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

I present the fifth report for 2016 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2016

1 September 2016

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator David Bushby (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)

Senator Brian Burston (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore (Nick Xenophon Team Whip)

Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator John Williams (The Nationals Whip)

Secretary: Chris Reid

6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2016

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 at 7.43 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2016 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2016 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2016 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(f) the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2016 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2016

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:

National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016

(David Bushby)

Chair

1 September 2016

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To closely examine the implications of some of the measures proposed in the bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Australian Council of Social Services, National Welfare Rights Network, Research and Development Companies, Australian Dental Association, Consumers Health Forum, Universities, National Union of Students etc.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

During three weeks of non sittings (19 Sept to 3 October)

Possible reporting date:

10 October 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

To be determined by the Committee

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:

14 October 2016

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

New Parliament containing 11 new cross-bench Senators who should be given an opportunity to examine the issue in detail.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

To be determined by the Committee

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:

14 October 2016

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This bill was previously referred to the Committee and the inquiry lapsed at the recent election after submissions were received but before any hearings could be held. Consideration of policy proposal to help close the gender pay gap by giving workers the freedom to discuss their pay without fear of sanctions..

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various key stakeholders have already made submissions to the Committee including academics, unions, lawyers' organisations and employer groups.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Weeks beginning 26 September, 3 October, 24 October

Possible reporting date:

14 November 2016

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

New Parliament containing 11 new cross-bench Senators who should be given an opportunity to examine the issue in detail.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

To be determined by the Committee.

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:

14 October 2016

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Previously referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee however the inquiry lapsed when the Parliament was dissolved. Submissions had been received, but a public hearing had not been held and the committee did not report on the inquiry.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Submissions were previously received.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Tuesday 27 September 2016

Possible reporting date:

Thursday 13 October 2016

(signed)

Senator Xenophon

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in the chamber in my name:

At the end of the motion, add, "but,

(1) in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2016; and

(2) in respect of the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 13 October 2016."

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

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

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

I move the following amendment to Senator Dastyari's proposed amendment:

Omit paragraph 1. In paragraph 2, omit 13 October 2016 and substitute 10 October 2016.

In speaking briefly to my amendment as proposed to Senator Dastyari's amendment as proposed to the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, what we are seeking is for the inquiry to report at the start of that week, so three days earlier. I would hope that that might be something that the Senate could see its way clear to supporting.

The other aspect of my amendment relates to the proposition for another Senate inquiry in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. Colleagues who were in this place before the election would be aware that the Senate did have an extensive inquiry into the government's proposed media reform legislation and that inquiry reported just prior to the election. Obviously, I appreciate that there are a number of senators who have joined this place since the election and I appreciate that that is one of the rationales put forward by those opposite for another Senate inquiry. But what I would put to the Senate for its consideration is that the work of the former Senate inquiry into media law is available for all senators, including new senators, for consideration.

If there were to be another Senate inquiry into this legislation, there would not be any new evidence presented by those parties and those organisations who gave evidence at the former Senate inquiry. So all of the evidence that was made by way of submissions is available for the consideration of new senators. All of the Hansard of that Senate inquiry is available for the consideration of all senators. I do not believe that another Senate inquiry going through that formal process would elucidate any issues that have not yet been canvassed. As I indicated earlier, I think that the work of the previous Senate committee is a good and valuable resource for those senators who have recently joined us. All of its work, all of the submissions, all of the Hansard transcripts are available for those senators who have joined us.

Obviously, as a government, we place ourselves in the hands of the Senate chamber but I did think it was important to emphasise just how recently that body of work of the Senate committee had been completed and to make sure that all colleagues are aware that that body of work is available for their perusal. I also know that there will be no shortage of media organisations seeking to make times to catch up with those senators who have recently joined us. There probably is almost no area of policy that has been more inquired into than media law reform. It is an area that has been well traversed. I thought I would make those few comments for the benefit of my colleagues here.

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

I foreshadow that I will move the following amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Dastyari:

At the end of the amendment, add, "and,

(1) in respect of the provisions of the Budget Saving (Omnibus) Bill 2016, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 10 October 2016.

This is a bill that literally has dozens of clauses and amendments in it that need serious review. Some of those have not been considered by this chamber or by a committee inquiry and they deserve very close attention. For example, there are aged care amendments. The energy supplement was an amendment that came in through the 2016-17 budget. We had the ridiculous two-day estimates review where we tried to cram in two weeks of review. We know that is going to have a significant impact on people that are living on Newstart.

