Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the second report for 2014 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2014

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 at 7.15 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 May 2014 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 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 2, 3, 4 and 5 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c) the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2014 (see appendices 6 and 7 for statements of reasons for referral);

(d) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 8, 9, 10 and 11 for statements of reasons for referral);

(e) the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2014 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 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 13 and 14 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(g) the Trade and Foreign Investment (Protecting the Public Interest) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2014 (see appendix 15 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

Farm Household Support (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Customs) Bill 2014

Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Excise) Bill 2014

Quarantine Charges (Imposition-General) Bill 2014

The committee recommends accordingly.

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

(Helen Kroger) Chair

6 March 2014

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Bill has serious implications for procedural fairness in relation to proceeds of crime matters.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Law Council of Australia; other legal bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

April 14/15

Possible reporting date:

May 15

Senator Siewert

(signed)   

Whip / Selection of Bills Committee member

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Detailed consideration of the Government's legislation that amends the Fair Work Act 2009 consistent with the Government's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws.

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:

13 May 2014

Senator Fifield

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation. Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

5 June, 2014

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Research and consideration of Bill's implications

Consultation with stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACTU, ETU, UFU, NTEU

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

15 and 20 April or 15 and 20 May

Possible reporting date:

June 5

Senator Siewert

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The impact of the Bill in terms of Commonwealth spending on infrastructure and the relationship between Commonwealth and State funding of infrastructure. The impact of the Bill in terms of thresholds that are required to be met before infrastructure projects funded by State or Commonwealth governments are not put out to public tender.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Infrastructure Australia, Public Transport Users Association, Sub-Contractors Association.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

RRAT

Possible hearing date(s):

28 March

Possible reporting date:

13 May

Senator Siewert

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

March 24, 2014

Senator McEwen

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To evaluate the impact of proposed amendments on the aviation sector and the wider Australian economy.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Qantas, unions covering the Qantas workforce eg. ASU, TWU,

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Possible hearing date(s):

31st March/1st April

Possible reporting date:

13th May

Senator Siewert

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

March

Possible reporting date:

24 March, 2014

Senator McEwen

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 9

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Consideration of the opportunities the Bill will provide for Qantas to increase its competitiveness through the harmonisation of Australia's aviation regulatory framework.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Qantas

Virgin Australia

Regional Express Airlines

Aviation Associations

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

17 March 2014

Senator Fifield

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 10

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACTU

ACOSS

Welfare Rights

Job Services Australia

Department of the Environment/Social Services/Employment

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

25 March 2014

Senator McEwen

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 11

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Professor Kwong Lee Dow, Professor Valerie Braithwaite, Group of Eight, Innovative Research Universities, Regional Universities Network, Australian Technology Network, Universities Australia, Council for Private Education and Training, Council of International Students, Australian public and private higher education providers.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Dependent on submissions

Possible reporting date:

16 June 2014

Senator McEwen

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 12

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The impact of the proposed de-regulation across the wider higher education sector, particularly on staff and students is the principal issue for consideration. Another issue to consider is the use of legislation to dismiss the TEQSA commissioners.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

National Tertiary Education Union, Universities Australia, TEQSA, National Union of Students.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment

Possible hearing date(s):

11 April

Possible reporting date:

18 April

Senator Siewert

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 13

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Trade and Foreign Investment (Protecting the Public Interest) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses are extremely complex parts of trade agreements. There is community concern about what the clauses in the recently signed free trade deal with Korea means for environmental and health regulation. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement which Australia is negotiating currently also may include 1SDS cases.

Australia is still fighting a high profile 1SDS case against Phillip Morris regarding plain packaging for cigarettes.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, international trade law practitioners, ACTU, Choice, Business Council of Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Productivity Commission.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade

Possible reporting date:

June 16 2014

Senator Siewert

(signed)

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of:

(a) the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2014;

(b) the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2014; and

(c) the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2014.".

We are suggesting these dates to the chamber. We recognise the important role that the committees of the Senate play in scrutinising legislation but we also recognise that there is a significant legislative agenda and that we do need to endeavour to set reasonable reporting dates to enable the passage of legislation in good time. Obviously, that is not in conflict with the committees of the Senate doing their important work.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Fifield:

(a) Paragraph (a), omit "13 May 2014", and substitute "5 June 2014".

(b) Paragraph (c), omit "20 March 2014", and substitute "16 June 2014".

In moving these amendments we strongly support, as Senator Fifield has done, the role of the committees in looking carefully at significant legislation. We have heard, over the last couple of weeks, significant discussion about what the important processes of this place are. The government has moved many times, and publicly stated, that their priorities for the legislative process include a number of bills, but the two of which they speak most often are the repeal of the carbon tax bill and the minerals tax repeal bill. Both of those bills are still before this chamber and are subject to continuing scrutiny and discussion, taking up significant time of senators who wish to take part in that debate.

