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

I present the 14th report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 14 OF 2021

2 December 2021

MEMBERS OF THE CO MMITTEE

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

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 14 OF 2021

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 8.10 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2022; and

(c) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 April 2022.

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

2 December 2021

Appendix 1

Name of bill:

Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Consideration of economy-wide impacts of Schedules 1-5, consideration of multinational tax evasion issues, consideration of the retirement income covenant, consideration of tax evasion issues arising from employee share schemes

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Tax Institute of Australia, accountant bodies, tax academics, finance industry bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

16 January 2022, 18 January 2022

Possible reporting date:

3 February 2022

(signed)

A Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

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 the two circulated government amendments together.

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

To be clear, Mr President: we're not seeking to deny leave for that, but we will be asking that the vote be put separately on those two amendments.

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

Leave is granted.

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, in respect of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2022".

And I move:

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

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021

Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021; and

Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021".

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

I wish to speak in opposition to that amendment regarding the religious discrimination bills. It is quite outrageous that here are we, the Senate, the house of review—we have a Senate legislation committee that is set up to have legislation referred to it—and the government is explicitly saying that an incredibly far-reaching bill that would have an impact on people right across the country, a bill that would increase discrimination rather than reduce it, is not being referred to committee. Of course, I have an alternative amendment to the selection of bills to once again say that we should be referring the religious discrimination bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It's a government controlled committee. It's not as if it's anything extraordinary. It is just what the government should be doing. We want a referral to the Senate Legal and—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Waters, are you on your feet on a point of order?

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

Yes. The point of order is I can't hear what our speaker 30 centimetres away from me is saying over the interjections.

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

I agree. There were far too many interjections in the chamber. I call all senators to order. Senator Rice, you have the call.

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

For the sake of the interjections: the position of the Greens is very clear that the religious discrimination bill should be referred to a Senate committee and that the reporting date should be at a time that gives the community ample opportunity to engage with it. As we know, since we discussed this at this time last week, the Attorney-General made the decision to send it off to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, where submissions have to be in by 21 December—right in the lead-up to Christmas, less than three weeks away—and there are three hearings, one of which is on 21 December and the other two of which are on 13 and 14 January. There is not the time for the community to be able to engage with a bill of this consequence. It is totally disrespectful, right across the board, no matter which community member you are talking about. Whether it's those who want to see this bill to continue or those like us who feel that this is very bad legislation, regardless, it is important legislation and there should be ample opportunity for the community to be able to engage with it. We know from the commentary about this bill over the last weeks there is a lot of contradiction as to what this bill does. We have the government saying that it's not going to increase discrimination against people with disabilities, against women, against LGBTQIA+ people and then we have very eminent legal experts who say, yes, it will, and it is the most extreme overreach of the government to be overriding state and territory antidiscrimination provisions. It is a very significant piece of legislation. Our reading of it, which we want to have discussed in a proper, appropriate committee process, is that it will have the ability to increase discrimination, particularly through its overriding of state and territory antidiscrimination legislation.

So what we're asking for is for the Senate to do its job the way that it should be, to have proper processes with proper time lines so that people get the opportunity to contribute to our work and then end up with legislation that everyone is clear about what it does. We can then decide where we stand—for or against. I ask the government once again: this is what the Senate should be doing—we should be having a referral to the Senate committee and it should be a referral that gives people time to contribute. It is a small thing and it is what the community would be expecting.

Whether it's people of faith, whether it's people with disabilities, whether it's women, or whether it's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer people in Australia, there is going to be a huge amount of interest in this bill. When I spoke to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights secretariat yesterday, they were overwhelmed with the thought of how they were going to cope with the number of submissions in the short time frame that had been given to them. It is proper process for a bill like this to go to a Senate committee to be properly considered so we can make sure that we are actually introducing legislation that is going to be decreasing discrimination rather than increasing discrimination.

I also now want to move my amendment as an amendment to the government's amendment that has been distributed in respect of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill.

I move as amendment to Gov2:

That the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2022.

(Time expired)

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

I rise to make a few comments. We've made it really clear our unhappiness over the unilateral referral of the Religious Discrimination Bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights. Labor believe there should be a genuine inquiry that allows both MPs and senators to participate. Our preference was for a joint select committee to examine this issue before it's considered further in the House or the Senate but we were unsuccessful with that approach to the Morrison government. We also participated in and supported various inquiry referrals to the Senate on several occasions during this sitting period. I think those votes have been tied in every instance and lost, so we haven't been able to refer it to a Senate committee. All of those options were rejected by the Morrison government. We think it is really unfortunate that this resulted in deadlocked votes in this place and no results but this is the approach that the Morrison government has decided to take on this issue.