There are many other amendments in this Budget Saving (Omnibus) Bill 2016 that community organisations cannot possibly get their heads around, get their submissions in and be able to appear before a Senate committee in the time that the government wants them to. They need adequate time to be able to sit down and look at all the provisions in this omnibus bill. They only saw it this week. There is no way they can get their heads around all those different provisions, particularly as there will be so many stakeholders and there is so much contained in that one bill that the government is trying to ram through. We need adequate time in this chamber to review those provisions. The government cannot run the line that these measures have been reviewed before because many of them were contained in the budget that came through in May, which has never been properly subjected to any proper estimates scrutiny or any proper scrutiny by a Senate committee. It needs adequate time for review. That is why we foreshadow moving this amendment to Senator Dastyari's amendments. I will indicate—and I think Senator Di Natale will make a contribution—that we will be supporting Senator Dastyari's amendments, not the government's amendments, but we will be seeking to amend them further.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to touch on the amendment that was proposed by the Manager of Government Business. When the opportunity comes we will be asking that they be put separately. The part of his amendment that suggested we change the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill from 13 October to 10 October is, we feel, a reasonable compromise that will allow for that bill to be properly dealt with in coming sessions of parliament. However, we will be insisting on the first part of my amendment—that is, the provision that the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November.

I note that Senator Fifield has outlined that, in the past, there has been inquiries or investigations through parliamentary committees for this type of legislation. We are dealing with a brand-new Senate with 11 new crossbench senators. This is a very complex piece of legislation. We want to make sure that ample opportunity is given for a full investigation and a full inquiry into the different parts of this bill and make sure that senators, when coming to vote on these matters, are able to be well informed of the debate and well informed of the specific nature of this bill. The Senate committee inquiry process is the appropriate process to have those questions investigated and those questions explored. And I say this for the newer senators: the suggestion here that we are referring it to the legislation committee does mean that we are sending it to a committee where, in high likelihood, the government will have the numbers. So it is not as if it is anything other than an opportunity to actually have this bill properly investigated and properly looked at.

I also note that Senator Fifield made reference to the report date of 7 November. After this date there will still be three full weeks of Senate sitting. There will be ample opportunity for senators and the Senate to debate this bill.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is really important to understand what is going on here. What is going on here is that we have a piece of legislation that is going to result in a saving of $6 billion; it is an incredibly complex piece of legislation. For the benefit of the new senators, who have not even had the opportunity to look at this legislation in detail, the legislation involves the abolition of Medicare-funded dental care for young children—something that was negotiated as a result of the 2010 parliament. Medicare-funded dental care to the tune of $1,000 for young children: gone, under this budget savings measure.

It involves the abolition of the clean energy supplement—something that will hit and target the most vulnerable people in the Australian community. That is something that, again, some of the new senators in this chamber may not be aware of—a billion dollars taken out of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. It involves slashed funding for education. There is a budget measure in here that says: if you are on a disability support pension and you have a mental illness, you will have that support removed as a result of you being prosecuted for having committed a crime because you suffer from a mental illness.

This is a wide-ranging, far-reaching piece of legislation that deserves scrutiny from the crossbench and from the Senate. It is remarkable.

I understand why the coalition would want to see this rushed through the parliament—$6 billion worth of savings; money taken away from renewable energy; money taken away from the most vulnerable people in the Australian community. The Labor Party, who with the Greens helped establish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, are now prepared to see it gutted. For the Australian Labor Party to take away legislation negotiated with the Greens to provide some support through the clean energy supplement to the most vulnerable people in the Australian community, that will be gone. And, of course, with the abolition of the child dental benefits scheme, there will be no more Medicare-funded dental care for young children.

All this has been done under the cloak of secrecy and done in a week so that we do not have the opportunity for this Senate to interrogate why it is that we as a parliament should be seeking to achieve budget savings on the back of these regressive measures, and measures that take us backwards when it comes to addressing dangerous climate change. This is remarkable.

I call on the Labor Party to ensure that we have the scrutiny that this legislation deserves. This is an ominous sign. While the Labor Party have not said yet whether they will support these measures, the fact that they want them rushed through this Senate and dealt with as a matter of urgency says to me that they were going to join in with the coalition to slash funding for renewable energy and to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable people in this community. At a time when we have growing out-of-pocket healthcare costs, they are going to take $1,000 of Medicare-funded dental care from the over 3½ million Australians who are eligible to receive it.

So we urge and we plead with you: reconsider. Give this legislation the scrutiny it deserves. Have some respect for the new crossbenchers so they can properly do their job and interrogate the huge list of savings measures listed in this legislation—$6 billion.

