Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 7th report of 2020 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 at 7.50pm.

2. The committee recommends that the following bills notbe referred to committees:

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

Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

4. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(Dean Smith)

Chair

27 August 2020

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation amendment (Streamlining Environment Approvals)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This bill would make changes to important environmental approvals processes. It would amend the EPBC Act which is currently the subject of an independent review and the Senate should understand the full recommendations of the independent review before considering this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 30th November

(Signed)

Senator Siewert

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): no preference — depends on committee schedule

Possible reporting date: Late December 2020

(Signed)

Senator Siewert

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education Support Amendment (Job Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill seeks to fundamentally reform university funding; student fees; student protection and institutional audit measures.

The legislation fails to address aspects of the Government's proposed reforms that have a significant bearing on university purpose and operations.

There has been significant public and expert criticism of the Bill on a range of matters — including the underlying assumptions, the evidence base, unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Key stakeholders have expressed the need for a comprehensive inquiry given the extent and complexity of the reforms proposed and the lack of consultation to date.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Group of Eight

Universities Australia

Australian Technology Network

Innovation Research Universities

Regional Universities Network

individual Universities

National Union of Students

Professional Associations

Deans of Science; Deans of Education; Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

NTEU, PSA

Policy experts and academics

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment

Possible hearing date(s):

September - November

Possible reporting date:

30 November 2020

(signed)

Senator Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: National Commissioner for Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: to allow for consideration of design of proposed National Commissioner, informed by the findings of the impending interim Commissioner, forthcoming government response to the Productivity Commission's A Better Way report, impacted stakeholder submissions and consultation.

Because the interim Commissioner (as announced February 5 2020) has yet to be appointed, the interim Commissioner's literature review, also announced in February, is also yet to commence. This review, consisting of a comprehensive review of known current and former ADF and Defence personnel suicides since 2001, as well as a progress update on the implementation of recommendations made in various reviews and reports since 2003, should be concluded to inform the design of the National commissioner's proposed functioning.

The expectation offered by the Government in February 2020 was that the interim Commissioner would produce an initial report back twelve months from commencement, with a final report due 18 months from commencement (or six months after the initial reporting date). As this has been delayed, it is reasonable to suggest that the work of the interim Commissioner should inform the consideration of the Senate committee, and such that the work of the interim Commissioner should be allowed to proceed without delay, and without undue haste. The 12-month timeline to produce an initial report should be honoured.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Families, spouses of suicided Defence personnel.

Departments.

Academics.

Legal Experts.

Productivity Commission.

Ex-service organisations.

Veteran advocates.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

FADT Legislative Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: August 2021

(signed)

Senator Lambie

Whip Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020

National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Veterans' and their families have made it clear that they want a Royal Commission and that the Government's proposal, which is enabled by this legislation, is not satisfactory. This issue and the functioning of this National Commissioner needs further scrutiny.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Julie-Ann Finney from #SaveOurHeroes

Productivity Commission

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

FADT Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Sept-Nov 2020, Feb-Jul 2021

Possible reporting date:

August 2021

(signed)

Senator Siewert

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020".

This amendment has been circulated. It refers the EPBC bill to a Senate inquiry to report on 30 November. This is absolutely essential if we are to have proper scrutiny of these laws. They've just been tabled in the House of Representatives, and they are a full-blown attack on Australia's environment and on our wildlife. This bill is effectively a carbon copy of the legislation tabled by Tony Abbott in 2014, when Tony Abbott was doing the bidding of big miners and big developers to strip environmental protections and to allow these big companies to have free rein over Australia's natural wonderlands, our precious beaches, our precious forests and the homes of our native animals. It is absolutely essential that this chamber take every opportunity to scrutinise this piece of legislation.

We have known for months that the government wants to weaken Australia's environment laws. Back in May the Prime Minister stood up and crowed about how he was going to take a chainsaw to Australia's environment and how he was going to make it easier for big companies to get the green light for approvals. We've known for months that this legislation was coming up. Today it's been tabled and it's worse than we thought. It is a full-blown attack on our environment. So, in this place we need to make sure we send it off to the committee to look at it properly, to ensure there is scrutiny and to look at the flaws in this legislation.

For anyone in this place to say that they haven't had time to consider whether the Senate should, indeed, be sending this to an inquiry is just rubbish. We've known for months that this was coming. It's been tabled today and it should go off to a Senate inquiry. I'm extremely concerned that Labor is indicating that they wouldn't support sending this legislation off to an inquiry. Why on earth not? Whose side is Labor on? Are you on the side of the environment or are you on the side of Tony Abbott and the big polluters? Whose side are you on? Unless we send this legislation off to an inquiry today, this government is going to try and ram this legislation through the parliament as quickly as possible.

