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

I present the first report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee. 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 2017

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 7.32 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Airports Amendment Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2017 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2017 (see appendix 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2017 (see appendix 5 and 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016

Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017

The committee recommends accordingly.

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

Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017.

The committee recommends accordingly.

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

(David Bushby)

Chair

9 February 2017

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Airports Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Rural & Regional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Senator Anne Urquhart

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Expo Building and Construction (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill requires investigation on the consequences of a shorter proposed transition period.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Previous submitters

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

13 February 2017

Possible reporting date:

15 February 2017

Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2017

Senator Rachel Siewert

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Possible hearing date(s):

Week beginning 20 February 2017.

Possible reporting date:

20 March 2017

Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This bill enables changes to a complex regulatory system. The changes will mostly be made via regulations that have not been drafted, necessitating further scrutiny of the bill and the Government's implementation planning. Once made these changes would be difficult to unwind, heightening the bar for passage

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Relevant Government agencies (e.g. TGA); stakeholders including industry and consumer groups; health and regulatory experts

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee.

Possible reporting date:

27 March 2017

Senator Anne Urquhart

APPENDIX 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Concerns about process proposed in the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

Week commencing 6 March 2017.

Possible reporting date:

23 March 2017

Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

(1)   in respect of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2017; and

(2)   in respect of the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 27 March 2017."

I also foreshadow that I will ask that the question on the two referrals as part of that amendment be put separately. The amendment I have moved seeks to refer two important pieces of legislation to committee inquiries. The first is the government's recently introduced omnibus bill. We are seeking a short inquiry to look at that. There are very significant matters to be explored as part of that bill. Some of them have been looked at in other inquiries, but there have been further changes to family tax benefits that will impact on a million families around Australia. There have been further changes and cuts to the paid parental leave scheme which, again, will impact around 70,000 new mums negatively. It includes the scrapping of the energy supplement, again affecting pensioners, people with a disability and Newstart recipients. There are cuts to payments to young people between the ages of 20 and 24 by pushing them onto the youth allowance, scrapping the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment, and cutting the pension to migrant pensioners who spend more than six weeks overseas.

Importantly, we need to understand the combined effect on families from some of the revised changes that the government has introduced in this bill. They are significant changes. They are affecting vulnerable and low-income households. It is only right that the Senate, performing its job as the chamber of scrutiny, is allowed access to departmental officials through a committee inquiry process to explore the combined impact of these measures prior to debate in this chamber, which I understand is being sought during the March setting. So I urge other senators to consider supporting that. It is still a very compressed time frame, when you are looking at the savings that are being supported by the omnibus bill—around $8 billion in savings. These are significant changes to the way people are receiving income support that they have made plans around. It is only right that the Senate, prior to debate, has full understanding and access to departmental officials to question them on how these changes are going to impact on these households.

In terms of the second part of my amendment, again this is to refer to committees so that we can understand the agreement that has been reached over summer by the government with members of the crossbench. Again, this is a highly contentious piece of legislation. There were many hours of debate late last year. My understanding, in my discussions with people who work in this industry, is that they have put time and effort into understanding the legislation that was passed in December and how that was going to impact on their businesses and agreements that they have in place with their workers. Now they are being told that this is changing again. I have certainly received quite a bit of feedback that these further changes will cause chaos in the building and construction industry and that it will impact on things like apprentice numbers at a time when we are already seeing low apprentice numbers and workforce shortages in certain areas. So again I would urge senators to consider that. It is a reasonable time frame. It is not a length inquiry. It is only right that we are fully briefed, because we have certainly not been briefed over the summer about the changes that have been negotiated. We would like a full understanding of them prior to debate in this chamber.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for revising her amendment to bring forward the date for reporting on the omnibus savings and child care reform bill. That will enable early consideration of that legislation by this chamber. I advise Senator Gallagher that we will part ways on the second amendment that she has proposed in relation to the ABCC.

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

I would like to say a few words about this omnibus bill. This has become a familiar tactic. It is one that has been adopted from the USA. It is one that I suspect we will continue to see in this place. This bill combines a whole range of unrelated measures, usually quite nasty things that the government does not want to see any scrutiny or debate over. It rolls them into a bill with many, many schedules. It calls it an omnibus bill. People do not know what that means. It is hard to understand it until you get into the details, but what you can be sure of is that in a bill like this there will be cuts to essential services and supports for ordinary people that the government is trying to hide.

For this tactic to succeed they obviously have to be sure that they have people in the chamber whose support they have. I have to say it is very disappointing to see my colleague Senator Xenophon and, indeed, the One Nation party helping the government pursue an agenda of cutting support for ordinary people and ensuring that it is rolled into an all-encompassing bill with so many schedules that it will not get the scrutiny it deserves.