If you want to balance the budget, there are many other areas where we can do that. Let's take away some of the support that is given in the form of cheap fuel to mining companies. Let's make sure that we deal with negative gearing—and we agree with the Labor Party who indeed have supported our position on negative gearing. Let's ensure that we do not have property investors who are effectively getting subsidies while we see both the major parties wanting to take money away from the most vulnerable people in the community, slash publicly funded dental care and slash funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Reconsider your position. Let's extend the time line for this inquiry and let's ensure that this Senate does its job. What we do not need is a rubber stamp from the Labor Party to the coalition allowing them to pass through these regressive and unsustainable measures.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say a few things here as a crossbencher. I would have hoped that you people over there would have learnt your lesson by now. Things were going to be different this time around, weren't they? Okay, you have got new crossbenchers in this Senate. You have shoved us a great big white folder. How do you think they are feeling right now?

Give them the time to settle in. Give them the time to learn the ropes—and I want more time on this as well. Don't just go shoving this folder down my throat either. This is not the way we were going to move forward. Right now we are on what? Day 3. Show a bit of integrity and show some bloody respect, because we do not have the staff. We do not have the manning that you have. We want more time. Thank you.

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

I will just let the Senate know exactly where we are. Senator Bushby moved a motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee report. Senator Dastyari has moved an amendment to that motion. Senator Fifield has moved an amendment to Senator Dastyari's motion. Senator Dastyari has asked if the motion could be split into two questions. So the question now before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield to Senator Dastyari's amendment—the first part; that is, paragraph 1—be agreed to.

I will go through this again. The question before the chair is that paragraph 1 of the amendment moved by Senator Fifield to Senator Dastyari's amendment be agreed to. I am happy to take any points of clarification. I will take Senator Leyonhjelm first.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand Senator Fifield's amendment is simply to delete paragraph one—isn't that right?

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

Yes, but the question is to omit paragraph 1. Senator Dastyari—and it is his right to do so—has requested that I split the question. Senator Fifield's amendment has two elements: paragraph 1, which is to be omitted according to Senator Fifield's amendment; and paragraph 2 is a date change from 13 October to 10 October this year. I will put that question next.

Is everyone clear on the question now before the chair? The question now is that paragraph 1 of Senator Dastyari's amendment be omitted.

Question negatived.

The question now is that paragraph 2 of Senator Dastyari's amendment be amended to reflect the date change from 13 October until 10 October this year.

Question agreed to.

Senator Siewert, you foreshadowed you also wanted to amend Senator Dastyari's amendment. My understanding is your amendment is to add at the end of Senator Dastyari's amendment a paragraph, which has been circulated.

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

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

At the end of the amendment, add, "and,

(1) in respect of the provisions of the Budget Saving (Omnibus) Bill 2016, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 10 October 2016.

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

Thank you. Just for complete clarity: Senator Dastyari's amendment has been amended by the result of the previous vote, so we are now adding, to the end of the amended version of Senator Dastyari's amendment, the amendment by Senator Siewert. Is everyone clear?

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

I move the following amendment to Senator Siewert's proposed amendment:

Omit 10 October 2016 and substitute 13 September 2016.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield to change the date in the amendment moved by Senator Siewert from 10 October 2016 to 13 September 2016 be agreed to.

The question now is that the amended motion of Senator Siewert's motion to now amend Senator Dastyari's motion be agreed to. Do I need to go through it again, or is everyone clear on where we are?

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

Mr President, could you please read what the actual motion is that we are voting on?

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

I will go through it again: the original question was that Senator Bushby's Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted. There was an amendment moved by Senator Dastyari, then there was an amendment to Senator Dastyari's amendment by Senator Fifield, which has been resolved, that amended Senator Dastyari's amendment. Then Senator Siewert moved a further amendment to Senator Dastyari's amendment and we have just voted, previously, on the amendment by Senator Fifield to change a date in Senator Siewert's amendment. That amendment has now been amended.

That amendment now is seeking to amend Senator Dastyari's amendment. So, in effect, Senator Siewert is seeking to add a paragraph to the end of Senator Dastyari's amendment, and that has been amended by a date change. It is very simple. It reads: 'In respect of the provisions of the Budget Saving (Omnibus) Bill 2016, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 13 September 2016.' That is now going to be added, if the resolution is carried, to Senator Dastyari's amendment to the original motion.

Question agreed to.

We now have a completed amendment by Senator Dastyari. The question is that that amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

We now have an amendment by Senator Dastyari that will now amend Senator Bushby's original motion. The question is that amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.