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

I present the sixth report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2021

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 7.20 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 December 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 July 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021

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

Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

5. The committee considered the following bills but were unable to reach agreement:

Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021

(Dean Smith)

Chair

17 June 2021

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Constitutional Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Renewed importance in the light of the judgement by Justice Steward regarding the freedom of expression in the High Court of Australia's decision in the matter of LibertyWorks Incv Commonwealth of Australia [2021] HCA 18 of 16 June 2021 at 249.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Media organisations, journalists, civil liberty groups, constitutional experts and legal organisations or bodies, persons concerned with the reduction of freedom of speech.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

As decided by Committee

Possible reporting date:

As decided by Committee, before 31 December 2021

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Need for consultation with the sector.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

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:

22 July 2021

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

July — August — September

Possible reporting date:

August — September

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 not be referred to a committee".

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2021."

What we saw yesterday was only the fifth time in this chamber's history that a government has blocked a bill being read a first time. What we're now seeing is a government attempting to block a private member's bill going to inquiry. This is an absolute debasement of process. This is a government throwing its weight around to protect one of its own. Let's call this for what it is: this is a protection racket for Minister Christian Porter because this government doesn't want to face an inquiry into whether he raped a woman decades ago. That's what's under debate here. Rather than respect process and rather than have the Prime Minister do the decent thing and actually undertake an inquiry himself or have cause for an inquiry to be undertaken, they just want to silence the voices of so many people who are demanding justice, while trying to pretend that everything is fine and that this isn't a problem at all. Well, this is not going to fly. How long are you going to put up a protection racket for Minister Porter and keep this alleged rapist in the cabinet? How long? We won't stop moving to introduce this bill and we won't stop moving to try to send it to inquiry.

I want to go into the allegations, but I want to make an important point of principle: private members are able to introduce private member's bills. We are also able to refer bills to inquiry. It is a virtual matter of course. It is highly unprecedented for a government to stand in the way of a private member's bill to be read a first time and even more unusual to stand in the way of a private member's bill going to inquiry. This should send chills down the spines of everyone who's interested in having a government that's accountable and open to scrutiny. This is a slide towards a dictatorship in aid of protecting an alleged rapist in the cabinet. You could not make this stuff up.

Yesterday we had Jo Dyer, who was a friend of Kate, the woman who alleged that Christian Porter raped her many decades ago, in the chamber, and she was incredulous that this government would stoop to such lengths as to stop this issue being talked about. She made the point to the media that, in fact, this issue won't stop being talked about. You might try to silence us, but we are not going anywhere. Ninety-thousand people signed a petition calling for an inquiry into whether Minister Porter should remain a minister, and there are many more thousands of people that would like to have confidence in the organs of government but cannot, and there are many more women who have been raped or sexually assaulted—in fact, 90 per cent of them have not gone to the police. Why? Because they fear they won't be believed. Your actions today and yesterday send a message that women will not be believed when we speak out about assaults that we have experienced, and that is an absolute abomination. The motives you have for sending that message, to protect one of your own, to protect the boys club—it is an absolutely horrific occurrence. I am almost lost for words that you would sink to these lows rather than simply let justice run its course and have the Prime Minister do the right thing and inquire into whether or not his ministers are fit to remain ministers. That is the point of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards. That is the point of that document. If there is no point to that document, just shred it—like you have your credibility.

If the government can block me introducing a bill and can block me sending a bill to inquiry, I am hopeful that the crossbench will see that it can do the very same to them. Perhaps it's veterans suicide. Perhaps it's something that One Nation want to progress—although they seem to have quite ready access to this government. The principle is: the government of the day should not be able to stop senators introducing private senators' bills and having those bills sent to inquiry. I expected you would have simply shrunk the time for the inquiry, blocked any public hearings from going ahead and done it all on the papers; I expected that level of nefariousness. I didn't expect you to just block this bill from going to inquiry at all. I will ask the researchers to work out how often this has happened. This is a slide into a dictatorship by this government, who are allergic to transparency and are desperate to protect an alleged rapist in their own cabinet. They are sending a message to every woman in this nation who has been raped or assaulted that they don't believe her.

