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

I present the first report of 2016 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. 1 OF 2016

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 7.17 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That-

(a) the provisions of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015 and the Australian Crime Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2016 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

  (b) the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2] be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2016 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (New Tax System for Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015 and the Medicare Levy Amendment (Attribution Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015 and the Income Tax (Attribution Managed Investment Trusts— Offsets) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2016 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the provisions of the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2016 (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 February 2016

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

For further scrutiny of the Bill and an opportunity for stakeholders to raise any concerns with the proposed merger of CrimTrac into the Australian Crime Commission and to allow an opportunity for concerns with the implementation of, or timeline for, the proposed merger to be resolved.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

State and Territory Attorney's General

Attorney General's Department

CrimTrac

Australian Crime Commission

State Police Commissioners

AFP

Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology

ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, Griffith University, QLD

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

10 March 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2J

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Detailed consideration of the impact of the legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employee associations Employer association

Department of Employment

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

15 March 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Concerns raised by stakeholders, in particular:

Concerns from stakeholders about changes for students studying part-time

Concerns from the stakeholders on restricting access to special benefits

Possible submissions or evidence from:

NTEU

NUS

NWRN

ACOSS

Sydney Welfare Rights Centre

Other community organisations

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Hearing on the papers

Possible reporting date:

10 March 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Tax Laws Amendment (New Tax System for Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015 and associated bills.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Further examination is required of drafting and implementation issues identified during consultation with sector stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Treasury

Tax academics

Major banks

Australian Custodial Services Association

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

10 March 2016

(signed)

Senator McEwen

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Primary concerns are with changes under Item 27 (Section 106) which allows trade revenue to be used for 'environmental activities' instead of being limited to buying more water for the Murray Darling Basin. There is also no clarity on how projects would be defined as an environmental activity and on what basis a decision is made as to whether a project adheres to that classification.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders (e.g. Australian Conservation Foundation)

Relevant government departments (e.g. Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder) Researchers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

15 February 2016

17 February 2016

Possible reporting date:

10 March 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

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 and amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "but, in respect of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2] the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 15 March 2016.".

The reason we have asked for this date is to allow fulsome debate in our process. We all know the sensitivities of this legislation; we all know the issues around the legislation and the importance of having engagement on the evidence in front of us. Since we these bills were originally put to the Senate, we have had the TURC report and there is a great need to examine the evidence that came through in that inquiry. We all know there are elements of that which have not been opened to the wider public, so if we are moving to such significant legislation—and these bills are significant legislation—then there should be absolute scrutiny from the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee of the evidence in front of us before we actually come to taking a vote on such important elements.

As I have said in these discussions many times, that is the role of the Senate. The role of the Senate is to scrutinise legislation. That role does not belong to anybody else. It does not belong exclusively to the royal commission, it does not belong to the media; it belongs to the Senate, and the process for Senate scrutiny is the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. We have an extraordinarily busy couple of weeks in front of us. If you check the calendar, we have Senate estimates, we have two intensive periods of sitting. Arranging for effective scrutiny will take time, and we submit that a report by 15 March gives time to have that scrutiny and also bring back that report for effective debate in the Senate.

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

The government opposes this amendment. This is a transparent attempt to delay the consideration by this chamber of these bills. And although Senator Moore has said they are important bills, as indeed they are, they are the identical bills that have already been the subject of detailed consideration by the very same committee the first time they came before the Senate. Let me take you through the chronology. These bills first came before the Senate on 11 February 2014, and they were the subject of four days of debate. They were referred to the same committee to which Senator Moore wants to refer them again for public hearing and report—they were referred on 14 November 2013 and the committee reported on 2 December of that year. At the same time, and unusually, they were also referred to the references committee, which held hearings on three days in the early months of 2014 and reported on 27 March. Meanwhile, they were also referred to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which considered them, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered them.

Senator Moore, the government entirely accepts that the Senate should have a reasonable opportunity to consider and make a decision upon these bills. The bills, of course, were thoroughly debated in the chamber the last time round. But, Senator, these are the very same bills which were referred to the very same committee to which you now seek to refer them again. This is beyond the customary processes of debate, consideration and inquiry by parliamentary committee with which this chamber is familiar. It is, rather, an excessive indulgence in those processes, which demonstrates that the law-making function has been abandoned in favour of a mere dilatory evasion of that function.

