industry and remove significance compliance burden

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Organisations affected by the compliance burden of the current tax

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Committee

Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date: 2 December 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Appendix 9

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of Bill:

Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2013

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:

1. Whether the current guidelines issued by the Committee regarding ridicule and satire are still appropriate;

2. Whether similar restrictions exist in other jurisdictions, both domestically and overseas; and

3. The benefits to the Australian public and public debate of removing the current restrictions regarding ridicule and satire.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ABC

SBS

Channel 7

Channel 10

Channel 9

Office of the Usher of the Black Rod

Office of the Serjeant-at-Arms

Committee to which the bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December 2013

Possible reporting date:

February 2014

(signed)

Senator Kroger

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

I move:

That—

(a) the report be adopted; but

(b) in respect of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and related bill, the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, the committees report by 2 December 2013.

I think it is fair to say that the incoming government's intention to legislate to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission was well canvassed over several years and that that intention is of no surprise. The detail of that particular commitment was very clearly outlined in the coalition's pre-election policy. Obviously, it is important that there is the opportunity for scrutiny of legislation, which is why the coalition supports reference of this piece of legislation and report by 2 December, which the government thinks is a reasonable time frame.

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 falls into the same category. The coalition's policy before the election was very clearly articulated and this piece of legislation comes as no surprise. Again, the government supports the reference of this bill to the relevant Senate legislation committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 2013.

But I particularly want to direct my comments here to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Again, we could not have been clearer before the election as to what our position was in relation to the repeal of the carbon tax. But the ironic thing here is that the opposition will no doubt contend that the time frame allowed for consideration by the Senate legislation committee for this bill is inadequate. This is what the opposition will contend. But how ironic is it that the opposition, when in government, only allowed Senate inquiry of a number of days into their carbon tax legislation, which was actually seeking to break an election commitment.

What we are endeavouring to do here, with this carbon tax repeal legislation, is give effect to an election commitment. What the opposition will in effect be doing by their decision to oppose a reporting date of 2 December 2013 is stating very clearly that they think a piece of legislation that seeks to break an election commitment deserves less scrutiny than a piece of legislation that seeks to give effect to an election commitment. I am sure that is what the opposition will do and that is an incredibly perverse form of logic. As I said, the coalition could not have been clearer over the past three years about our policy in relation to this area. The Australian people gave the government a very clear mandate that they want the carbon tax legislation repealed.

Despite that, the government still thinks it is appropriate that there be a Senate inquiry into the legislation. I think for legislation of this sort that is just good practice. But the Australian people want us to get on with this job. They want us to repeal the carbon tax. There should be a speedy Senate inquiry. I urge the opposition to appreciate the irony of requiring longer scrutiny of a bill that seeks to give effect to an election commitment than was given to a piece of legislation, the carbon tax legislation, that actually sought to breach an election commitment.

I do want to acknowledge that the Australian Greens are displaying integrity in relation to the consideration of this bill. They agree with the government that it is important that this package of bills comes to a vote in short time. With those remarks, I urge the opposition to reconsider their approach.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have circulated an amendment to the reporting date which, given Senator Fifield's amendment, I will need to amend. I move:

Omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) in respect of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and a related bill, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, the committee report by 2 December 2013; and

(c) in respect of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills, the committees report by the first sitting day in March 2014.

I will speak briefly to this. There is a very important principle here, and it is a principle that really goes to the sort of government this government said it would be. The government said they would be transparent. They said they would improve accountability. What we have seen since they were elected is a government that has a culture of secrecy, a government that is all about control. We have seen that in the context of the debate about boats, where we have the extraordinary situation of a minister of the Crown in question time refusing to give either the Senate or the House details about what is occurring and refuses to even say how many people have arrived in a boat that has been reported in a paper.

It is very clear also from the approach they are taking in the House of Representatives that this culture of secrecy and this desire to control extend also to the parliament. We see that in the changes to the standing orders they are ramming through in the House of Representatives—which are all about control. It is all about the executive government shutting down and limiting the institutions of accountability in our democracy, which include the parliament. The principle that is at stake here is a principle that this Senate has always adhered to, and that is scrutiny. It is the principle around the imperative of scrutiny that as the second chamber in the parliament we have responsibility to properly scrutinise the actions of the executive and to properly scrutinise legislation.