Labor do think that we should have been able to reach agreement across the chamber with everybody about how to proceed with an inquiry and it's most unfortunate that the government has been unwilling or unable to work with the Senate on that. We don't believe this position is going to change. We have been talking across chambers and to multiple people to convince the government to take a different path, and the government is refusing to do so. So we will be supporting the non-referral amendment by the government and we will also be working to make sure that the referral to the Joint Statutory Committee on Human Rights is a genuine inquiry and properly examines this very important issue before full consideration by the parliament.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator LAMBIE () (): I want to state the Jacqui Lambie Network's position on this. The state of Tasmania doesn't want to have a bar of this. They're very happy with the way our laws are down there. They are concerned that the laws, whichever way you move them, are going to come over the top of Tasmania. I can tell you that we won't be changing our vote. I will not be supporting this, and I've certainly had no indication from the Premier of Tasmania that he, let alone the people of Tasmania, supports it either.

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

With the indulgence of the chamber, I am prepared to move an amendment to my amendment to the motion for the adoption of the report of the Selection of Bills Committee, such that the three bills that I have just requested not be referred—the Religious Discrimination Bill, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill—be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a reporting date of 4 February 2022, as we now know the sitting calendar for 2022. If the chamber is inclined to support that, I will move it.

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

We'll take that as an amendment to Senator Rice's date if it is agreed.

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

As I understand it, that is the government putting back the position to where we started over a week ago.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Yes, we did, because it doesn't allow for a genuine, proper inquiry. That was the position we took then. Remember, we put to you that we would like an extra fortnight so that the inquiry was not conducted during Christmas and new year, and you rejected it. I think you're trying to be a bit clever and cute here after a week of deadlock. If the government is serious about this—I don't have instructions on it—I would seek a bit of time. I think we need to consult with others. Considering how this issue has been progressed and the level of interest in this referral, I don't think that, without proper instructions and the ability to consider this, we can deal with this matter right now. I would ask that we come back to it at some point through the formal business or just before we start motions.

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

I want to make a similar contribution. The issue of the timing is critical because 4 February, as per the inquiry that's under way by the joint standing committee, does not give the time for people to be able to contribute. It means that all of the activity is happening during the summer period when people are on holidays—and they deserve to be on holidays after the year that we've just had.

An honourable senator: Including the secretariat.

Including the secretariat, absolutely. Given Senator Gallagher's suggestion that we defer this, I would be happy to support deferring it to seek further advice. The problem of 4 February stands as it stood last week. The reporting date of mid-February is the absolute minimum that is needed for a bill of this import, and that's where I suspect we will end up.

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

I am in the hands of the chamber, if anyone wants to seek to do anything different; otherwise, I am going to put the question.

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

We can deal with the other amendments—I'm happy with that—and then come back to that one, if that's acceptable to the chamber.

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

The chamber will defer consideration of these particular amendments to a later time, and we will return to government amendment No. 1 on sheet GOV1, moved by Senator Ruston. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Question 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 7 February 2022".

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

[by video link] This referral of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021, which I have put up, has been denied by this chamber on a couple of occasions. The people of Australia have shown that they do want to have a voice and that they want to have a say. I don't believe that the people of this chamber really understand the hurt and pain they're causing to the people of Australia, which is quite evident by the rallies that have been conducted around Australia. People have come out in their hundreds of thousands, and will continue to do so.

These people are not extremists. These are ordinary mums and dads, teachers, doctors, nurses and people who work in the fire brigade and police—just ordinary, everyday workers; those who work in retail outlets or who are construction workers. All these people have been denied their basic human right to make a choice about having a vaccination or not. These people are now losing their jobs and livelihoods. They're so distraught, distressed and hurt because they're being told what to do with their own bodies.

We don't have a pandemic. The last strain that they've said has come into the country, the omicron, was actually brought in by someone who was double-vaxxed. That's right: double-vaxxed. I don't know if people actually know the figures which have come out of Britain, but the number of people who are in hospital with COVID is greater for the double-vaxxed by 192 to those who aren't vaxxed at 112. So the push to have people vaccinated is only causing them more health issues. We've had 80,000 people who have actually recorded an adverse reaction to vaccinations through the TGA. We have people who have health issues now, especially young males with myocarditis or pericarditis, due to the vaccination. We have people who can't get to see a doctor, dentist or a psychologist unless they have been double-vaxxed. We have people who have left the armed services and who need to see a psychologist but they can't be seen now because they're not double-vaxxed. You people are causing more stress and harm—suicides, the breakup of families and the loss of jobs—by putting people in distress, and for what reason?