The reason it is so critical that the Senate does its job in this chamber and that we have the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation is that there are so many hidden nasties in this bill. We are only starting to become familiar with them. For young people who need access to income support, who cannot find a job, it forces them to wait for a month before they are able to access that support. That is absolutely remarkable. These are the Tony Abbott measures of the 2014 budget, those zombie measures, coming back to life. It is only through the scrutiny of the Senate committee process, through the peak bodies who understand the details of the individual schedules, through the experts and stakeholders, that you get to understand exactly how far-reaching this legislation is. It is really a betrayal of well-worn and well-established democratic principles. If you want to slash income support for young people, have the guts to stand up and say that is what you are doing. If you want to remove support for ordinary families, stand up and say that is what you are doing. Do not roll it all up into this bill, an omnibus bill with a boring name but really, really nasty.

The truth is that this bill, in its design, is intended to disguise its intended purpose. This government does not want the parliament to know what is going on, does not want ordinary people to know what is going on and does not want the scrutiny of a media that moves from issue to issue with the attention span of a goldfish. It certainly does not want the public to know what is going on. It was only in the latest Senate estimates that we found out that the government has not even told those 1.2 million families that they will lose their family benefit supplements in July. The department said it would let them know in May. So it is an attack on people who are doing it tough.

I do not expect really anything from One Nation on this. They purport to represent battlers, and here they are—young people are being shafted and we have the removal of supports for family tax benefit payments. It is going to slash payments for people under 25 by $90 a fortnight. Those people under 25 will not get access to Newstart now; they will have to go on to youth allowance, a payment which is $45 per week less. Of course, there are concerns here that we also have the clean energy supplement rolled into this piece of legislation. So, as I said, One Nation, the party that represents battlers, again, selling them out and demonstrating that their only relevance in this place is to turn Australian against Australian.

Again, I am disappointed in Senator Xenophon that he would engage in negotiations with the government that would support some of these changes. But, be very clear—

Senator Leyonhjelm interjecting—

No, no. I am not disappointed in you, Senator Leyonhjelm, because you never fail to disappoint! You are nothing other than consistent. What I would say is: we need to have this legislation given the scrutiny it deserves. That is why the Greens will be doing that through an extended Senate committee process. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate that Senator Di Natale has, unfortunately, either misunderstood or misrepresented my position and that of my colleagues both here and in the House of Representatives. We are still in negotiation with the government. We have serious concerns about a number of these measures. We believe in having an appropriate inquiry to thoroughly look at these measures, and the interaction between them ought to be undertaken. We have no concluded position. We are still talking to the government. But, also, key stakeholders are very concerned about these measures. Respectively to Di Natale, I think he may well have jumped the gun in terms of what he says our position will be. We think a Senate inquiry in respect of the omnibus bill is most appropriate. And it ought to be a thorough inquiry between now and 20 March.

In relation to the ABCC legislation, this relates to an important amendment as to one specific part of the bill. That ought to go to committee. But to have a full-blown four- or five-week inquiry when, in fact, there are two or three discrete issues that need to be dealt with, I believe it can be dealt with with a relatively short hearing and a short reporting date because these matters have previously been canvassed in the context of the ABCC legislation that has been dealt with. Of course, I do have some concerns about some aspects of this bill that, I believe, ought to be ventilated in the context of a Senate inquiry.

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

Just to make the Greens' position clear: we will be supporting this motion, understanding that each clause will be put separately. In terms of the ABCC, we referred the ABCC bill amendments to committee through the selection of bills process. As everybody in the chamber is aware, there could not be agreement on the date. We, in fact, wanted it even later than March. But we will agree to the date of 27 March. We believe there are significant issues that do need to be ventilated. We disagree with Senator Xenophon that 15 February—the date that the government wants and as is currently in the selection of bills report—is far too short for these very significant issues. They are important issues to the operation of the ABCC. This legislation is clearly aimed at getting at workers. We think those issues need to be properly ventilated. And a couple of days—let's face it: today is Thursday; they want to report on 15 February. If you take out the weekend, that is very little time to look at the significant issues that arise out of the backflip that has happened here and the impact on Australian workers.

