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

I present the 16th 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. 16 of 2014

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 7.21 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Local Content) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2015 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 March 2015 (see appendices 2, 3 and 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 and the Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 March 2015 (see appendices 5 and 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2015 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (Improved Oversight and Resourcing) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 March 2015 (see appendix 8 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 considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

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

(David Bushby)

Chair

4 December 2014

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of Bill:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Local Content) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:

1. The importance of local content in Australia, and the role the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should play in the provision of such content;

2. The recent efficiency savings imposed on the Corporation by the Government;

3. The centralisation of the Corporation's operations to Sydney; and

4. Any related matters

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (both employees and Board members)

Department of Communications

Friends of the ABC

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance

Committee to which the bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Committee (Legislation)

Possible hearing date(s):

January/February 2015

Possible reporting date:

25 March 2015

(signed)

Senator Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector­General ADF) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To provide an opportunity to canvass the proposal and the benefits it brings to the Australian Defence Force in efficiency, transparency and accountability.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders with a particular interest in Military Justice issues

Department of Defence, including the Inspector-General Australian Defence Force

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

3 March 2015

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector- General ADF) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Further evaluation and consideration

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian Defence Association, Legal Professors and Professionals

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

3 March 2015

(signed)

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:

Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements - Inspector­General ADF) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Changes to the powers of the Inspector-General of the ADF are controversial and could have a substantial impact on ADF members. With this in mind, the bill should be referred to committee for inquiry to examine its consequences.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Defence Association, Defence Force Welfare Association, other Defence stakeholders, the Department of Defence, the Inspector-General of the ADF.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Possible hearing date(s):

Mid to late January 2015

Possible reporting date:

March 2015

(signed)

Senator Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 and Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This is the first legislation of this kind proposed in the Parliament

Allow for public consultation, including with industry, community groups and education providers

Enable public input into the impact of technological developments on this new area of law

Scrutiny of the practical issues surrounding the implementation of the scheme

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Social media companies

Anti-bullying organisations

Education groups

Technology and communications specialists

Department of Communications

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by Committee

Possible reporting date:

3 March 2015

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014, and Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

There is substantial disagreement within the wider community about whether this legislation has merit. The legislation would benefit from scrutiny and debate over its approach. The consequences for the many stakeholders affected by the legislation need to be examined.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Communications Alliance, Australian Interactive Marketing Industry Association, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, lnstagram, Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Vodafone, parents groups, the National Tertiary Education Union.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

Mid to late January 2015

Possible reporting date:

March 2015

(signed)

Senator Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure a thorough and complete assessment of its potential impact on a bargaining parties' ability to take protected industrial action and to examine any unforeseen consequences arising from the Bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions, employer bodies, academics and the Department of Employment.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

Wednesday 25 March 2015

(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:

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (Improved Oversight and Resourcing) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Important piece of proposed national security legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law

Law Council of Australia

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Attorney-General's Department

Australian Human Rights Commission

Australian Lawyers Alliance

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law

Professor Ben Saul

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 20-23 2015

January 26-30 2015

Possible reporting date:

Thursday 5 March

(signed)

Senator Siewert

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 the following amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 March 2015."

We believe that it is most important that a bill of this kind, which is looking at security issues in this place, be referred to the appropriate committee. We have a very effective and very hardworking finance and public administration committee in our parliament which takes great interest in issues which are going on within this parliamentary precinct.

We have a standard process that, when any person in this parliament seeks referral of a bill, it is usually, through the selection of bills process, discussed and approved. There are often some very robust debates in the selection of bills process, and it is often around timing, when the deadline will be, what kind of process will take place and how many meetings of the committee there will be. But the inherent process of the openness to scrutiny of any piece of legislation that is put forward is something that we tend to support in this place. There are exceptions, of course, and I am sure the government will be able to point to exceptions in the past, but they are very specific. They are when there are issues of key urgency—issues of national security or processes that make it important that the bill be passed immediately. We do not believe the government has made these arguments effectively in this case.

My understanding is that we put forward a recommendation to refer the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The bill is looking at changing the way security operates in this building and engaging with the Australian Federal Police in a more direct way, something that we think is realistic but should be considered. My understanding is that we agreed in our party that this particular bill would move through the House of Reps, as it did, but that when it came to the Senate it would be subject to the scrutiny processes which are standard in this place. Agreement was reached between the offices of the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker to pass the bill, and there was very little debate in the other place.

One of the reasons that happens is the understanding that, when a bill gets to the Senate, there are clear procedures to ensure that that legislation is considered effectively. That is facilitated by the committee process, which is open to anyone who is interested in learning about the legislation or making a submission on it.

