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

I present the 13th report for 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. 13 OF 2021

25 November 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)

Senator Raff Ciccone

Senator Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator the Hon James McGrath

Senator Rex Patrick

Senator the Hon Anne Ruston

Secretary: Tim Bryant Ph. 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 7.20 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2021, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 3) Bill 2021, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2021 and Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2022;

(b) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 January 2022 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2022 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

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

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

(Dean Smith)

Chair

25 November 2021

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Significant changes to migrant worker protections under the Migration Act, including strong concerns from a wide range of stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions, civil society, legal groups, migrant support groups, farmers, supermarkets, horticulture, and agriculture organisations, including Ai Group, AMES Australia, ACCI, Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, Fragomen Australia, Hammond Taylor, IARC Unions NSW, Immigration Solutions, Law Council of Australia, Migrant Worker Justice Initiative, Migrant Workers Centre, Migration Institute of Australia, NTEU, Professor Joanna Howe, Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, Redfern Legal Centre, Retail Supply Chain Alliance, Settlement Council of Australia, Salvation Army, Uniting Church, United Workers Union, WEstJustice, Woolworths, Coles and Aldi.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

TBC

Possible reporting date:

Monday 15 February 2022

(signed)

A Urquhart

Whip Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure the bill is consistent with recommendations of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, which reported to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation in 2019.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Immigrant and migrant advocates, workers unions, recruitment industry, industry and sector peak bodies, legal experts.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

SSC Education and Employment, or JSC Migration

Possible hearing date(s):

Inquiry to be conducted on the papers

Possible reporting date:

First sitting day of February 2022

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The bill is materially different to the previous two iterations of the bill, both of which went to inquiry. It contains retrospectivity, engages human rights, and is possibly in breach of Australia's commitments to international obligations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Legal, human rights, and migration experts and stakeholders, e.g. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Human Rights Law Centre, Refugee Legal, Australian Human Rights Commission, Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Refugee Council of Australia, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, and the Law Society of Australia.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Non-sitting days in February

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Strengthening The Character Test) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill has changed from the original version first introduced over three years ago. It now has significant implications for victims of domestic violence and needs adequate time for detailed consideration.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Legal, civil society, refugee, asylum seekers, migrant support and domestic violence organisations.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

TBC

Possible reporting date: 15 February 2022

(signed)

A Urquhart

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

While the EM states that the changes made by this bill are largely technical in nature, the bill would make changes to dozens of significant and often complex Acts. It is important to fully understand the impact of any changes made to those statutory regimes, whether intended or not, and an enquiry will enable those with particular expertise to provide submissions to the Committee about those impacts.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Law Council of Australia

Other bodies with particular expertise in the various statutory regimes impacted by this bill.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal & Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

Given the technical nature of this bill, it is suggested that the inquiry be conducted on the papers. Any hearing dates, if required, to be determined by the committee.

Possible reporting date:

11 February 2022

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I seek leave to move, together, two amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee report.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) At the end of the motion, add "and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 not be referred to a committee".

(2) At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, the provisions of the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2022".

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

Mr President, for clarity, could you indicate if the question on these motions will be put separately?

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have requested that the matters be addressed separately, and they will be addressed separately.

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

The opposition doesn't have a problem with the amendment the government has moved on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, but we do have an issue in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. Our preference would be that this matter go before a joint select committee, but I am advised I cannot move an amendment to that effect in this part of the program. We do believe that on a bill like this, on an issue that has attracted interest from a number of different stakeholders, it would be good if the parliament dealt with this across both chambers, with people from both chambers being able to participate in that inquiry. That would be our preference.

I'm reading the room that perhaps the government has the numbers for this, but a reporting date of 1 February really doesn't show any genuine interest at all in having a genuine inquiry into this report or the ability for stakeholders to participate in an inquiry like that. It's essentially saying, 'Yes, we will conduct an inquiry, but it will be held only over the Christmas holidays, after a year like this.'

I think it shows a lack of seriousness from the government about dealing with this in a way that brings people together, which is our preference. We notice from the way the government has chosen to conduct the discussions around the preparation of this bill that they haven't reached across the chambers to other parties in this place. They haven't invited people to the table to assist with the drafting and we didn't have a copy of it until it was released publicly, and that was after three or four days of media speculation and briefing out to the media about what was in it and what wasn't in it. I think that from our point of view there's a lack of genuineness from the government about dealing with this in a way that's in the national interest as opposed to some political interests. The reporting date—seriously—also supports my view on that: 1 February really isn't long enough for a suitable inquiry into this matter.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to say a few words on this matter, since I am the deputy chair of the committee and there has been no consultation with the committee—none!

I'm not known as a person who does not commit fully to my job. I believe that my record throughout this last year of the pandemic has been equal to anyone's in terms of my attendance. This committee has a very heavy workload and we have, I believe, fulfilled it conscientiously and not sought to duck our responsibilities to this chamber. Now we're being told, without consultation, that irrespective of what we're doing at the moment we can do this bill over the Christmas break.

