Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just seek some clarification in relation to the correction to the explanatory memorandum. I obviously did hear Senator Brown's explanation, but, to just give us comfort, are you able to direct the chamber to the provision in the bill that makes it clear that the directions referred to in clause 14, which allows for the minister to give directions to the board in relation to the performance of functions and powers of Creative Australia, are not subject to disallowance? I appreciate you made that statement, but I would like you to confirm that please, given where we are in the proceedings.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, on page 12—in section 14 titled 'Ministerial directions'—there's a note that says:

Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 do not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraphs 44(2)(b) and 54(2)(b) of that Act).

It says 'do not apply'.

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

Minister, why is it that those directions aren't subject to disallowance? I make this point, as I said perhaps inappropriately in the previous session of this deliberation, that the disallowance procedures and processes of the Senate are of great importance. They provide an opportunity for the Senate to act as a check and balance in circumstances where a minister gives an overreaching direction—and it could be a minister of any political persuasion. By not allowing or permitting the disallowance process to apply in the Senate, you are depriving the chamber of its ability to act as a check and balance on the executive power. Why is that considered appropriate?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ator CAROL BROWN (—) (): This part of the legislation is just continuing what is currently the practice.

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

Minister, if something were inappropriate in the past, why is that the basis for it to continue in the future?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We never suggested it was inappropriate in the past, and we don't think it's inappropriate now.

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

The question I've got is in relation to its appropriateness. The point I made is that the minister actually giving directions with respect to the functions and powers of this body is quite a powerful executive ability to influence the operations of this body. It's an opportunity for the minister to influence. It's an opportunity for the minister to wield executive power. Why is it that that instrument through which executive power is wielded is not subject to a disallowance process? Isn't it appropriate that in performing its function as a house of review that the Senate has the power to access and utilise the disallowance process if appropriate? As someone who has given great service to this chamber over many years, the minister well knows that it's very rare for the Senate to actually ultimately disallow an instrument, but the fact that the power is there is extraordinarily important for the scrutiny process. So what is the particular basis upon which it is said that it is appropriate for there to be no disallowance process?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat that we are continuing the same process and the same procedures that were in place under the last government. Okay?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wanted to seek clarity in relation to why the minister requires such a wide-ranging power in relation to giving directions to the board about the performance, functions and powers of Creative Australia. As we know, the board is called the Australia Council Board, and it is very confusing as to why there was this name change. The Australia Council of course was established by former prime minister Gough Whitlam. Putting that to one side, could you explain why the minister is seeking such wide-ranging powers which are not subject to disallowance?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ator CAROL BROWN (—) (): This bill is not seeking any more than what has been put in place under the previous minister. I appreciate your comment about former prime minister Whitlam. Again, I think we might be on the same song sheet here, because we both appreciate—I don't want to quote you incorrectly—and support the work of Prime Minister Whitlam in this arts area. Of course, the Australia Council Board retains the link to that great work. Again, I'll say that the issue that we are currently debating is about the words and processes in place, which are the same as what the former government had. We supported that and we see that there isn't a need to change it in any way.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

HENDERSON () (): Minister, you might be able to clarify this. This may be from an earlier version of the bill, but there is an online version of the bill that doesn't include this note in relation to the disallowance. The note says 'Section 42 (disallowance)' et cetera. Are you able to clarify when that note, which is in provision 14, was added to the bill? It appears that it was not part of the original bill when it was first introduced. Is that correct?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was part of the original bill that was tabled in the House of Representatives. Again, I'll say that the clause we're debating is one that was there and operating under the previous government.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go back to the reasons for not making this disallowable. You've talked about precedent, and I'm not sure that I necessarily concur with you on that. But, in any event, why does the minister require these unfettered powers? Are you able to explain, with respect to the way the board functions and the way the board is governed, why the minister needs these powers which should not be subject to disallowance?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered this question before, and I'll say again that the practice that we're putting in place here is the same practice that your government had in place. You had no issue with it when you were in government, and it's exactly the same situation here now.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind you that this is the establishment of a new entity, with the board confusingly being called the Australia Council Board. So this is a decision of your government. Again, I ask: could you specifically address my question as to why the minister needs these powers which should not be subject to disallowance? I'd appreciate if you could go directly to the question, please.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already answered the question.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.