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

I would like to respond to that comment by Senator Waters with regard to her private senator's bill. I was one of the ones who blocked it, and I would do it again and again and again. I think that that private senator's bill was absolutely disgusting. To think that this parliament could put it up and see whether a member of parliament, elected by the people, is a fit and proper person, when this parliament was set up, under our Constitution, with a separation of powers between the judiciary and the parliament. That is not the case here.

A private senator's bill of this nature means that they want to act as judge and jury. This has been before the police. There are no allegations because the person who made the allegations to a friend has now passed away. The minister has been before the police to see if there is a case to answer. We are not here to act as a judicial part of the parliament, to see if someone is a fit and proper person. I could name someone in the Greens party who I think should come under that also; I could put up a private senator's bill to see whether they are a fit and proper person to be here in this parliament as well. Where does it stop? Who will be the next one to be called out?

I think it's absolutely disgusting of the Greens to carry on as if they have the right to bring anyone to justice, when we have a judicial system, not a private senator's bill, to do that. We have rejected a private senator's bill in this place because of the wording. To say whether a member of parliament is fit and proper is not up to this parliament. It's not up to an inquiry. It is not up to the Greens to investigate whether he's guilty or not. It is up to the courts to decide that. We have a process of justice in this country, and if we allow this to happen who will be the next one in line that they are disagreeable with?

I am fully supportive of Christian Porter getting on and doing the job he was elected to do. The fact is that it will be the people of his electorate who will make the decision, not the Greens or anyone else pushing their own agenda. It is not up to you. Leave this to our judicial system to deal with. We have a system in place. I think it's disgusting and appalling for you to be carrying on again, like you do, as if you've got—I can't even say who you are. It is absolutely shameful and disgusting that you are actually doing this.

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

I wish to make a brief comment, because I think it is worth distinguishing the role of the judiciary from the role of the Senate. The role of the judiciary is to in fact deal with either criminal or civil offences. That is not the subject of this particular amendment; this goes to the fitness of a member of parliament to be a minister, to be part of the executive. It is in fact the constitutional duty of the Senate to have oversight of government. It is a principle or a key pillar of a responsible system of government that the cabinet is responsible to the legislature. I just wanted to distinguish that there are two issues. One could be judicial and one is clearly a proper matter for the Senate in the execution of its constitutional responsibilities. I say nothing as to the allegations that have been raised. But it is appropriate that, if a question is raised, it can be examined by the Senate.

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

First of all, I want to quote Senator Waters. She said: 'Let justice run its course.'6 I want to make a comment that rape is a terrible, terrible, terrible crime. But the answer for any crime is the law and upholding the law. So let justice run its course. I need to note that the Greens are implicitly finding Mr Porter guilty—hung, drawn and quartered, guilty—and yet we have seen no trial. The parliament is responsible for making the laws of our country, the police are responsible for enforcing those laws, and the judiciary is responsible for adjudicating on those laws. We need that process—not to supplant it by a process within this parliament. That is why I oppose it and that is why I want justice to run its course. We see the Greens as abusing parliamentary process. Petitions do not decide ministerial appointments and do not decide whether a minister stays or is removed. That's why we oppose what the Greens are trying to do.

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

The question is the Australian Greens amendment on sheet AG 1 moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

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

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

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the following bills not be referred to committees:

(a) Fuel Security Bill 2021

Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021; and

(b) Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021".

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

I just wanted to say something briefly about the amendment. I have a concern in relation to the Fuel Security Bill. I'm actually generally supportive of that bill, but I'm worried that, at some later stage, we're going to get to a point on a Wednesday where a time motion is going to be moved; we won't get to have this looked at the committee stage, by way of a Senate committee; and then we won't get to debate it in the chamber. I note that every Wednesday we're seeing a motion that deals with time moved, and we have to rethink that.

In relation to the inspector-general of the Murray-Darling Basin, that's a really, really important role. I note that the bill is quite complicated. It involves penalties and indictable offences.

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

The time for the debate has expired. It being 12.45, I intend to deal with the questions before the chair, which includes the Selection of Bills Committee report. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

An honourable senator: by leave—Mr President, under the standing orders I ask that the Australian Greens be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

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

by leave—Mr President, under the standing orders I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 12 August 2021."

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.