We know that the government of the day, in general, has a majority in the House of Representatives in its own right—obviously, we had a minority government in the last parliament, but you do not form government unless you have a majority in the House of Representatives—and we know that the capacity for scrutiny, when there is such a majority in the lower house, is limited. That is why the Senate always does its job. But what is proposed here by this government is a quick and dirty inquiry into legislation that is far reaching, that is costly, and the full implications of which—including the Direct Action Plan, which is what replaces it—have not been explored. This government wants a quick and dirty inquiry, to report by 2 December, on the removal of a whole-of-economy reform, the removal of the entirety of the architecture around climate change, without consideration of the costs of its replacement or even the costs of its repeal. I think it speaks volumes about the government that not only are they shutting down debate in the lower house through their changes to the standing orders, not only do their ministers—and I note Minister Cash is here in the chamber—refuse to answer questions in question time but they also want to avoid scrutiny.

The absolute shame of this is that today the Australian Greens are going to cooperate with the Abbott government in doing that. It is an astonishing position. If we look at the actual proposal put forward by the government in the Selection of Bills Committee report, their reasons for referral are:

The Carbon Tax has significantly impacted Australian households and businesses. The Committee will review the report and Bills and report to the Senate on:

et cetera. That is what the Australian Greens are supporting today. I think it is extremely disappointing, with the principle around democracy and scrutiny in this chamber, that something as important as these bills should be subject to such a quick and dirty inquiry.

I just want to respond to the 'it's an election commitment' argument that Senator Fifield ran. Since when has this chamber said, just because the government of the day think something is part of their mandate, that the Senate does not do its job—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we're still proposing an inquiry.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to scrutinise legislation? That is what you want. You want to shut down debate and you just want to give an ultimatum: pass it now. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, your time has expired.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a democracy, not a dictatorship. You should start behaving accordingly.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong! Your time has expired. I just need to clarify the status of the amendments here. Senator Fifield moved that the report be adopted and then included the reporting date of 2 December for three particular suites of legislation. My understanding is that you wish to move that the reporting date for the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill and related bills be in March 2014.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Deputy President. What I did not have the opportunity to check within the time frame was that all the legislation in my amendment is covered by the amendment from Senator Fifield. I am assuming it is. If that is the case, we move the amendment in respect of March 2014. I did understand that would be an amendment from the Australian Greens in relation to one of the pieces of legislation? No? Okay.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we have clarified that your amendment relates purely to the clean energy carbon tax repeal bill and related bills.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; I think there is a little bit of confusion in the chamber. If there were a senator who wished to move an amendment to the reporting date on the construction legislation, is this the point at which they would also have to move their amendment?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we have to deal with your amendment first, and we are just ascertaining that it is purely for the clean energy bills.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Australian Greens will not be supporting the March 2014 reporting date in the amendment moved by Senator Wong but will be supporting the 2 December 2013 date, as proposed in the original government amendment, because I do not believe it is the time for equivocation and delay. The Greens have made it very clear that we want to make the Abbott government understand that we will not support the repeal of this legislation. We know what the bills do. They have been the law since 1 July 2012. They are bringing down emissions. The Climate Change Authority is doing a brilliant job of assessing the implications of decisions being made around the world, the latest science and so on, and has made its recommendations.

Equally, we have an emissions trading scheme legislated; it is in place, it is operating with a fixed price and will go to flexible pricing in 2015. Just as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is giving certainty to the renewable energy businesses, we want to give them the certainty of knowing that this parliament supports their work, supports the work of the Climate Change Authority and will not stand by and see those organisations threatened with uncertainty and doubt. We should just vote these bills down and give them certainty that they can get on with their work, deliver their reports, and that the parliament will deal with them accordingly and has no truck with the idea that you would abandon these pieces of legislation or in fact the whole climate package. It is a question of whether you think equivocation is a signal you want to send; it is clearly not a signal that I want to send.

The bills have been operating for 12 months and we know what they do. What we do not know is what Direct Action would or would not do, because there is no policy, no plan. That is why we wanted to have an inquiry into Direct Action and will continue to expose the flaws and inadequacies in any statements around Direct Action. But we are not going to extend this process. If the Abbott government wants to destroy the best opportunity we have to bring down our own emissions in the context of global emissions, then we will stand up and say no.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scrutiny is not equivocation. The Labor Party is absolutely committed to opposing the repeal of the ETS package of legislation and that is the exact reason why we need proper scrutiny of each of the elements of legislation that the Abbott government is seeking to repeal. I am personally fairly gobsmacked and appalled at the idea that the Greens would be voting with the Abbott government on this question, because taking the preachy high moral ground on this question is not the path to continuing the journey that we need to be on with the Australian people to convince them about the legitimacy of and need for a trading scheme in this country. I fear the Greens are playing absolutely into the Abbott government's hands. This country is at an important crossroads and this parliament is at an important crossroads. The Senate takes seriously its responsibility for due diligence and to scrutinise this legislation.