It would seem that everyone else in this place, in this building, is entitled to spend some time with their families and is entitled to enjoy some respite from the hurly-burly of this place apart from the members of this committee, who haven't been spoken to. If anyone were to suggest that this was a simple matter, that this was legislation that can be dismissed with the papers, they would be sorely mistaken. Given that the government has taken the better part of three years, and many attempts, to get it into some sort of shape, I would have thought that they would at least have the courtesy of talking to the people who are now expected to actually undertake the parliamentary review of it on behalf of the chamber.

An opposition senator interjecting—

No, I haven't started on that! In the last two days that the documents have been available there has been a flurry of information being provided concerned with this bill. That's because it's not just a question of the rights of the religious it's also a question of the secular community, and we're discovering that there are different points of view about that. And what would we expect if we're going to start to prioritise human rights—if we're going to say that some people have rights at the expense of others? Of course there's going to be a major dispute about that! Do those opposite think they can just sweep that under the carpet—just slide that away over the Christmas holidays and that no-one will notice? Well, think again!

It is a gross abuse of this chamber and of the processes of this chamber to try to pull a swiftie like this. I expect nothing less, I suppose, in some sense, that a controversial matter like this has taken so long to resolve within the Liberal Party or the National Party. And yet they expect us all to sign up to it. That's not going to happen! There has to be a proper process to allow people in this community to have a view about things and express them properly. And we have to have time for members of this committee to be able to make an assessment of those views and report back to this chamber in a proper manner.

They're saying 1 February: they're treating this parliament with contempt to suggest that that's going to be an adequate time to examine the complexity of this issue. In my own state, there are going to be views expressed about whether or not these matters are in fact legal. I have read numerous reports in the press today as to whether or not this matter should be subject to a High Court challenge. There are varying views within religious communities about these matters. But the government expect us to just tick and flick a matter of this importance over the Christmas holidays?

That is the contempt at the heart of this—the contempt for everybody in this place. Those who think there's a quick, easy settlement here are buying themselves so much trouble that they don't begin to imagine and that couldn't begin to be fixed by a sleazy, slimy little arrangement like this. That's what it is. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is outrageous. Here is a piece of legislation, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, that has been in the making for years and that we know, from having just seen it in the last day, is actually going to increase discrimination, not reduce discrimination. Yet the government is trying to quickly get it out of the way, to try to pretend that that's not the case. It is so disrespectful to the whole Australian community, who have an interest in this legislation, because it is complex legislation. On one hand the Prime Minister is saying it's going to bring us all together and it's going to protect people of faith, and on the other hand, when you read this legislation, you see that it is actually going to increase discrimination, allowing people to make offensive statements and get away with it.

It is legislation that is a massive overreach—overriding all the state and territory antidiscrimination legislation. It's going to allow further discrimination in schools. Whereas the Prime Minister was promising that he was going to reduce discrimination in schools and not allow students to be expelled because of their sexuality or their gender identity, this legislation is actually going to consolidate that position. It is going to give schools more ability—it's going to encourage them—to use the provisions in this legislation to expel students and sack teachers on the basis of their gender identity or their sexuality.

This in itself is bad enough, but we know that's this government's agenda. Okay, so that's the government's agenda, and they're putting it on the table. They believe in it; we don't, but they believe in it. But let's have the committee inquiry, which is what we do in this Senate, to be able to thrash this out, to be able to get all the views of the community, of the many stakeholders. And that's not just LGBTIQ stakeholders. It's also people with disability. It's women. It's people of minority faiths. All these people want to have a say, because they are affected by this legislation.

This legislation allows people to make offensive statements against people with disabilities. It allows people in the street to come up to people and say, 'Your disability is a punishment from God.' This legislation will allow people to make offensive statements against women, to tell them they should be subject to the will of their husband. It allows people to make an offensive statement against single parents—to say that having children out of wedlock is simple. This legislation allows people to make offensive statements against same-sex couples—for a lesbian to have a colleague continually say to her, 'I'm going to pray to find you a husband.'

This is the sort of thing this legislation does. So, at the very least, we need to have a decent inquiry to make this clear, to thrash this out. Yet we have a government that, a minute before we are due to consider this issue, has the gall to table an amendment saying that we're going to have an inquiry that is going to be completed by the end of January. How disrespectful to all those members of the Australian community who want to have a say! If we're going to have an inquiry that reports by the end of January, any hearings for this inquiry would have to be at the beginning of January, when people are on their summer holidays. It is outrageous; it is absolutely outrageous and just so disrespectful. But it is typical of this government, who have got it into their heads that this is the direction they want to go—to ride roughshod over the interests of the vast majority of Australians, who actually want to see legislation that decreases discrimination.