Senator Moore, the significance of 15 February is this. It is the Tuesday of the last week of the parliamentary sittings, which means that it is very unlikely that those bills could be fully debated in the chamber in these sittings. So this is not merely to delay the consideration of the bills until 15 March; it is an attempt, in fact, to delay the consideration of the bills until beyond the budget, because the Senate will then adjourn for seven weeks, and then we will come back for budget week, in which the entire business of this building will be the budget, and then we will have a fortnight of budget estimates. So these bills are unlikely to be able to be reached until June at the earliest.

The government, out of abundant concern to accommodate the opposition, has suggested an earlier reporting date—that is, 19 February. That would give the legislation committee a full non-sitting week, the week after next, a week in which the Senate does not sit, to undertake the exact same exercise in relation to the very same bills that has already been undertaken by it, as well as by the references committee. And yet Senator Moore proposes an amendment that would push the date for scrutiny out beyond the time by which this chamber could then have a full debate on these bills before the end of the autumn sittings.

Mr Deputy President, I think we know that an opposition are at liberty to use every parliamentary device open to them to thwart the passage of legislation that they oppose. We accept that, but at least be honest about the fact that that, Senator Moore, is what you are doing. You are engaged in excessive use of what would otherwise be appropriate and usual parliamentary procedures, using every device at your disposal to thwart the passage of this legislation. We know you are opposed to this legislation, Senator, but the legislation has already been debated in this chamber once. It has already been the subject of extensive public hearings by the very committee to which you seek to send it back. The same bills have already been considered by the same senators sitting on the same committee. The issues have not changed. Please stop standing in the way of deliberation on these bills. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the comments made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis. The government is opposing this amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee motion. As articulated by Senator Brandis, this is nothing more and nothing less than a move by the opposition to deliberately avoid a debate on this important issue. It is a delaying tactic for the sake of delaying and nothing more. Both the Labor Party and the Australian Greens have made their position in relation to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2] very, very clear, both in the past and more recently. They have stated and they continue to state that they are opposed to this legislation. They will not be voting for it and, based on recent comments, that position will not be changing.

This deliberate move to send the bill back to a committee that, as Senator Brandis has articulated, has already considered this exact bill should be seen for what it clearly is: a failure to deal with the legislation. Given the lengthy history of this legislation, the Australian people are entitled to certainty—certainty as to whether the bill to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission will be supported by this Senate or rejected. Whether or not those in this chamber support the bill, senators have an obligation to do what the Australian people elected them to do: to faithfully deal with the legislation before them without engaging in gratuitous tactics of delay. If the Senate engages in gratuitous tactics of delay and fails to decide its view on legislation, this is an abuse of the process of the Senate. This legislation, the subject of the debate of this motion, has now been passed by the House of Representatives twice in the term of this parliament. Undertaking a number of reviews on the same legislation to delay and frustrate its passage is a misuse of the powers and the processes of the Senate.

Senator Brandis has already been through the history of these bills. To recap: this exact legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 14 November 2013, debated on 2 December and on 12 December 2013 and agreed to on 12 December 2013. It was introduced into the Senate on 11 February 2014. It was debated on 4 March, 5 March, 12 August and 17 August and negatived on 17 August. During this time, this legislation was subject to the following parliamentary scrutiny. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 14 November 2013. A public hearing was held on 26 November, and the committee reported on 2 December 2013. This is their report. It was also referred to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee. That committee—I have the report here—reported on 27 March 2014.

The Australian people have every right to expect the Senate to make decisions and not to engage in delaying tactics and distractions merely because they do not want to see a vote on this legislation take place. If the bill was in any way different to how it was previously considered by this Senate, both in committee and in extensive debate, or the context within which the bills were being presented had materially changed in any way, there could be some justification for the referral that has been proposed by the opposition. However, this bill is in exactly the same form as when it was last introduced in the Senate. What more other than delay can be gained by the Senate by failing to deal with this bill by referring it to yet another committee process?