We heard only yesterday a government senator express concern about the process that they are facing in looking at a range of issues within their committees. On this point, we believe that for the two bills where we have submitted extended reporting dates—the Fair Work Amendment Bill and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill—there are real reasons for them to be subject to scrutiny by the community and through the Senate process because they bring in a range of significant changes. These are not bills that simply reflect what the government said they were going to do; they bring in a further range of issues. You would know, Mr President, that the issues of the Fair Work Amendment Bill and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill engage a wide range of our community.

Sometimes in committee processes we select a list of what we know as 'the usual suspects'—people who work in these areas. The usual suspects are already aware of the provisions. They are ready to talk about them. They have done the work within their own organisations about consultation and discussion.

We believe that on these two particular issues the impact of the bills has a wider range, and that many people need to know about what exactly is in these pieces of legislation so that they can have their opportunity—the opportunity which this Senate committee process allows them to consider the detail of the legislation, consider the personal impact that that may have and, also, work with the government, the opposition, the minor parties and Independents who choose to take part in the committee process—to look at exactly what will be the best impact for them and also the future impacts that will follow as a result of the change in legislation.

The dates that we propose allow that to happen. I know that there was some discussion about this at the Selection of Bills Committee last night. I believe that there is a real argument that, with the current roles and responsibilities of the committees that we have in front of us—the number of references, both in legislation and in wider areas, that the committees are handling at the moment—the later date allows an effective work program for these committees. It is important that senators have the opportunity to attend, that the community has the opportunity to be engaged and that we are able to look at the process effectively through setting our program. Mr President, as you know, the opposition does not set the program of debate in this place—that is the responsibility of the government.

What we are saying is that the role of our committees is to ensure that there is the best possible opportunity for scrutiny. In fact, we say that the role of committees is to scrutinise. Rushing processes limits the availability and the effectiveness of this scrutiny. We believe that the amendments we have made allow that program to operate more effectively, allow the input that you need to have and, also, provide the best possible information for our Senate to then debate effectively what the legislation is, what it means and what possible amendments could be made. We know the role of the committees is to recommend suggestions for how legislation can be made better and work more effectively. Actually, it is the role of our committees, working through the parliament, to ensure that the legislation is effective. We strongly say that these two dates should be amended to allow that to work.

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

Mr President, I just wish to clarify something for the chamber. I think, when moving the motion, in relation to (c) the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014 I may have inadvertently referred to the foreign affairs committee rather than the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, though I am certain it was the understanding of all in the chamber that that was the case.

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

That was the understanding I had of the amendment—that it was the foreign affairs committee.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We acknowledge that. I did not pick that up myself, so thank you.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Selection of Bills Committee report and on Senator Fifield's amendment, and I do so with significant reservations and concerns. We have just heard from Senator Moore, the Manager of Opposition Business, how the opposition do not set the program; the government does. Yet I have to say, sitting through that committee meeting last night, it was very blatant, the way in which the opposition are trying to set the program by referring legislation to committees with reporting dates that are close to the end of this Senate and the deadline of 30 June. They are using that as a means to influence what we can and cannot debate in this place.

I think that is a great tragedy, because I know as Chief Government Whip and formerly Chief Opposition Whip last year that within the Selection of Bills Committee there was a tremendous will and professional approach to accommodate the wishes of all. When we were in opposition, if we disagreed to a committee reporting date—and there were some good reasons why we did—we would seek to compromise and accommodate the wishes of the then government and agree to a compromise date. At no stage in the Selection of Bills Committee these days is there a willingness or a professional approach to accommodate the will of all parties and discuss a compromise situation. An obstructionist approach is being taken by the opposition. The Greens' blind support for the opposition's position and, likewise, the opposition's blind support for the Greens are yet another demonstration that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of each other. I think that is a great shame for this Senate and a great shame for this country.

I will just go through a few numbers. After the meeting last night I sat down and did some arithmetic. It sounds impressive from the outside. There have been 180 days since the coalition was elected to government—and what a win that was. But those on the opposite side still do not accept that we won a huge majority and that there was a huge swing against Labor and the Greens. Since this parliament commenced on 12 November, 89 hours and 12 minutes have been spent on business other than government legislation. Of the 132 hours and 58 minutes that the Senate has been in session for the 44th Parliament, only 28 hours and 40 minutes—just under 29 hours—have been spent considering legislation. If you do not accept anything else, the facts do not lie.

