David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 11th report for 2014 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 11 of 2014

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend:

That—

(a) contingent upon their introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 September 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 3 and 4 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(d) the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 5 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:

(David Bushby)

Chair

4 September 2014

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014

Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Industry groups and businesses affected by the Bill

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

Monday 27 October 2014.

(signed)

Senator Anne McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

For detailed consideration by the Senate Committee

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employee representatives

Employer representatives Departmental officials Other stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

24 September 2014

(signed)

Senator the Hon    Mitch Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To examine in greater detail the provisions of the Bill, in particular provisions to:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Universities, higher education policy experts, staff, students, industry and unions

Department of Education

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

29 September, 3/6/7/8/9 October

Possible reporting date:

27 October 2014

(signed)

Senator the Hon    Mitch Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

subsidised higher education, without having to pay upfront.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

22 September 2014

(signed)

Senator the Hon    Mitch Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Industry Super Australia Financial Planning Association COTA

National Seniors CHOICE

Financial Services Council Association of Financial Advisers Ltd The Treasury

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

Tuesday 30 September 2014.

(signed)

Senator Anne McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

) ( ): I move an amendment to Senator Bushby's motion:

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

(a) the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 2 October 2014;

(b) the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 28 October 2014; and

(c) the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 30 September 2014.".

We are proposing to amend the reporting dates for three of the pieces of legislation that have been put forward. The first one is the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill and the associated Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill. We have an amended date of 2 October 2014 for that one. For the second one, the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill, we have an amended date of 28 October 2014. For the final one, the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill, we are seeking to change the reporting date to 30 September 2014.

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

I do not have the government's original motion in front of me, but Senator Moore's amendment refers to the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill being referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for report by 2 October. It would help if I knew what the government's original motion was.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The motion is that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted. Senator Moore is seeking to amend that report.

I have not seen that report. My point is that I am not sure whether the government wanted it earlier than 2 October or later.

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

Earlier would have been our preference, but we can live with that date.

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

What a good negotiation!

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

It is often the case that negotiations are conducted with everyone except the government's own backbench. That is no reflection on Senator Fifield, who does a wonderful job in what are, I might say, very difficult circumstances. I very much support what he does.

Perhaps I will get on with the point I really wanted to speak about, and that is that I am told by staff that recently the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was dealing with 14 concurrent inquiries. I was told that that was a record for the Senate. Whether it is true or not, it is not a record you would be proud of. I simply make this point: there are some bills that for government reasons—very valid reasons—need to be dealt with urgently, but we are getting so many references to both the legislation and he references committee that committees are struggling to cope with the work being given with them. It is not only senators themselves but also the committee secretariat staff, who do an absolutely magnificent job. They must be under pressure in trying to deal with all these committees, to draft chairs' reports and to deal with dissenting reports. It is not fair to the committee staff and, quite frankly, it is not fair to senators either.

The fault lies, of course, with those of us in this chamber because we continue to set up inquiries. I see a couple of other inquiries being proposed today. I do not know when senators are going to get the opportunity to deal with them. I rise today to say what I have been saying privately in our party room: we really do need to have a serious look at the workload of senators. As the Labor Party will know and as the Greens would appreciate as well, in government, ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not usually part of the committee process so backbenchers are dealing with four, five and six committees at the same time. We are travelling—in my case—from North Queensland to Hobart to Perth and trying to do justice to these things.

So I am just making a general plea for us to be a little bit more circumspect in the number of matters we refer to committees. In this instance I am very keen to see the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement implemented. I am very keen to be part of the committee that will look at it, because it is an area that I have a particular interest in. I am always a bit sad we did not get a better deal for sugar, but I will talk about that some other time. But it is good that it is coming. It has to be done, and I am sure the committee will deal with it expeditiously. (Time expired)

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

I move an amendment to Senator Moore's proposed amendment:

In respect of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, omit "28 October 2014", substitute "22 September 2014".

I will not speak for long to this, but I do want to acknowledge the very valid points that Senator Macdonald made and for the benefit of the chamber make clear that the reference of the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee was a reference from the opposition, not from the government. We were not seeking to have it referred to a committee. Likewise, with the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice) Bill 2014 the proposed reference to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee was not one that the government sought; it was a proposed referral by the opposition.