What was put to the Selection of Bills Committee last night was not a referral for a six-month inquiry with all the bells and whistles. What was put forward was a straightforward inquiry into the issues around how this will operate, exact roles and, particularly, the definition of 'operation' as part of the proposed expanded remit of the security management board. Those issues would then be subject to our expected process.

The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, as I said, has extensive experience in these areas and is made up of knowledgeable senators from across this place who have already proven that they have the experience and have a professional interest in what makes this building operate best. Those senators should have the opportunity to consider this legislation, to ask questions of the appropriate people about how it will work and also to ensure that any concerns in the wider community are considered. And there are people who are very, very involved in how security here operates—not the details. This is not an argument for finding out security details; it is about just how the protection of this building, and the people in it, will work.

So we strongly believe that there should be a committee review of the bill, which is an inherent part of the way the Senate operates—a short-term review: my understanding is that we asked for a reporting date of 2 March. That is not asking for too much. We know that Senate committees do not operate in the January period. We do not come back to sit until February. We believe it is an entirely appropriate process for a piece of legislation that impacts on the security of this building. At a time when there is real interest generally in security issues, a request put forward to the Selection of Bills Committee for a committee review of this bill should not be rejected out of hand. The government has not made it clear why it should not happen. We believe that it would work effectively to ensure that there was scrutiny and we strongly believe that our straightforward amendment— (Time expired)

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

The government do not support the referral of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, but we will not be seeking to divide on this. We recognise that the numbers are probably out there. But all the government have been seeking to do is to give effect to what we understood was the agreement between the two parties, that this particular bill have passage through the Senate in this session. It would be fair to say that we have been getting different answers from different people in the Labor Party as to what the Labor Party's position actually is in relation to how this particular bill should be handled. But, as I said, we do not support its referral to a committee but we will not be seeking to divide on it.

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

The Greens will be supporting the amendment to refer the Parliamentary Services Amendment Bill 2014 to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. We support the reporting date; we think 2 March is fair enough for reporting on this bill. We understood, when the bill was introduced by the President, that in fact there was an understanding that it would be referred to a committee for inquiry. I have been told subsequently that that is not what the President intended, which I am disappointed about, because I know the President does follow procedure really appropriately and that he is concerned that this place operate according to appropriate procedures. Therefore, I am a bit surprised that now the government are saying, 'We don't want to refer this particular bill.' It does have in it points that need to be reviewed, so I am concerned that the government have decided it should not be referred to a committee.

I also understand that the government thought the ALP were going to support the bill's passage through the Senate without referring it to a committee. I am sure the ALP will address that issue, given that I am not aware of those circumstances. However, I do know that the Greens are keen to see this bill reviewed by a committee because it is important that bills of this nature are reviewed. The Greens support the referral of bills to the committee process. There have been some exceptions to this, but, in general, when a party refers a bill for inquiry by a committee, that is nearly always supported. There have been some notable exceptions, and we have had stoushes about that in this place because there is a need for scrutiny of legislation that has potential implications. There are some exceptions; I agree with Senator Moore.

In fact, we are about to deal with one, in non-controversial legislation, and that is the Mr Fluffy bill—and we all know why it is essential that that bill be dealt with. But, as far as I am aware, this parliamentary service bill is not a time-bound bill. There is no requirement for it to be dealt with in an expeditious manner, unlike the bill that we have collectively agreed not to refer to a committee, which is the bill that addresses the issues around Mr Fluffy. Nobody would want to stand in the way of that process for compensation starting immediately and dealing with that issue of asbestos contamination. That is of course a sensible exception to referring bills to a committee, because it needs to be dealt with very quickly.

But, on the whole, we do support referrals, and the selection of bills process works this way: someone says, 'We want the bill to be referred,' and we then maybe quibble about the dates. But, on this bill, the government are not quibbling about the date; they are saying they do not want it referred. It is a bill that should be looked at because it is dealing with issues of security and, as I understand it, puts an additional person, an AFP member, on the security management board. We do think these issues need to be dealt with.

As I said, we do not see its urgency. Certainly, when it was introduced we were not given to understand that this was going to be an urgent bill—it was a bill that the President introduced, and I understand it came through the other place fairly quickly. That is not unusual. Sometimes bills do go through the other place quite quickly because the other place knows that the Senate is the house of review and that the Senate will, in fact, give bills a fair going-over in the committee process, because that is part of its job. We have an effective committee system on the whole—sometimes it does not function quite well when bills are rammed through this place and committees are given very short time lines to review them. But in this case the government are not even willing to give a short time line for this—they just do not want it reviewed. I must say, I find it quite unusual that they do not. As I said, the President usually is very keen to ensure that we are giving proper review to particular pieces of legislation.