People want to see a country where everybody is able to live their lives free of discrimination. They do not want to see legislation that is going to increase discrimination against women, against people with disabilities or against LGBTIQ Australians. So absolutely the Greens will be opposing this. We had hoped, through the selection of bills process last night, that we'd reached agreement to defer a decision on the committee and the reporting date until next week, to give us a bit more time to talk through these things sensibly. But, no, at the last minute, just before midnight, we had this disrespectful amendment from the government. I have moved an amendment to the selection of bills report to say that— (Time expired)

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

We should reflect on the comments of Senator Carr regarding the burden this reporting date will place on people who wish to submit to the committee. It will also burden the members of the committee themselves. We should not forget the secretariat as well, who will have to work all the way through what is traditionally a rest time for everyone in this place. I don't want to prejudge anything, but this is a bill that is like a can of worms. We're going to have to take the worms out, straighten them up and put them back in some order. It really will take a lot of effort because of the differing opinions that will be coming in through the submissions and that are already are in the minds of senators.

It would make a lot of sense to defer this reporting date; at least until some time in March would be wise. I speak for myself and I'm pretty confident I have a feel of the crossbench on this. Senator Lambie may speak for herself, but I was also part of the organisation for the other crossbencher. If an inquiry isn't done properly, I certainly won't be voting for a bill. I can see that Senator Lambie is indicating that as well. You will roll the dice. Why not go to March and let everyone have a proper inquiry?

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

Senator Rice has circulated an amendment to the motion currently before the chair. I'm going to move that amendment, but I want to seek leave to amend the date in that amendment.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All you need to do is move an amendment to Senator Ruston's motion, amending the date.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2022".

There seems to be general agreement right across the Senate that these bills should have a Senate inquiry. I think everyone has that position. What we are discussing now and what we're asking the Senate to consider is a genuine inquiry. These are complicated pieces of legislation. They will have a significant impact, if they pass, on the lives of a large number of Australians, in particular people living with disabilities in Australia and our LGBTIQ+ community. ut it is not just those folk. A large section of the Australian community and Australian society will have their lives meaningfully impacted by these bills. We should not be making significant changes to the antidiscrimination framework that exists in this country without thoroughly exploring the issues raised by these bills—not a quick and dirty inquiry, as the government is suggesting, but a proper Senate inquiry where these complicated issues can get the airing that they deserve. We believe that a reporting date of 21 March would strike that balance.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation has been subject to numerous rounds of public consultation. It is not legislation that hasn't been seen previously. The vast majority of this legislation has been well-versed with the different stakeholders. With the introduction of these bills the government did make clear that we also viewed the further consultative processes of a Senate inquiry to be a very important part of adding value to those consultation processes that have been undertaken. That is why we have sought, on the day of the introduction of this legislation to the parliament, to in good faith ensure it is referred for inquiry, consistent with that commitment to continue to undertake consultation.

I've heard comments around the chamber in relation to the timing and duration of the inquiry. I understand that the Christmas period does involve, of course, the holiday season for many Australians, but I do note that there are 9½ weeks between now and 1 February.

Senator Carr does protest a little too much. Others have made thoughtful contributions—

I will be, Senator Lambie. Fear not.

But thanks for the gratuitous advice. There are 9½ weeks in this regard. Committees of course are able to make their own recommendations and determinations through that process, including in relation to additional time if the committee itself so determines. It is also the case that the government want to get the advice and the feedback from the Senate committee process in a manner that can enable consideration of this legislation by this parliament, so we have sought to act on the very day of its introduction to the parliament to provide for that referral in the conventional way.

Senator Carr, you know full well that the vast majority of bills are referred without talking to the committee beforehand. You've been here so long that you know that well and truly to be the case.

It's a fact, Senator Carr.

I can only imagine what Senator Carr would have called it had the government not supported the referral to a committee. We are supporting the referral to a committee. We are putting forward that referral in the conventional way of sending it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It's the standard process for consideration of legislation. We're doing so and providing a 9½-week reporting period for that committee. Of course, as I indicated before, members of that committee, in terms of their consideration of all aspects of this, are at liberty to make their reports to the Senate not only obviously on the substance of the bills but also in relation to further time if they deem it to be necessary in working through such matters. But the government does wish the parliament to ideally hear the committee's views and the feedback from the committee prior to consideration of these bills to enable sufficient time for the bills to be considered by this parliament.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any further contributions on this matter? If not, I will start by putting the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston. Those who agree to that—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I move an amendment to Senator McKim's amendment: to insert the date 15 February.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright. We will start with Senator Wong's amendment to Senator McKim's amendment to Senator Ruston's motion. To make it very clear, this is Senator Wong's amendment for a reporting date of 15 February. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Wong to the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the substantive motion as moved by Senator Ruston, on sheet GOV1, be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now put the motion moved by Senator Ruston on sheet GOV2, to do with the autonomous sanctions amendment.

Question agreed to.

The time for the debate has expired but I will just confirm that senators still wish to move additional amendments. Senator Gallagher.

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

Yes, thank you. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2022".

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

On behalf of Senator Hanson, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2022".

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now put the substantive motion, as amended, as moved by Senator Smith—a while ago now!

Question agreed to.