I understand that One Nation doesn't believe that they have had enough time to consider their position on this amendment or, indeed, on sending any of these bills before the Selection of Bills Committee last night. Where are they? The role of this chamber is to scrutinise and look at government legislation to make sure it is right. It is precisely our job to do this. If One Nation don't support this then they're just doing the dirty work of the government all over again. Where are they, anyway? I haven't seen Pauline Hanson all week.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that speakers in this place should not comment on the absence of a senator during the course of debate. Senator Hanson-Young has done that repeatedly, I believe.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a courtesy rather than a breach of standing orders, I would suggest. If I could ask senators to particularly keep in mind we are not aware why, in this pandemic, certain senators may not be able to attend, and we've facilitated—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Hanson is attending remotely. Generally, if senators are not in the chamber in this period, particularly with the travel restrictions in place, I would urge senators to adopt a charitable approach to it rather than assign a motive.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad Senator Hanson is listening, because it is the job of this chamber to scrutinise government legislation and not just give it a green tick, hoping that everything is A-OK. It's not. This piece of legislation has not been looked at properly. It must go to an inquiry. It is our job as senators to do this. Unless we make sure it goes to an inquiry today, this government is going to continue with their campaign to ram it through. Why? Because they're doing this under the cover of COVID-19. This government is taking a chainsaw to the environment protection laws in this country and using COVID-19 as an excuse. It is the most cynical act imaginable.

There are so many people out there today struggling to make ends meet and struggling in the midst of this pandemic, and what is this government doing? They're dusting off a piece of legislation from 2014 under Tony Abbott and wanting to ram it through the House and through the Senate. That's what this government wants to do. It is a distraction— (Time expired)

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without prejudice to any position I may have on the bill that's been tabled in the House, I think it is proper that a significant piece of legislation should be referred to a committee. That does a number of things. It allows people to properly consider it, but it also allows us to engage the community. That includes businesses and environmentalists, and it includes people who are interested in the topic and may not fit into either of those categories. In my time in this chamber, I've seen committees work really well together to actually come up with, in many cases, better legislation. I think the fact that this is not being referred is a breach of proper process, and I've asked the government to reconsider their position on it. If I understand correctly, they are not supporting a referral. I think that is an unfortunate departure from what is good legislative process.

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

To associate my comments with Senator Patrick and Senator Hanson-Young, certainly the Labor Party thinks that this legislation, from what we understand of it, is extremely important. The Senate has a very important role to play in scrutiny of legislation. There is absolutely no reason that I can fathom that the government can put before this place to explain why they wouldn't accept a referral. Perhaps we can have a discussion about the dates of referral, if that's the issue, but to have no referral on legislation this significant and this important seems like the government wanting to hide as much information as it can from the Senate before the Senate's in a position to debate this bill. It's an abuse of this Senate's role.

We accept there is some legislation that doesn't require referral to committee and we all work collegially in that regard to ensure the running of government and the smoothness of business on some legislation, but to not have a referral for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 is just outrageous. Work with us. Let's have an inquiry. Let's discuss the dates for that inquiry, if that's your problem, but don't deny the Senate the right to scrutinise, through our committee process, this important piece of legislation.

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

Earlier this week the government said that they were too busy responding to the pandemic to be able to move forward on a Commonwealth anticorruption authority. Well, the government is never—and I do mean never—too busy doing anything else to continue its war on nature and to continue its war on our environment, on our biodiversity, on our climate, on our forests, on our beaches, on our coastlines and on all the beautiful creatures that make those places their homes.

The EPBC Act is already failing to protect nature. We know that because that's been stated in the recent release of an independent review of that act, but this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, which the government has rushed into this place today under the cover of a pandemic, will make it even worse. It will weaken the already pathetically weak protections that our environment has in Commonwealth law.

This amendment bill will accelerate the theft of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It will accelerate the generational threat of their chance to have lives with the same levels of hope and opportunity that we have all had the chance to live. It will accelerate the death and displacement of billions of people during this century, and of course, as always, it is the people living in the deepest poverty who will pay the harshest price. They will pay in their droves with their lives, because this government is a corporatist government. It is part of a corporatist kleptocracy which is stealing the futures of so many of our families and so many future generations in this country. It is corporate profit and greed that is driving this destruction, which this government continues to enable time after time by moving amending legislation like this.

It's time we stood up and said enough. It's time we understood that we all rely on nature for our very survival and our very existence and that, in fact, we are part of nature. And you know what? You're all going to realise one day that we're part of nature, because nature is fighting back, and we are bearing the brunt of that in this country, with the bushfires, with the floods and with all of the other climate driven crises that are actually killing our people in Australia.