If this bill is urgent, I think the government should be explaining why it is urgent. There has been no statement to say why this is urgent and why they do not want it referred—other than that we had a misunderstanding in this place. They say that we, the Greens and other senators who want this bill referred, had a misunderstanding of what the President wanted. Be that as it may, we think this bill should be referred to committee. We think this is an appropriate time line for it to be referred. It is not too long, but it gives us enough time to be able to look at the bill.

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

I want to contribute to this important debate as well. I am actually a member of the Selection of Bills Committee, and last night, when this particular item came up on the schedule of bills for its fate to be determined, I moved that this bill be referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and for report by 2 March. It was an extremely usual kind of thing to do with a bill of this nature, and I was surprised when the government indicated that for some reason they believe this bill had to be dealt with immediately. There is no urgency to this bill. In fact, this bill should and must be subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate Senate committee because the bill deals with the matter of the security of the people who work in this building, and indeed with the security of the people who visit us in this Parliament House.

This bill, if passed, will change the membership of the Security Management Board, which is a legislated authority which advises the presiding officers of the parliament about matters to do with security. In the recent past, of course, we have had some very interesting advice from the presiding officers about matters of security. I have to say, as the Opposition Whip in this place, that one of the things the senators who work here talk to me about often is issues of security, and they, of course, are concerned not just for themselves but for the guests and other people who come to visit them. So, if this committee is dealing with the important issue of security—and we know that this building has been on a heightened security alert for some period of time—it is entirely appropriate that the right Senate committee gets an opportunity to look at the actual implications of this legislation, if it is enacted. It is a simple request. It should be examined by the relevant Senate committee so that, if there are any unexpected outcomes or potential problems within this legislation, these can be identified by that committee and recommendations can be made. That committee, which is chaired by the government, could make recommendations to the Senate about any changes that may need to be made to this very, very important piece of legislation.

It is not just a simple piece of legislation. It is not just a 'tick and flick' piece of legislation. It came to the Senate—we know it passed through the House of Representatives, but they do not have the inquiry process that we have here in the Senate, where we are very used to looking at what seem to be innocuous pieces of legislation. This seems to be innocuous, but we will not know until it is has been properly examined by the finance and public administration committee of this Senate. As I said, when we are dealing with matters of security, it is very important to take the time to ensure that legislation is actually going to deliver what you set out for it to deliver. There are numerous instances in this place, and it happened when we were in government as well. You would think a piece of legislation was right, you would think the drafters had got it right and you would think there were no unintended consequences of that legislation—but when the Senate committees had a look at it they would find that there could be unintended consequences. It could be that those consequences would be pointed out by witnesses who would be called to give evidence to a Senate committee looking at this. We are not asking for anything extraordinary. It is a very timely reporting date of 2 March—early next year. Hopefully, if the legislation were up to scratch, it would then be passed by the Senate, as it should be.

All we are asking for is normal process and normal practice. All we are asking is that in the matter of security—for heaven's sake, Senators on that side—be responsible, be reasonable and act in the best interest of everybody who works in this place. (Time expired)

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

I was not inclined to speak in this debate till the Manager of Government Business chose to put some things on the record which I think require a response from the leadership of the opposition in this place. He made a number of comments which I think require some correction.

Let us be clear about what we are debating. We are debating here the issue of whether or not the Parliamentary Services Amendment Bill goes to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for an inquiry. One would not have thought this is a controversial issue. There is a change—

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

We are not debating it.

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

He is interjecting again.

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

We are not going to divide.

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

Mr Deputy President, I am going to need the protection of the chair soon. What we are debating is whether or not the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill—

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

You are just filling in time.

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

Mr Deputy President, I wonder if you could ask the whip to cease talking to me. I am happy to talk to him outside, if he wants.

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

The Senate should come to order.

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

What I want to be very clear about is this. We do, in this place, have a principle, where absent urgent circumstances, absent a compelling argument as to urgency, the general proposition that senators across the political divide, including—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan, you may well avail yourself of this at times—senators have agreed that legislation gets referred to committees for consideration. That is the general proposition. There are circumstances where we have urgent bills where it is agreed that that principle is departed from but that is the general principle in this place. Even with the counter-terrorism legislation there was agreement with Senator Brandis that there be an inquiry through the PJCIS. It is true that senators also will agree, if something is not controversial or urgent, that we will have a limited inquiry. I am very clear that there is no need for a lengthy inquiry on this legislation but we think it is appropriate to refer it to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The manager made some suggestion that this was a new proposition, that this was something they were not aware of. I want to make very very clear, crystal clear, that I was clear on Monday of this week at a meeting of leaders and whips, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to the whip and to the manager, if he was in the meeting— I cannot recall; he was in and out of the meeting—that we were intending to ask that this be referred to Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. So the suggestion the manager has put on the record, to which I feel the need to respond—Senator O'Sullivan, you will understand that—that this is somehow a stunt or a new thing is wrong. I told the Leader of the Government in the Senate on Monday that we would want this referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. I also advised the President that that was the opposition's position.

