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

At the request of Senator Collins, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2015:

The handling of a letter sent by Mr Man Haron Monis to the Attorney-General dated 7 October 2014, and the evidence provided during the Budget estimates, including the subsequent correction of that evidence, with particular reference to:

(a) the details of the internal inquiry conducted by the Secretary of the Attorney-General‘s Department, Mr Chris Moraitis, following the discovery that incorrect evidence had been provided and any subsequent changes made to administrative practices between the department and the Attorney-General‘s office;

(b) the consideration given by the Joint Commonwealth and New South Wales review team to the correspondence sent by Mr Monis to various members of Parliament and other relevant documents and the basis for the assertion by Mr Thawley that the correspondence would make no difference to the findings of the review; and

(c) what, if any, changes were made to procedures for the handling of incoming correspondence to the Attorney-General‘s Department and the Attorney-General‘s Office following the raising of the national terrorism public alert level to ‗High‘ on 12 September 2014.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this motion, because it is inappropriate for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to inquire into a matter that has been before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's examination of estimates, where the legislation committee still, on a spillover day, has the capacity to inquire further and indeed has indicated that it intends to do so. Odgers' Australian Senate Practice states:

• references committees inquire into matters referred to them by the Senate, other than matters

to be referred to legislation committees

• legislation committees inquire into bills, estimates, annual reports and performance of agencies

On that basis, this matter is currently and properly within the jurisdiction of the legislation committee. It should not therefore concurrently be before the references committee. That is at variance with Senate practice.

The motion also seeks a report within six days. Any referral to the references committee would be an unfortunate precedent and a waste of the time of Senate. (Time expired)

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

On a point of order: Senator Brandis has quoted you the Senate rules and Odgers, and with respect, Mr President, could I suggest that you rule the motion out of order, because it is contrary to the practices of the Senate. To repeat what Senator Brandis has said: where it is properly before the legislation committee, and this one clearly is. It was discussed and, as chairman, I have since had a request from three members of that committee to have a spillover specially on this point, which the committee will deal with at its meeting tomorrow.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. You are now delving into debating the issue. I do accept that you have raised a point of order in relation to whether or not the Senate can properly deal with this motion. The Senate can. This is the forum, the body, that determines what goes before it and what decisions it makes. Yes, in the past there has been a delineation that has been observed in practice, but the Senate can make that decision, and it is the Senate that will make that decision. So there is no point of order.

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

Mr President, I have a further point of order. This is being raised for the first time and you say it is a matter for the Senate to debate and decide. If it is a formal motion, the Senate will not have the opportunity of debating and deciding. If the rules mean anything, we should either abide by the standing orders or get rid of them. Where it clearly says that this should not happen, it is up to you, with respect, Mr President, to rule it out of order and uphold the standing orders.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again on your point of order, Senator Macdonald, the standing orders are not being breached. The standing orders are being complied with. In relation to the Senate not having the opportunity to vote on the motion at the moment, that is correct. But any senator had the opportunity a moment ago to deny formality. This motion has been accepted as a formal motion. I did not hear any senator deny formality. If that had been the case, the motion could have been debated at a later juncture. In that case, I will now put the motion moved by Senator McEwen on behalf of Senator Collins.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and on behalf of Senator Collins, move:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2015:

(a) the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts; and

(b) the suitability and appropriateness of the establishment of a National Programme for Excellence in the Arts, to be administered by the Ministry for the Arts, with particular reference to:

(i) the effect on funding arrangements for:

  (A) small to medium arts organisations,

  (B) individual artists,

  (C) young and emerging artists,

  (D) the Australia Council,

  (E) private sector funding of the arts, and

  (F) state and territory programs of support to the arts,

(ii) protection of freedom of artistic expression and prevention of political influence,

(iii) access to a diversity of quality arts and cultural experiences,

(iv) the funding criteria and implementation processes to be applied to the program,

(v) implications of any duplication of administration and resourcing, and

(vi) any related matter.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

The government does not support this motion. As recently as three weeks ago senators had the opportunity to ask questions of the minister, relevant agencies and officials regarding budget decisions on the arts. The minister, relevant agencies and officials answered all questions put to them about matters referred to in the senators' motion. Indeed, senators ultimately exhausted themselves of questions. The National Program for Excellence in the Arts is yet to be formally established, and it should be obvious how absurd it would be to establish a Senate inquiry into the conduct of a program which has not yet commenced.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to also make a very brief statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge Senator Fifield is quite correct when he points out that an estimates committee examined these issues in some detail with Senator Brandis and two of the senior bureaucrats most relevant to this portfolio a couple of weeks ago in budget estimates. Guess who that leaves out? The entire arts community! They were not able to provide evidence on this extraordinary rip-off that Senator Brandis has perpetuated on arts funding. I, and Senator Collins on behalf of the Labor Party, would like to take more evidence than that provided by Senator Brandis. I look forward to the concurrence of the Senate in getting this inquiry afoot.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 be agreed to.