The suggestion that the government is setting the legislative program—Mr President, I have to say through you: Senator Moore, you are very good at spin, because that in itself demonstrates the way in which you are biasing the legislation that we are dealing with. We saw it in the Senate yesterday, where there was a disgraceful attempt, a disgraceful stunt, to hijack debate in this place; we spent hours discussing and debating a censure motion that had no basis whatsoever. The matter had been prosecuted through estimates. A whole day of estimates was spent on asking questions about it. You wasted the Senate's time yesterday in bringing forward a censure motion, again using up time that could have been spent on government legislation. You are absolute hypocrites. You should look at Hansard to see what you said last year.

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

Order! Senator Kroger, you need to withdraw that comment. It is not in order.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President.

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

No, you need to withdraw.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

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

Senator Kroger, you need to withdraw that comment. You cannot make that comment about people in this parliament.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that comment.

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

You withdraw the comment, thank you.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the comment in relation to any senator individually.

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

Thank you. Senator McEwen.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief in my contribution to this debate. I believe Senator Kroger has a very selective memory about what has happened at Selection of Bills Committee meetings over the long period of time that I have been a member of that committee and also as chair of that committee in the previous government. It is true that most of the bills that are introduced into this parliament are probably not referred to committees for inquiry and pass this chamber with the support of all parties. Some bills are referred to committees for inquiry. In the main, those referrals, which are made by all parties, are agreed upon by recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee, and that recommendation is subsequently endorsed by the Senate.

But, in my experience, and I am sure in the experience of all senators who have sat on the Selection of Bills Committee, there is always robust debate about the appropriate committee to which to refer a bill and also about the reporting date for a bill. We all understand the importance of setting reporting dates and how that impacts on the business of the Senate. That is why there is robust debate about it. It is an absolute whitewash by Senator Kroger to say that it is all sweetness and light at Selection of Bills Committee meetings. That is not necessarily the case. We of course try and reach consensus. When we cannot reach consensus, the committee quite rightly says that it was unable to do so, and the matter is referred to the floor of the Senate for decision. That is what is happening today.

Senator Kroger, unfortunately, your party—or fortunately for us—does not have the numbers on the floor of the Senate, and it is up to the Senate to decide what the reporting dates for these various references of bills to committees will be. I am pleased to be able to engage in the absolutely democratic process that is being undertaken at the moment. I think your description of senators as hypocrites demeans both you and your role as Chief Government Whip in the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will keep my contribution fairly short. I indicate that we will be supporting Senator Moore's amendment. In fact, we had a separate referral to the opposition on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, and we will be supporting reporting dates of 5 June and 16 June.

I think that, of the current members of the committee, I have been on the Selection of Bills Committee the longest. We do try to work in a cooperative way in that committee, but it is not fair to characterise that committee as always agreeing on everything. I would like to remind the chamber that we have had a number of debates in this place regarding disagreements on reports from the Selection of Bills Committee, including under the previous government. A number of senators have also brought separate references to the chamber directly, having not referred bills through the selection of bills process.

It has always been a robust process. We do not always agree, although we try to. Sometimes we just cannot reach agreement on reporting dates through that committee process. I think we should stop canning and caning the selection of bills process and accept that we will not always agree, though we try our hardest to. The right and proper place to have a debate is in this place.

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

It is an honour for me to speak after a very fine speech by Senator Kroger and also to highlight how the Labor Party will not accept the decisions of the Australian public as expressed at the last election. I want to emphasise the statistics Senator Kroger cited: 28 hours of the Senate's time spent on government business and three times that amount taken up by non-government business. The Labor Party are quite clearly living in the past. They refuse to accept the verdict of the Australian public. We have been trying to get through discussion on two bills on the major policy issues that the coalition took to the last election. One of those is abolishing the carbon tax. As an aside, I remind everyone that at the 2010 election the Labor Party promised never to introduce a carbon tax, so they should be voting with us in order to honour their original promise. It was quite clear to everybody that if we won the election we would abolish the carbon tax, and people voted for us on that basis. However, the Labor Party will not even allow the matter to be put to a vote, let alone get on with other business that was clearly given to the coalition in a mandate.

In her contribution, Senator Moore made reference to the fact that there had been some discussion about how busy the Senate committees are. She may have been referring to what I said, because I did raise that twice yesterday. I point out that, on one hand, the Labor Party are saying, 'We need to extend this because there are too many committees,' but, on the other hand, they vote with the Greens to set up yet another inquiry into the recent incident on Manus Island. This is the fifth inquiry into Manus Island. I see the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, overnight, has been very critical about a committee of the Australian parliament looking into something that occurred in Papua New Guinea sovereignty, on a Papua New Guinean island, and which the Papua New Guinean authorities are fully investigating. The Labor Party are adding to the work of the committees through this useless inquiry into the incident on Manus Island—an incident that, as I said, is already being investigated by five other properly resourced investigative teams.