We were elected to be a voice for the people, and you are denying those people the right to have their say at a Senate committee inquiry. I don't understand that. Senator Rice got up and explained that for the proper process you actually have to give the people the right to speak on religious discrimination. You stood there, Senator Rice, and you were actually voting, saying that we must give the people this opportunity to have their say on such an important issue. Well, what's more important than the freedom of people to make a choice about what gets injected into their bodies?

Doctors have been shut down from having a say. Doctors are leaving the profession and nurses are leaving the profession because of COVID-19. It's got nothing to do with the fact that they're antivaxxers. They see the adverse reactions from this vaccine which are coming through in patients now.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order!

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

Hospitals are denying people the right to go into [inaudible] because they haven't been double-vaxxed. I'm calling on this chamber: please give the people of this nation the opportunity to put their submissions in so that you can understand what is happening. You can't shut them down, that is not our job. Our job is to represent them and to hear their concerns. Let us make the right decisions on their behalf, and if my bill doesn't stand up then so be it.

What do you have to hide? Who are you protecting? This should not be political—and not about whether you hate me, or One Nation or our policies. It's not about me; it's about the people and their rights—and you are denying them their rights. My plea to each and every one of you is: give the people the opportunity to have their say, listen to them and then make your final decision with regard to the bill. Don't kill more people in this country than you already are. (Time expired)

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

I just want to make a short contribution in response to some of the things that Senator Hanson has said—and I will do this as unemotionally as I possibly can. I'm a big believer in people being able to utilise the committee process to express their views, but I will point out that, in this parliament, Senator Hanson has in fact voted against 40 per cent of all committee referrals. That includes committee referrals in relation to domestic violence, in particular against women and children; ministerial standards; the model for government investment in early childhood education and care; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill; the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill; the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill; again, ministerial standards; and the current status of scientific advice to parliament. There have been a number of bills that Senator Hanson has simply denied the opportunity for people to engage in, through the inquiry process for the Senate to examine bills and issues before the Senate.

Senator Hanson, I think your bill is a sledgehammer in relation to dealing with some of the boundaries. I do accept that there are circumstances where people are possibly crossing the line and that it would be good to explore that—and I have made an offer, if you were to soften your bill. I recognise that there are cases for restrictions on people who have not been vaccinated—and Senator Lambie mentioned some of those in her contribution last week. I don't want to see people who are unvaccinated going into aged-care facilities. I think there are reasons to have restrictions, but I also wonder about the lines that are drawn around medical people refusing to see people who are unvaccinated. I think there are questions to be answered, but the bill that you've put up is just a sledgehammer. I ask you to reflect on all of the times—40 per cent of the times—that you have voted against the Senate conducting an inquiry into a particular matter.

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

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

[by video link] by leave—I ask that One Nation's support for the motion be reflected in the journals, please?

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

It will so be reflected.

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

President, just to be clear, are we going to the government amendment to Senator Rice's amendment No. 1?

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

It is the government amendment to the Greens amendment. The amendment is the date.

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

Alright. I know we're running out of time. If that is the government's intention, Labor will support a referral to 4 February, but I would say what a shemozzle this has been. Going back to where we were last week where there were not one, two or three but I think four tied votes on this matter, and now we've ended up, basically, back where we were. We will reluctantly support this. We do, however, believe it needs a genuine and proper inquiry that allows everyone to participate. That is why we will support the referral to the 4th, because it does allow other senators to participate in it. But I again draw attention to the fact that this has been handled appallingly by the government on a matter that should be above some of the games that have been played. And I would urge those senators who want to participate to ensure that the inquiry that does go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is a proper and full inquiry that allows full participation not only by senators but also by all stakeholders who are invested in this matter.

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

I thank Senator Gallagher for her statement and her indication of the opposition's position on this. I welcome that. This will result in the precise referral that the government proposed last week actually happening—in terms of this bill and associated bills being referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and reporting by the date and in the times that the government had originally proposed. Had the Senate passed this last week—

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

Senator Birmingham, the time for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston to the amendment moved by Senator Rice to government amendment No. 2 to the motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—Mr President, in the interests of time—and I know we have a lot to get through—I won't call for a division, but I want to put on notice that the Greens position on this government amendment was to reject it because we think that the 15th was a very appropriate reporting date.

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

We will record that.

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

I'd like the same to be recorded: I would have preferred the 15th, and I would have voted against this amendment.

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

It will be so recorded, Senator Patrick. I put Senator Rice's amended motion, which is to amend government amendment No. 2.

Question agreed to.

I will now put government amendment No. 2 as amended by Senator Rice's amended motion.

Question agreed to.

The question is now that the motion moved by Senator Smith, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.