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

I present the third 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. 3 OF 2017

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee recommends—That—

(a) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 May 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017 (see appendix 6 and 7 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

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:

(David Bushby)

Chair

23 March 2017

APPENDIX 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The bill makes significant changes to bargaining under the FW Act.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions

Employer organisations

Fair Work Commission

Fair Work Ombudsman

Department of Employment

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

Senator Siewert

APPENDIX 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Name of bill: Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employers, employer groups, unions, academics, industrial relations experts.

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:

22 May 2017

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employers, employer groups, unions, academics.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

22 May 2017

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow for a full and detailed examination of the provisions proposed in the bill. To allow stakeholders to make submissions on the detailed proposals in the bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Employers, employer groups, unions, academics, industrial relations experts.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

22 May 2017

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 5

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Removal of 'offend' and 'insult' provisions from section 18C of the Act.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Persons and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concerning Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The Committee could inform itself of the submissions and report of that Committee to enable a relatively short review process.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs — Legislation - Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

April 2017

Possible reporting date:

Tuesday 9 May 2017

(signed)

Senator Bernardi

APPENDIX 6

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

The week of May 9

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

APPENDIX 7

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand the extent of the market that will actually be captured by this tax. To understand the ability of the tax office to collect this tax.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Online retail platforms.

Bricks and mortar retail firms. Logistics companies.

Tax academics.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

Senator Siewert

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 “and in respect of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017”.

This amendment has been circulated in the chamber, I think. No? Perhaps while it is being circulation I will speak to it.

As I understand it, this was raised last night—the desire to have this bill referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Certainly, the opposition believes this is very important. This is not an insignificant bill. There is clearly a very significant depth of feeling on this issue about the proposed changes to 18C right across the country. We believe that there needs to be a proper parliamentary process to explore the position of the government, as detailed in this bill.

We know that whilst the government may not have had time to explore what these changes mean, due to their internal disunity and issues that they have been trying to manage. But certainly, affected communities have not, other members of parliament have not and also, indeed, the Human Rights Commission has not. Members of parliament deserve the opportunity to speak with the Human Rights Commission and other affected parties about what these changes might mean. Whilst I can hear that perhaps I might be pre-empting some of the discussion, we do not believe that the inquiries that have happened to date on 18C are adequate. They dealt with hypothetical situations; they did not deal with drafted laws.

It is interesting to note that previous inquiries also did not recommend any changes to 18C, so I think it is entirely reasonable that prior to debate and prior to the most significant changes to this legislation in many years—in decades—there be a thorough parliamentary scrutiny, a thorough Senate scrutiny, of these laws, to understand their impact.

I understand that it is the desire of the government to deal with this quickly—I presume for their own internal management of issues. But we do not believe that these laws should be rammed through. We do not believe that they should rammed through next week. I understand there have been other discussions with the senators in this place about whether a short inquiry is adequate. We do not believe that the issues can be looked at quickly, and certainly not in a the matter of days.

This is all about watering down of protections for people, essentially allowing racial hate speech to become a more acceptable part of the Australian community. We do not accept that. We have very strong and significant concerns. We are opposed to this legislation and we believe that those people, particularly those who are going to be the most affected—certainly, as far as I can see no-one on that side of the chamber will be—should have their voices heard. And that can only be delivered through a proper, open and public inquiry that my amendment would allow.

We are not seeking to delay this unreasonably. This is for reporting by 9 May, which is only a matter of weeks for that inquiry to be handled. We believe that would allow for at least some of these issues to be heard. They are not insignificant. Even if we look at the process or the procedural issues that are canvassed in this bill and the impact they would have on how the Human Rights Commission actually does its business alone, they are significant. So even if we just focused on those elements, they are something that need a proper process—not something rammed through, just like this government seems to be keen to do on every other piece of legislation. It is not acceptable that this type of change, where there is this level of distress amongst some parts of the community about the potential impact of these changes on members of the Australian community's lives that they be rammed through without a thorough committee inquiry and without those voices being allowed to be heard.

This is not something that should be determined by the ideologues on the back bench of the coalition. And it is something on which the Prime Minister has had to give in—like he has on marriage equality, like he has on climate change—to keep his own job. Watering down race hate law and race hate protections should not be determined by whether or not this Prime Minister keeps the numbers to keep his own job, but that is what has happened. It was not a priority. Now it is a priority. Now the laws have to be rammed through, and no-one has had the opportunity to have a say on them. That is what this amendment is about.

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 Gallagher's proposed amendment:

Omit “9 May 2017”, substitute “28 March 2017”.

I will speak briefly to my amendment to the amendment that is before the chamber.