Again, Labor and the Australian Greens have made their position on this bill abundantly clear. They will not support the bill. The longer this bill is delayed, the more the Australian people will be convinced that this Senate is not genuine about tackling the serious issues that have been raised in this bill. The government is seeking a process that will enable the Senate to actually consider the bill and pass judgement on it rather than engaging in delay. (Time expired)

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting this motion. However, I am calling on Labor and the union sector to ensure any union members who are currently under investigation for any form of misconduct are stood down immediately until they are cleared of any wrongdoing. As the chamber is aware, I am calling for the ABCC to be broadened from union behaviour to include corporate behaviour and corruption. Large building companies are not angels in the building and construction sector. They are complicit in the many issues raised in the trade union royal commission. They also need to start paying their fair share of taxes and stop sacking Australian workers and putting in cheap foreign labour.

I have been calling on the government to show me a redacted copy of the secret royal commission report and, to date, I have been told by the government that I will only be given access to an unredacted version. I am starting to become very, very suspicious. Is the government trying to protect big business caught up in corruption? Well, until I see this secret volume in its raw form, we will not know. Until the people of Australia are provided with a summary or a redacted version of the secret volume, the people of Australia will not know.

Regardless, Labor and the union sector cannot bleat on about the ABCC unless they start to show some leadership on the issue and demonstrate to the people of Australia that they are prepared to clean up their own backyards and stand down all those involved in alleged corruption.

Everyone seems to be forgetting something: we are here to protect Australian workers, no-one else. So I say to government and to big business, unions and the Labor Party: clean up your act. Show me the secret volume to prove you are not trying to hide corporate corruption in the building and construction sector. Show Australians a summary or a redacted version of the secret report to prove to the people of Australia you are prepared to be transparent and honest. Stand-down any union official or member involved in alleged corruption until they are cleared. Only when these things happen can we have an honest and open debate about whether we need the ABCC. At the very least, I want all my issues to be considered by any committee established to analyse the ABCC bill to ensure Australian workers are put first before anything else.

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

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

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

The question now is that the motion as amended by agreed to.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is disappointed that the chamber has chosen to set the reporting date that it has for the reference to the Senate Education and Employment Committee, and we are disappointed for the reasons well outlined by the Attorney and Minister Cash. This legislation has had extended, considered—sometimes thoughtful—examination by this chamber and by not one committee of the Senate but two committees of the Senate: the references committee and the legislation committee. In no way, shape or form can it be said that there has not previously been proper consideration and full debate in relation to this legislation. It cannot be said that it has not been considered and properly debated.

Despite the fact that that legislation has previously been defeated and is being reintroduced, nevertheless it is appropriate that there is proper consideration of this legislation, and the government is not suggesting for a moment that there should not be that proper consideration at each stage of the legislation through this chamber. What the government is saying is that this chamber should be given the opportunity to do that in a reasonable period of time. What the opposition and other colleagues, together, are seeking to do is unreasonably delay the consideration of this legislation and unreasonably delay the opportunity for the chamber to pass judgement by way of a vote in this place.

There is no provision in this legislation that is different from that which has previously been through the House and which has previously been presented to this chamber, considered by this chamber and failed to enjoy the support of this chamber. There are no provisions which are different. This is the same legislation. It has had a thorough consideration by the committees of this Senate. I should also indicate that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, another important organ of this place, has previously, in the ordinary course of events, also looked at this legislation. It is clear—as you, Mr Deputy President, would know from your own following of these matters—that this particular proposition, which we seek to give effect to in this legislation, is one that the coalition has been very clear about for a long period of time, both prior to the last election and during this term of government. There is good and sound reason for this legislation to be passed.

We have asked the chamber that there not be unreasonable or unnecessary delays in the consideration of this legislation. Senator Brandis was right to oppose the date that was put forward by the opposition as an amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, which would see the report date kicked out into the future. We do not think that is reasonable. Because of that, and because of our desire for this chamber to give due consideration to this legislation in a reasonable time frame, the government is not in a position to support the adoption of the report of the Selection of Bills Committee.

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

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