Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present Scrutiny Digest No. 3 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with its annual report for 2016.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the annual report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's 2016 annual report.

Background

As senators would be aware, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee examines all bills against a set of accountability standards, and focuses on the effects of proposed legislation on individual rights, liberties, obligations and parliamentary scrutiny.

The work of the committee in 2016

The work of the committee in assessing bills against its scrutiny principles assists and improves parliamentary consideration of legislation in a number of important ways. Outcomes of the committee's work include:

The committee's 2016 annual report outlines some of the key achievements of the committee's work last year. One clear example of the impact of the committee's work is amendments to bills and revisions to explanatory material as a direct result of the committee scrutiny. For example, in 2016, as part of its regular scrutiny of legislation, the committee sought advice about the privacy implications of the new National Cancer Screening Register.

As a result of this scrutiny, amendments were made to remove a provision that would have allowed additional bodies to be prescribed by delegated legislation to collect and use protected medical information.

Additionally, based on a suggestion by the committee, an amendment was moved to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is consulted prior to the making of rules which would allow further classes of medical information to be included on the register.

The committee's comments were also referenced in debates in the Senate and in the Community Affairs Legislation Committee's report on the bill.

In addition to such quantifiable outcomes of the committee's work, I take this opportunity to highlight the impact of the committee's work prior to the introduction of bills into the parliament.

It seems clear that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has an 'unseen influence' on the development of bills through the legislative drafting process. Legislative drafters and officials are aware of the reports of the committee, and therefore many provisions that may have been of concern to the committee may not be included in the final text of bills that come before the parliament.

Underpinning this 'unseen influence' is formal guidance available to agencies and departments as part of the legislative drafting process. Departmental documents such as the Legislation Handbook, the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences and the OPC Drafting Directions all draw attention to the committee's longstanding scrutiny concerns, helping to ensure that these concerns are considered before the bill gets to parliament.

For example, in 2016 the Office of Parliamentary Counsel revised its drafting directions relating to the use of subordinate instruments and the use of standing appropriations, and in so doing drew attention to the committee's scrutiny concerns on these matters.

New developments in 2016

The annual report also highlights some new developments for the committee.

In particular, in 2016 the Senate voted to temporarily amend the standing orders regarding responsiveness to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. As senators know, the committee works to ensure, wherever possible, that its comments on bills are available to senators prior to the passage of the bill. As such, where the committee writes to a minister it expects a response to be received in time to be considered by the committee and reported on while the bill is still before the parliament.

This is essential to an effective scrutiny process. Yet, while most ministers and departments work hard to provide timely responses to the committee, the annual report notes that, in 2016, 44 per cent of responses to the committee were not received on time. This demonstrates the importance of the temporary amendment to the standing orders, which allows any senator to question a minister about why they have not provided a timely response to the committee's request for information. This amendment began to operate earlier this year, and the committee will provide further information about its implementation and operation in the committee's next annual report.

Additionally, at the end of 2016 the committee resolved that from 2017 it would table just one document, known as the Scrutiny Digest, to replace the committee's Alert Digest and Report. The committee secretariat has already received positive feedback in relation to this move to a single reporting format.

Acknowledgements

Finally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work and assistance of the committee's legal adviser, Associate Professor Leighton McDonald.

I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of ministers and departments, as their responsiveness to the committee is crucial to the legislative scrutiny process.

Noting the committee's longstanding practice of undertaking its scrutiny in a non-partisan and consensual way, I also thank all of my current and former scrutiny committee colleagues for their understanding of the committee's approach to its work and their commitment to it.

I would also like to note because it is touched on many times in this chamber about the work of our secretariats for our committees. There are enormous pressures and workloads placed on each and every one of our committees. The secretariats who work to ensure that we have the highest quality reports cannot ever be underestimated the importance that places and assists the democracy of this country. I would like to acknowledge the secretariat that worked with us for their attentiveness, their energy and their drive to ensure that we scrutinise the legislation so that we can add to the process here in this chamber. I commend the committee's 2016 annual report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.