I do need to categorically reject the suggestion from the opposition that the government are in any way, shape or form seeking to ram something through the parliament, or indeed that we have sought, in the course of this week, to ram legislation through the parliament. The only way that you can ram legislation through the Senate is by way of a guillotine. We have not guillotined any legislation, and there is no proposition before the Senate that we guillotine legislation. In fact, all we have done in the course of this week is provide the opportunity for legislation to be debated and for the Senate to sit for as long as required to address the legislation that is before this place. I thought it was important to make that point at the outset.

In terms of the particular piece of legislation that the opposition is seeking to refer for inquiry, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, when I was chatting to Senator Brandis earlier he made what I think is the self-evident point that the ink is barely dry on the last inquiry into this area. In fact, I think what we have seen by way of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the referral it had and the work that it did is a model of good process—a model of good examination of the issues that are raised by people in the community, who, we recognise, can legitimately have different points of view.

We firmly believe that the legislation that we are proposing does reconcile appropriate protections for individuals and freedom of speech, which is something that we on this side hold to be one of the fundamental underpinnings of a free and pluralistic society. It is for those reasons that we do not believe that there is the need for an inquiry of the length proposed by those opposite. We think that there is adequate time to address this legislation by 28 March, largely because of the very good work done by the human rights committee. I should acknowledge the chair, Mr Goodenough, in the other place, and his colleagues. I think each of them discharged their duties in the way that the community would hope that members of parliament do when examining complex issues on which there are strongly held views.

I leave my remarks there, but I urge my colleagues to support the substitution of the date for report so it is 28 March rather than 9 May.

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

Senator Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President—

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

Madam Deputy President, we have limited time for this debate, and Senator McKim has been on his feet previously.

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

Senator Siewert, I saw Senator Watt. But, if Senator Watt wants to yield to Senator McKim first, then that is his call.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not especially!

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

This is only a 30-minute debate.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he will still have time.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

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

Order, Senator Siewert! It is not a point of order.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will still have time. I look forward to Senator McKim's contribution as well, which I am sure he will have time to make. I rise to oppose and speak against the amendment just moved by Senator Fifield. The effect of Senator Fifield's amendment would be that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee would have the sum total of, I think, five days to conduct an inquiry into what are very far reaching changes proposed to racial discrimination laws in this country.

Senator Gallagher moved an amendment seeking the referral of these changes to section 18C to the committee to review properly within not a particularly long period of time, by 9 May. But the government, as we are seeing all too often, is attempting to gag debate on this controversial proposal by requiring this inquiry to conclude by 28 March, which I think is next Tuesday. It is farcical to think that a proper inquiry can be conducted within that period of time.

I spoke yesterday on the substance of this issue and why I and Labor oppose change to section 18C. In essence, we stand for respect. We stand for not hurting, not offending, not insulting and not humiliating people on the basis of their race. It is deeply disappointing that the government, with the support of crossbenchers, is seeking to change that and make it okay for Australians to racially offend, insult or humiliate other Australians.

I will not say much more about the substance of these changes today, due to the lack of time. I just want to focus on what is being proposed here in a process sense. Section 18C as it currently stands has been the law in Australia for, I think, about 20 years. It has worked effectively, there is no evidence that can be pointed to that demonstrates the provision has been abused by litigants, and the law should stay as it is. That is indeed why the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—people from both parties—got together, examined this in detail and recommended that no change be made to the language of 18C.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

It is true, Senator Brandis. It is true. I think we know who has a better record on telling the truth in this place out of you and me, and it is not you.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Brandis again is wanting to talk to me about lying to the Senate. It is so ironic.

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

Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your comments to the chair.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. I am always surprised when Senator Brandis wants to have a debate about lying to the Senate. That is a debate I am always happy to have with him.

It is farcical that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee can be expected to conduct a proper inquiry into this within a five-day period. Already, in the time since the government's announcement was made, we have seen howls of outrage from ethnic communities right across this country expressing severe concern about the emotional distress that is going to be caused to ethnic people around Australia as a result of these changes. They are being denied the opportunity to comment on these far-reaching proposals by the government rushing through this inquiry.

It is also very disappointing to see crossbenchers lining up with the government to rush this inquiry through. I am not particularly surprised to see Senator Hanson and One Nation lining up with the government. We know they vote with the government about 85 per cent of the time, I think, proving over and over again that they are nothing but an arm of the Liberal Party. This is just yet another dodgy deal that has been done by Senator Hanson with the Liberals courtesy of the preference deals that she negotiated in Western Australia.