As I have indicated, we did not seek or see the need for that. We are, however, not going to oppose the dates proposed. We can live with those dates, but we do propose an amendment to Senator Moore's amendment in relation to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, which is critical reform. The government is of the view that while, of course, it is perfectly appropriate that a committee of the Senate examine such significant legislation, nevertheless we are keen to in a reasonable time be in a position where the Senate can consider that legislation in this place.

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

The government did seek to initiate an inquiry into the higher education package that the Minister for Education is pursuing and proposed a date of 22 September. I recognise the point that Senator Macdonald makes about the workload of committees, but they are trying to ram through a reporting date when the government itself has proposed 15 witnesses to be dealt with in two weeks—to take submissions—

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

They are just suggestions.

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

You have said it on your bit of paper. That is the problem when you follow advice from House of Representatives ministers: they have no understanding of how the Senate works, no understanding of the implications of what they are actually saying. They propose that the committee receive submissions and take evidence from 15 witnesses all in the space of two weeks.

Mind you, this is a bill that has 325 pages of material—bills, explanatory memorandums and regulatory impact statements—a bill that goes to the most radical change to the higher education system in this country in 40 years, a bill which is in complete and total contrast to what the Prime Minister said would happen prior to the election, a bill upon which there has been no consultation before it was announced, a package of measures which is completely false in terms of the claims made about the circumstances that will occur in universities and a perfidy reflected in this government's behaviour when it comes to education.

This is a Prime Minister that told Universities Australia and the Australian people just before the election—in fact, I think it is one year to the day—there would be 'masterly inactivity'. There would be no cuts to education. There would be no changes, said the Minister for Education, to the fee structures of this country. This was all one year ago. And now we are presented with a proposition which has fundamentally far-reaching changes to the way universities function in this country.

This week we have seen what happens in this place when people act in haste. This week we have seen this with the mining tax changes and the effects on superannuation in this country. In this chamber you act in haste and you repent at leisure. That is the cost to the Australian people of one of the most dramatic changes that we have seen to universities in this country in over a generation. So it is fitting that there at least be a process by which we can examine the detail of this government's perfidy when it comes to higher education.

I want to know clause by clause what the implications of this act are. I understand what the government's philosophical position is—and I say it is morally bankrupt. I say this bill is actually rotten to the core, but I do want to know the detail of what this bill proposes, what the implications are for one million Australians, what the implications are in terms of social justice for this nation and what the implications are for the economy of this nation. I think we are entitled to ask those questions before the bill comes in. This is one of the fundamental principles of the Senate committee system. This is the house of review.

The Senate committee system is a very powerful instrument in getting to the bottom of what the government is seeking to do. I will not be surprised if even the comprador section of this coalition, the National Party, comes to understand exactly what the implications are for rural and regional Australians. It will not surprise me to discover that the implications of these measures go far beyond even what the most idiotic elements of the free marketeers would have thought they were doing. It would not surprise me to discover, when we look at the detail, that these are measures that even the government will not be able to support.

We do know that of the 15 witnesses the government has proposed, not one of them has unequivocally supported these measures—wait until they understand the full detail of it. This is what we found with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014. Do you remember the tick-and-flick TEQSA bill? We discovered five separate sets of amendments that the government now acknowledge they have to make. I trust that the Senate finds some confidence in the fact that we need to have an inquiry that actually allows people to put evidence to this chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you have already spoken.

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

I am speaking on the amendment to the amendment, which is Senator Fifield's amendment. I actually agree and support Senator Fifield's amendment on the change of the date.

Can I also say that I agree with most of what Senator Carr has just said. I do think it is important. This is a fairly substantial piece of legislation. I think it is good legislation. I have been convinced by Mr Pyne that it is good. I have been convinced by the vice-chancellors, who have all been calling for its adoption, that it is the right way to go. I also add—and I put in brackets for Hansard by way of a joke—that I am quite happy for it to be dealt with at an earlier time because I am not on that committee and I will not have to sit through it all. But I will watch it because the points that Senator Carr made are very valid.

Without digressing from my support for this amendment to the amendment, can I briefly in passing refer to the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. My understanding is that the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement bill will be going to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which many senators are already part of. This is the point I was making before: why are we having a Senate inquiry, and taking the time and the resources of the Senate, to deal with a matter that will already be dealt with—correct me if I am wrong—by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, where it should be? It seems to me that senators have to have a serious look at the duplication of committees not only in their own interests of health but also bearing in mind the resources and pressures put on committee staff. But I support Senator Fifield's amendment.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Bushby be agreed to.

Question agreed to.