It is simply part of the Greens-Labor Party political campaign against the work of the government in stopping the boats. Stopping the boats was, again, a policy that the coalition took to the federal election and, overwhelmingly, it was a policy endorsed by the Australian voter. Yet again, the Labor Party and the Greens cannot accept the verdict of the Australian voter and continue to frustrate the government at every turn in its determination to protect Australia's borders.

If the Labor Party are so concerned, as I am, about useless inquiries being set up by this chamber, they should put their foot down and say to the Greens that they are not going to willy-nilly, without any care or consideration, support their proposals for yet another inquiry into Manus Island. That is just one example I raise. There are too many committee inquiries being done. The essential work that has to be done by this chamber, which is looking at the legislation that comes through, should take precedence. That should be the work that takes the time and exercises the minds of senators on those committees. You do not delay important legislation. In so doing, you are rejecting the view of the Australian public and stopping the government's legislative program, which it needs to operate.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I turn to the substance of this proposition we have before us—that is, why do we need an extended period of time? I particularly want to talk about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2013. Quality and standards are fundamental issues when it comes to our higher education system. I remind the chamber that, if Labor's forward projection on funding and higher education assistance stands, by 2017 we will be spending $17.7 billion every year on higher education in this country. This is a sector of the economy that is producing some $15 billion a year in terms of our economy and employing over 100,000 Australians by attracting international students, so the issue of quality and standards is of some significance.

I think we need to state, and the chamber needs to examine, the way in which we have a genuine national regulator for the higher education system—a regulator that is able to preserve the international and domestic reputation of our higher education system in this country, particularly in the context where the government has explicitly put the view that it wants to expand the provision of private operators in the system. We need a regulator that is independent yet accountable. We need to be able to assure the public, given that so much of their money is engaged in the higher education sector, that it is actually money well spent and includes appropriate probity arrangements. We need genuine quality assurance by universities, as they are self-accrediting institutions, but we need a quality assurance regime by those universities that is verifiable. We need to be able to recognise that there will be different approaches for the research system, as there are for the teaching programs in this country. These are significant issues that require our attention.

The last time conservatives were in office and allowed the extension of private operators into the system, we saw a number of very damaging scandals for universities in this country. I just remind the chamber, because I spent a lot of my time on my feet on these issues, of those occasions. I remind the Senate about Greenwich University, which was operating from Norfolk Island and marketing itself as an Australian university. We had the University of Asia, registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands, operating from a post-office box in Adelaide and offering Australian degrees to international students via the internet. We had St Clements University—this was a real beauty—which was operating through a whisky distributing company. These are quite clearly unacceptable, and so the issue of quality assurance and the issue of standards are pretty fundamental to the way in which we operate in terms of our higher education system.

This is a government that dropped this bill into the House of Representatives last Thursday. They dropped in the bill with no consultation. There was no consultation with vice-chancellors; no consultation with the reviewers of the current regulatory regime, Professors Lee Dow and Braithwaite; and no consultation with students. They just dropped the bill in the chamber—in secrecy yet again. Why? Why would you need to do that on such an important matter?

We know that there was a review process which the Labor government introduced. In fact, the reviewers reported to me, so I am very concerned about pursuing this issue. I will quote directly from the report. Many people may well say what a quality report Professors Lee Dow and Braithwaite produced. They said:

It is easy to recommend apparently straightforward amendments to legislation which appear agreed by everyone. But this is worryingly simplistic, patching individual pieces of legislation can fix functional irritations, but will not necessarily change the way in which the legislation is being applied and why.

If ever there was a reason for proper scrutiny of an important piece of legislation which will have profound consequences for many years to come, it is surely a piece of legislation such as this, and how we develop a system in which there is genuine partnership that allows for a cultural and mutual respect to develop and which we can all be confident will be able to protect the reputation of this country at home and abroad.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague Senator Siewert has set out that we will be supporting this amendment. We have just heard from Senator Carr a very clear case for why there should be an extension of the reporting time for the TEQSA bill. So many of the arguments that he put really also should be applied to why there should be an extension of time for reporting on the inquiry into the Qantas Sale Act. As Senator Carr said, the TEQSA bill will have profound consequences for many years to come. He set out the enormous interaction higher education has with our economy and how important it is to the strength of our economy. Well, the same argument could be put for the Qantas Sale Act. We know that there are 32,000 jobs involved in Qantas. That is why the Greens want to put on the record that the committee inquiring into the Qantas Sale Act should have a longer time before it is required to report. The amendment bill has wide-ranging implications for Qantas workers. A fundamental change would be brought about if the Qantas Sale Act is amended. It clearly has implications for the wider economy. That is why we should have time to have considered deliberations on it. Clearly more time is needed. I find it concerning that we have Labor and the coalition working together to provide for only minimal time to undertake this important work. There does appear to be a shift in how Labor is working with the coalition on Qantas, and it is disturbing.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Moore to Senator Fifield's amendment be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.