But I am particularly disappointed to see the Nick Xenophon Team voting with the government to support this farcical noninquiry into far-reaching changes to racial discrimination laws. I have only been in this place a short period of time, but I have certainly heard and I have certainly experienced that Senator Xenophon, in particular, has been one of the guardians of proper process in this place and making sure that the Senate does have the appropriate amount of time to properly investigate significant proposals about the law. So it is deeply disappointing to see that Senator Xenophon and his colleagues today come in and have clearly done some sort of backroom deal with government to rush through an inquiry that will not give ethnic communities right around Australia, including in their home state of South Australia, the opportunity to comment on these proposals, which ethnic communities are very concerned will cause severe distress to people right around Australia.

It should not be happening. We should have a proper inquiry into this. The ninth of May is not too far away. That would enable the committee to hear from people. The crossbenchers should be ashamed of standing with the government on this.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens absolutely share Labor's desire to have a reasonable inquiry into this piece of legislation. We would be very comfortable about and supportive of a committee inquiry that would report on the date of 9 May. It is worth pointing out here that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—I will correct Senator Watt—is not made up of members of both parties; it is actually made up of members from all parties. In the past it has also contained Independent members from the other place. But I just remind everyone that that committee did not recommend the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It did not recommend this bill. That was a process—let us name it—that was initiated by the Attorney-General, on instructions from his Prime Minister, to appease the far right of the Liberal Party, which has been running rings around the Prime Minister on a range of issues ever since and in fact before he assumed the prime ministership. Those issues include but are not limited to issues like marriage equality, for example, and now we see it on these proposed reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, which—let us face it—are designed to make it easier to be a racist in this country. That is exactly what these reforms are designed to do.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are being pushed by a bunch of privileged white blokes, like everyone who is currently interjecting over there—Senator Abetz, Senator Fifield, Senator Brandis and Senator McGrath—the serried ranks of privileged white blokes who just want to make it easier to say the n-word in this country, and that is exactly what this bill is designed to do. Let us be very clear about this.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Yes, I am a privileged white bloke too, Senator Abetz. I fully admit to that. The only difference between you and me is that I want to stand up for multicultural Australia, and you want to shake it to its very foundations.

Government senators interjecting—

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

Senator McKim, resume your seat. I remind senators—

Senator McGrath interjecting—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator McGrath and Senator Brandis! I remind senators that Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence. Please give him that courtesy.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The reason for urgency here, from the government's point of view—I am going to name this as well. Firstly, it is indicative that the bill was tabled in the Senate and not in the House. Of course it was done that way because they know that, if they had tabled it in the House, they would have lost some of their members across the floor. There is no doubt about that. There were Liberal members ready to cross the floor downstairs. So what happens is that they come into this place and they table it upstairs, where they know that the substantive reforms to 18C that have been the passion of Senator Paterson, Senator Abetz and others in this place are going to go down.

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

Me too!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they have not been a passion of yours, Senator Brandis. You are a latecomer to this. It is Senator Paterson and other agents of the IPA in this place who have taken this on as a passion and driven it to where it is now, where it is going to go down when the substantive vote comes up on changes to 18C.

We think this does deserve a proper inquiry for the reason that there are issues contained in this legislation that were not even canvassed in the human rights committee report. They were not even mentioned. For example, no-one mentioned amendments to the Native Title Act, and here we see this bill, and there is an amendment to the Native Title Act contained in the bill. It was not the subject of a single submission to the committee and not the subject of a single reference in the committee's report or in any of the dissenting or additional comments that were made by committee members, and here we are with an amendment to the Native Title Act in this legislation.

And there are amendments to the processes of the Human Rights Commission which, again, were not canvassed in the committee's processes and were not canvassed in the committee's report. Let us be very clear about this: the government want to bring it on as a matter of urgency because they just want to clear the decks of the embarrassment that this issue has become for them and because they know that there are significant divisions in their own party room and their own caucus on this matter.

The Greens want to see a proper, ridgy-didge inquiry into this legislation so that we can look at the range of issues that were not canvassed during the human rights committee process which should be canvassed by this place, noting that the human rights committee did not recommend the provisions that are contained within this bill. We think that a reporting date in early May is a reasonable date. We will not support the amendment, because we think the inquiry will not be long enough.

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

Let me correct a few misleading statements that have been made in the previous two speeches. The reason the bill is being introduced in the Senate is because all of the legislation which it amends is legislation within the Attorney-General's portfolio. I am the Attorney-General and I am a senator, not a member of the House of Representatives. That and only that is the reason why the bill is being introduced into this chamber like every bill in my portfolio is introduced here first.

Secondly, I will correct something that came from Senator Watt. It is not the truth to say that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended against amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is the case that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights did not arrive at a common view on whether or not section 18C should be amended, and so a range of options was put forward ranging from no amendment through a series of alternatives, including the alternative that has been adopted by the government.