The Labor Party has facilitated speedy passage of this legislation through the House. At no point in this debate, at no point in the conversations which have been had has a single government senator or minister explained to this chamber why it is so urgent that this bill be passed to day. Not a single government senator has made that argument. Why is this occurring?

The information I was given—I do not want to divulge by whom—in some private conversations would suggest that there is some push from the Prime Minister's office to get this legislation through. If that is the case, tell us what the urgency is. All are silent over there. This is so urgent, we cannot actually send this bill to the Finance and Public Administration—

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

I believe the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I am told that the Prime Minister's office has spoken to the Leader of the Opposition. I speak to Mr Shorten fairly regularly and this is the Labor Party's position. We want a limited inquiry to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.

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

You moved an amendment; we didn't agree. Let's move on.

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

If the Chief Government Whip is so anxious to interject, I invite him to stand up and tell us what is so urgent about this bill, why the Prime Minister's office is demanding that the manager push this bill along and refuses to send it to a committee, which is the normal process in the Senate. The normal process in this Senate is that, if a senator or a party requests that the bill go to a legislation committee, then absent compelling circumstances to the contrary, that principle has been adhered to. Not once have you indicated to us why this is so compelling. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate because I am somewhat perplexed.

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

Stephen, that's not unusual.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may not be unusual but it is unusual that you could perplex me. What I am confused about here is this quest for urgency which you are unable to articulate. Why is the fix being put in by your side that you are being so unreasonable that you are not allowing the normal processes of the Senate to take place?

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy is bordering on misleading the Senate. I have already indicated that we will not be seeking to divide. So this debate is superfluous really.

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

Thank you, Senator Fifield, but that is not a point of order; that is debating point.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you can see there, another opportunity for the Manager of Government Business in the Senate to explain the urgency as to why we have to say no, why we have to overturn a normal Senate procedure, just because the Prime Minister's office have told you that you cannot send it to a committee. It is no wonder we are seeing reports in the paper about the shambolic government. It is all over today's papers. The Prime Minister's office is being criticised by the whole backbench and you can see today that that shambolic management of government has now stretched from the executive wing, stretched from the House of Representatives and come in here.

We have the Prime Minister's office saying, 'This bill must go through.' Just as the Liberal Party backbench committee rejected bringing on the setting up of the medical research fund—I am sure you are on that because I know you're interested in these topics—just as the backbench said no, we are not going to be railroaded by the executive, we are not going to be railroaded by the 18 year Prime Minister's office with a tin ear, we are not going to be railroaded by ministers coming here around saying, 'Just vote for this and be quiet,' we want to have a look at it.

The Senate is now saying the same: why are we being forced to overturn normal procedures? Why will this government not accept that the normal processes of this Senate should apply? We know it is because the Prime Minister's office thinks it is actually running the entire parliament, both chambers. It thinks it can just tell the Liberal Party backbench what to do. It thinks it can tell the House of Representatives what to do and, more importantly and arrogantly, it thinks it can tell this chamber what to do. Well, this chamber is not going to swallow that sort of treatment, any more than Senator Macdonald is. Senator Ian Macdonald made a very important contribution on radio this morning. He does not make many, but this was one. He said: 'We've got a government that's just rushing willy-nilly. It's not consulting its own people. It's not taking the time to have conversations with its own backbench. And it should stop.' So its own backbenchers are now so upset at the conduct of the executive of the Prime Minister's office they are in open rebellion at the conduct.

What we are seeing here is that the Prime Minister's office has obviously picked up the phone to the whip and the deputy whips, picked up the phone to call Senator Birmingham, picked up the phone to call Senator Fifield, and said: 'I want this bill through. How dare the Senate want to have a look at it in a committee process?' Well, just like that Liberal Party backbench economics committee, we say no. It is unfair on the Senate, it is unfair on the parliament and we are entitled to examine this bill just like we examine every other bill that people want referred to committees. That is what is at stake here today.

It is a shambolic government. There are reports in today's paper of Ms Bishop 'going bananas' at the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister's office had leaked that she is not allowed to go to Lima because they do not trust her and they have got to send the hard man Mr Robb to keep her company—and the Prime Minister's office leak it! No wonder Ms Bishop storms into Mr Robb's office and points out to Mr Robb that she is actually his boss, not the other way round. No wonder she storms into Mr Abbott's office. We are now seeing leaks from private meetings between the Prime Minister of Australia and the foreign minister of Australia. The National Security Committee has got more leaks than the House of Representatives had yesterday! We get almost a daily transcript of the fights between Scott Morrison, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. (Time expired)

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

It has been a huge assistance, John, thanks!

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

The time for this debate has now concluded. Senator Bushby has moved a motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report and Senator Moore has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.