I will be a member of the environment committee and the economics committee. Both committees have dealt with these kinds of inquiries in the past and I can tell you that repeal is not a simple matter. It might look simple on the page but the substantive questions of each element of legislation are important. Therefore, a reporting date in December is simply not adequate for the task. I very much support Senator Wong in moving for a March 2014 reporting date because I know the significance of the integrity of this legislation that is being repealed. It is a complete suite of legislation that needs to be compared and contrasted with the coalition'sDirect Actionpolicy.

This parliament is at a crossroads where we can live up to our responsibilities to the next generation and to this parliament to do our jobs properly or turn down the wrong path and abandon the next generation and the jobs and economy that our nation needs. I know that the Abbott government wants to take us down the wrong path and I am appalled at the idea that the Australian Greens would be facilitating that. We are creating not just an environmental burden with the impact of global emissions on our climate but also a burden on our economy. If we go down the path that the Abbott government is outlining, the economy will not have done enough to modernise and adapt to the economic change that must come hand in hand with the environmental one. That is why it is critically important that, at the same time we consider Direct Action, we also consider what is at stake in terms of what we are repealing. This is not a job that has been done by this parliament before in terms of looking at the suite of those packages together. So this parliament, this Senate and its committees, has a serious responsibility to look at this question carefully. It is the role of this place to investigate, debate, deliberate and ensure that the actions of this parliament are in the best interests of our people and the nation that we serve. We need an inquiry that gives us the time to systematically address the issues of climate change and the best tools that we need to address it. This includes the impact of the carbon tax repeal bills and of the Direct Action policy.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly support the motion moved by Senator Fifield. Nothing could have been clearer at the last election than the coalition's policy in relation to this suite of legislation. We remember that, at the previous election, the Labor Party promised that it would never introduce a carbon tax and then broke its word within a couple of months of the election. We have made this commitment to the Australian people and we want to do everything possible to make sure we can honour that commitment.

The Australian public clearly demonstrated that they supported our approach. You may argue about other policy proposals that we took to the election. You may argue about whether people particularly gave us a mandate for this, that or the other. But, right from day one, Mr Abbott said that the next election, that being the election held in September 2013, would be a referendum on the carbon tax, and nobody—the Labor Party, the Greens and, most of all, the people of Australia—could have misunderstood that. The sooner we can bring this bill to fruition, to this chamber, the sooner the parliament can determine whether we should be able to discharge the commitment we made at the election.

I suspect the Greens are very clear in their attitude towards these abolition bills. We know they are going to oppose the abolition bills. At least with the Greens you know where they are. But with the Labor Party, of course, we are not quite sure. We have different members of the Labor Party saying different things. We know that, even in the days when the Labor Party were introducing the legislation, there was a considerable amount of division in the Labor Party ranks as to whether or not they should introduce the carbon tax. Unfortunately, the then Prime Minister overwhelmed the opposition. We used to read in the paper about what happened in the Labor Party caucus room, so we know that—I would suggest—a majority of Labor Party politicians understand that this was a stupid tax; it was a breach of promise; it has not done anything. Why should Australia be leading the world in a carbon tax, when all it does is destroy our economy and make us completely uncompetitive around the world? So I suspect that those in the Labor Party who opposed the introduction of the carbon tax but were not game to do it in this chamber will now be urging the Labor Party to simply roll over.

Clearly, the strategy of Senator Wong and the leadership group of the Labor Party is to delay this as long as possible and make it as difficult as possible to repeal the legislation, but I would venture a punt that, when the Labor Party are forced to vote on this series of bills, you might find that they will find some excuse for going along with us—and that will be good. I hope that happens. That is my estimate of what is going to happen, and I certainly hope and urge the Labor Party to adopt that course.

But why put off the evil day? Why not just get it over and done with? The Australian people have spoken. Why don't you let this go through the chamber? Support it. If you do not want to support it, don't vote. Don't come in on the bill. But at least let us get the decision of the Australian people confirmed in this parliament by having a vote as soon as possible. The proposal put by Senator Fifield is very reasonable. It provides for the scrutiny that is needed, and it will then bring this whole matter to a vote at the appropriate time.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.