In terms of the omnibus bill—or, as many people now call it, the 'omni-cuts bill'—there are 18 clauses that need to be looked at. They need to be looked at in a cumulative manner in terms of the cumulative impacts on families, on age pensioners, on young people—these need to be looked at. On parents, the government is trying to impose the ordinary waiting period here on parenting payments. These are parents that will need access to this funding very quickly. So what they are saying is: 'You and your kids can go without a payment for a week.' These are parents that, by the very nature of them applying, have very little resources to support their families. It is cruel; it is mean; it is harsh. The government will say there are exemptions. But you have to go through the process of applying for the exemption. In the meantime, if you are in the position where you have to apply for an exemption, you have come out of a situation that is urgent—domestic violence may be involved—and you have to then turn around and go through the bureaucratic process of applying for an exemption in order to get money to feed your kids. It is ridiculous. It is the same with your energy supplement. Again, I will pre-empt the government—'This is an extra payment.' This is the payment that people have come to rely on. One of the other measures in this bill freezes indexation, which means frozen indexation on the income that you can earn. This means fewer and fewer people will be able to access Newstart.

There is a measure called, 'Schedule 11: The automation'—start getting worried folks because it says 'automation'—'of income stream review processes'. Yes—that is right: on the back of the debacle over Christmas of the Centrelink automated debt recovery process the government, under the guise of this bill, wants to ram a new measure through. This measure is a MYEFO measure. It has not been considered before. So let's slip that in to the omnibus amendment where we are talking about childcare and paid parental leave! Let's slip that in and see if we can sneak that through so that we can build on the debacle for which, yesterday, we established a Senate inquiry into! So that needs to be looked at so that we get a thorough understanding about what that means.

And, of course, they have slipped into the omnibus bill the bill that cuts portability for age pensioners when they are going overseas. But, also, they are stopping the payment of the pension supplement after six weeks for pensioners overseas. This bill will have a significant impact on Australians. And, of course, we have the issues around the little bit of extra family tax benefit that people will get, but that is actually a change to the bill that we dealt with previously in this place, and it means that people will still be worse off under these cuts. Then, of course, there are the young people that they want to kick off income support for what will then be five weeks—four weeks on top of the ordinary waiting week. This will have a significant impact on young Australians and comes directly from the Abbott zombie cuts of 2014, where they tried to kick people off for six months. The Senate said, 'No, we're not wearing that,' and the Senate has also said, 'No, we're not going to wear the four weeks.' The Senate needs time to consider this in total again. That is why we will be supporting this. (Time expired)

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

I remind senators that this amendment has been split into two. We will first be looking at paragraph (1), which has the revised reporting date of 20 March. The question is that that motion, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

We now move to the second part of the motion, paragraph (2), which seeks a reporting date of 27 March for the inquiry into the ABCC bill. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher described as motion 2 be agreed to.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

'and, that the Life Gold Pass Bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2017.'

In speaking to this motion, I do think that we should give those impacted by this legislation the right to be heard. This does not affect many people. Can I just say to those in the media who will misinterpret my comments—

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

Senator Macdonald, please resume you seat for a moment. Senators, it is a bit difficult to see who wants the call, so if you wish to remain in the chamber, please take your seat. Senator McAllister on a point of order?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I am just looking for some clarification on the legislation that Senator Macdonald is referring to. I could not hear what he said at the beginning of his address.

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

Senator Macdonald is seeking to amend the motion in relation to Life Gold Pass Bill. Senator Macdonald.

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

I am sorry people have left the chamber, because I have not been able to speak to colleagues, but I had hoped they would stay and listen to the argument. Can I say to the media, who will misinterpret my motives: I will probably leave this place in a box, so this will not relate to me. If I do not, the last thing I want to do ever again, after 27 years of flying from Townsville to Canberra to do my job here, is sit on a plane. But there are a group of people for whom the Life Gold Pass was part of their arrangement when they served in this place, on far fewer conditions and less remunerations than any of those who serve now. This was part of the deal. There are only a couple of dozen, perhaps a couple of hundred, elderly former parliamentarians who would be affected. So none of you would care too much about this. But they should at least be given the chance to voice their views by appearing at a parliamentary committee. It would also allow the Law Society and all of those others who continually make submissions about retrospective legislation to come in and give advice and evidence to a parliamentary committee about the ills of retrospective legislation—and that is what this is.

We know the public hate all of you—and you bring it upon yourself, because you continually denigrate yourselves. But at least let these people who are affected come in and have their say, importantly, on the ills of any sort of retrospective legislation—even legislation that does something for a group of people as unpopular as former politicians and former prime ministers. Let the Law Society again confirm to us how bad any retrospective legislation is. You may not like this. The public will hate it. Former prime ministers and parliamentarians are the lowest, in their view. But these people are entitled to what was agreed upon in legislation 20 and 30 years ago, and it should not be taken from them. No legislation that is retrospective should ever be adopted this parliament.

We will debate the issue later on, but I ask the parliament at this stage to at least give those affected the opportunity of having their voices heard, because that has not happened so far. Let us further consider the ills of any form of legislation that is retrospective. (Time expired)

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

The time for this debate has expired. To be clear, Senator Macdonald wishes to amend the motion put by Senator Bushby. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Macdonald be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.