The reason the government does not favour a seven-week Senate inquiry is because the ink is barely dry on a three-month parliamentary inquiry which only reported 23 days ago on 28 February. That parliamentary inquiry—an inquiry of members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives—held nine days of public hearings, in every capital city in Australia, over the course of some 2½ months. The very thing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquired into was the issues in this bill, and this bill was drafted to give effect to those recommendations, particularly in relation to amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

There are in fact four main elements to the bill, and let me run through them. I have mentioned the amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. As I said a moment ago, there was not a common view among the committee. A range of alternatives was put forward, and the government has adopted one of them. But it cannot be disputed that the issue of the language of section 18C was the principal issue before the PJCHR inquiry which proceeded for nine hearing days.

Secondly, this bill directly adopts word for word another of the recommendations of the PJCHR, which is to apply an ordinary reasonable Australian test—the so-called 'pub test'—to whether or not a breach of section 18C has occurred. That comes directly from the PJCHR report.

The third element of the bill is a range of procedural changes to the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission through amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, not the Racial Discrimination Act, which adopt not all but many of the recommendations of that report that was tabled only 23 days ago.

Finally—and I think this is what Senator McKim may have had in mind—there are some other amendments, which were not the subject of recommendation by the PJCHR, to administrative arrangements for the Human Rights Commission which were made at the request of the commission itself and specifically at the request of Professor Gillian Triggs, whose involvement in this process has, if I may say so, been a very constructive one. Every one of those amendments is a technical amendment involving no controversy whatsoever and is merely to create efficiencies in the management of the Human Rights Commission as recommended by the commission itself.

So those are the four elements of the bill. Element No. 1 was the principal issue canvassed in submissions before the PJCHR's nine days of hearing, although it did not land on a unanimous view. Issue No. 2 was recommended by the PJCHR. Issue No. 3, procedural changes, gives effect to recommendations of the PJCHR. Issue No. 4, minor administrative practices, was recommended by the Human Rights Commission itself. In those circumstances we do not need to do this all over again, because over 2½ months it has just been done.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Somebody once said that, when there is nothing left to be said, Hinch will still be saying it. I think I will pass that mantle to Senator McKim and Senator Watt. Everything to be said about 18C has been said. It has been debated and debated and debated. As Senator Brandis said, the committee has just come back after lengthy and extensive multicity hearings into it. I will be supporting the government on this amendment. I hope it does come back on Tuesday. I would have tried to have it not be sent to committee at all. This is the best option available, and I will support the government on it. I think enough is enough. It has been talked and talked and talked to death.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has gone on long enough. All we have got from this bill on 18C is increased separation across Australia. The Greens are the ultimate dividers in this country—the ultimate labellers. Which is the group that uses the term 'racist' more than anyone else? The Greens. And what have they done? They have created a victim industry in our country. And what has that done? It has caused a lack of respect right across our country—a lack of respect for people to speak up honestly, a lack of respect for what people really stand for. And now we see the ALP on yet another sham exercise, drawing it out. Why do they want to draw it out? Because they perceive it is embarrassing for the government. We are pleased to see the government and the crossbenches united in making sure we put an end to this and finish it. The ALP are just puppets, or maybe muppets, for the Greens. That is all they are. I just want to remind every senator and every Australian that governments can legislate behaviour, but they cannot legislate feelings. Responsibility must be understood, and above all we need to rebuild and bring back One Nation.

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

Very briefly, I can indicate that I and my colleagues will be supporting the government's amendment. It is something I have discussed with the government, and I have had useful discussions with the shadow Attorney-General as well in relation to this. He understands our position, although he may not agree with it.

The fact is that we have had the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights look at this in great detail over the last 2½ months. The issue for me and my colleagues is that there are a number of amendments in respect of process that I believe can be dealt with and examined carefully in the next few days. I understand that the Human Rights Commission president will be in Canberra tomorrow for an estimates hearing, and I think in practical terms we may well be able to hear from Professor Triggs then in relation to these process issues. I think this is the best and most effective way to deal with these matters.

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

There are two amendments. I am going to put the amendment as moved by Senator Fifield first, and that is to amend Senator Gallagher's proposed amendment on date, to omit 9 May and insert 28 March. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendment by Senator Gallagher, which has now been amended to have a reporting date of 28 March, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

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

The question is that the amendment put by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. I am advised by the Clerk that the amendment needs to be dispensed with.

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

Madam Deputy President, so there is no confusion: you are now putting Senator Gallagher's amendment to Senator Bushby's motion as amended by Senator Fifield's amendment?

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

That is correct, Senator Brandis. So the question is that Senator Gallagher's amendment as amended—the date has been changed from 9 May to 28 March—be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion of Senator Bushby as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Report adopted.