The Greens will of course fight this legislation all the way because it's bad legislation that fails to reflect fundamental realities about how nature works and how we, as humans, are part of the planetary ecosystem that ultimately we all rely on for our survival. Of course, we're happy and open to negotiate on the reporting date contained in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. But, given that we have an obvious rationale for wanting to ensure that this legislation is not rushed through this place and given that the government at least occasionally pays lip service to the concept of listening to people, listening to communities and consulting with them, we urge the government to support our amendment and allow that listening process and that consultation to take place through the auspices of a Senate inquiry.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim has just let the cat out of the bag. Whether there's another inquiry or no inquiry, the Greens are going to fight this legislation all the way. An inquiry will make no difference. It is just another step—and this is what this is all about—in delaying and delaying. Senator Hanson-Young said that this legislation is a carbon copy of a piece of legislation that was introduced by the Abbott government. That is how long this has been inquired into by the Senate. This is how long the Greens have been fighting to delay this in going ahead. It's a carbon copy of a bill that was previously inquired into by a Senate committee.

So you want to have another committee into a carbon copy of a bill into which there has already been an inquiry. You have just exposed the absolute insincerity with which you are seeking to pursue this amendment. I can see how you're smiling and smirking, because you know that what I'm saying is true. This is not about scrutiny. This is not about assessing a piece of legislation. This is about delaying, pure and simple, fighting it all the way and making sure that here in Australia we can't secure passage of a piece of legislation that is designed to appropriately balance environmental protection with economic opportunity.

We want to continue to grow our economy. We want to create opportunities for Australians to get ahead, to get a job and to pursue a career. That is why we've always got to make sure we appropriately balance environmental protection with economic opportunity. That is why we need to ensure that we streamline and make the environmental approval processes more efficient. We completely reject the proposition that we're avoiding scrutiny. But we are not going to be part of a charade whose sole objective, as Senator McKim has confirmed on the record in this chamber today, is to fight this legislation all the way. He's going to fight it on the beaches—

Senator McKim interjecting—

He's agreeing. So why would we waste our time with an inquiry that has absolutely no prospect of changing the Greens' minds? They're not going into this with an open mind. They're going into this with a very clear determination to kill the bill. I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that the Labor Party yet again have made themselves complicit in Greens' efforts to kill a bill that is designed to promote economic opportunity in a way that is environmentally responsible. We are proposing to work with the state Labor government in Western Australia. The state Labor government in Western Australia wants to work with us in order to get projects up in an environmentally responsible fashion.

We are always up for proper inquiries into new reforms that are coming forward, but we believe that six years of debate, six years of inquiries and six years of fighting this out is long enough. It is time to get on with it. It is time for the Senate to get on with it. We call on all senators who care about economic opportunity, who care about jobs for working Australians, to vote with us to reject this amendment to this Scrutiny of Bills Committee report.

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

Senator Cormann has just let the cat out of the bag. This is about economic opportunity and economic development, not environmental protection. Senator Cormann, the name of the bill is 'environmental protection'. That's what it's supposed to be doing—not economic development. You've got lots of other bills to do that. The government's agenda is really clear here, folks. They've just introduced amendments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to—guess what?—designate gas a low-emission fuel. What is that? There's no way it is. It's a fossil fuel. Your gas-led recovery is so plain. You're prepared to trash the environment for the future to make sure that climate change runs rampant across this globe. That's what this is about.

We want to have a good look at what this bill does. This is simply to facilitate your agenda to trash the environment. Maybe when you're amending it you should amend it to the 'trash the environment bill', because that's what you are doing with this. You are trashing our environment laws. You have already overseen so much destruction: further loss of species, further threatening of species. You'll do anything you can to facilitate development no matter the cost to our precious environment, to our precious species. Your agenda is so patently clear, particularly on the same day as you're introducing this bill that makes a mockery of addressing climate change and emissions in this country.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some short comments on the amendment from my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. I associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues. This government is doing what it does best: hiding from scrutiny, avoiding transparency, making decisions behind closed doors. We know that this legislation is ecocide. We know that you are environmental vandals. That's pretty clear. All you see nature is is as a commodity to use and abuse. Why? For the benefit of those corporations who line your pockets so that you can come back in here and do the same thing all over again: destroy the environment.

This inquiry is about putting you, putting your government and putting this bill through a fine toothcomb, because the public deserve this. It is about the public knowing what you actually want to do, what your agenda is, and that is to destroy the environment. That's why this inquiry is important. Yes, we have known for years that you want to destroy it. You're vandals. This is ecocide. But the public doesn't know this and that's why this inquiry is so important.

Why won't you let the Senate do its job? You are stopping us from doing our job. Our job is to look at bills. What are you afraid of? If you're so confident that this bill is so great then let us put it through scrutiny. That's right: you don't have to be part of the inquiry if you don't want to be. You can stay home, but we want this bill to be looked into whether you want it or not. Yes, we will fight this bill tooth and nail no matter whether the inquiry goes on or not, because this is about the future of our people in Australia and across the world. This is about the future of the planet. We want to preserve and enhance the future for the generations to come and for the inherent value that the environment has.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted as moved by Senator Dean Smith.

Question agreed to.