Senate debates
Thursday, 22 August 2024
Committees
Selection of Bills Committee; Report
11:15 am
Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
URQUHART (—) (): I present the ninth report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2024
22 August 2024
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)
Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacquie Lambie Network Whip)
Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Ralph Babet
Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm
Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher
Senator Maria Kovacic
Senator Matt O'Sullivan
Senator Fatima Payman
Senator David Pocock
Senator Lidia Thorpe
Senator Tammy Tyrrell
Senator David Van
Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2024
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 7.10 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 October 2024 (see appendix 1 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:
(Anne Urquhart)
Chair
22 August 2024
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Introduction of Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation and speak to stakeholders impacted.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The construction sector, the housing sector, builders and Australians who are interested in this legislation.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s): September
Possible reporting date: 4 October 2024
(signed)
Wendy Askew
I move:
That the report be adopted.
11:16 am
Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "but the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be deferred".
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.
11:22 am
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question now is that the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to.
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to draw to the attention of the chamber and anybody who's listening what actually just happened. We have a process in this place called selection of bills that occurs on a Wednesday night every week, where all parties have the opportunity to come in and put their position in relation to bills that are going to be debated. At the end of that process, we usually reach agreement or we don't reach agreement on particular bills.
Last night, a very respectful selection of bills process saw the government, the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench all agree to the selection of bills report that was put forward this morning by Senator Urquhart. Approximately two minutes before the agreed selection of bills report was to be put before this chamber, the Greens, the Labor Party and, interestingly, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Pocock—I'm not sure they actually knew what they were doing, but, if they did, they could be included in my complaint—came into this place and changed an agreement of last night.
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Absolutely. Absolutely. I have no problem. We do not have to agree on everything, and we certainly do not. But what we've got here is a private senator's bill that was put forward by a senator—not by a government and not by the opposition but by an individual senator—who sought to have his bill referred to the committee. Last night, everybody agreed to that, but apparently today the Labor Party, the Greens, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Pocock have decided that they no longer support a private senator putting his bill to the committee. It would be really interesting to understand—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The first thing is that that senator has not had the opportunity to put his case forward as to why he wanted his bill to be referred—no opportunity to speak to the crossbench and no opportunity to put his case about why he wants to put that bill forward. The only thing I can suggest is that, after you actually agreed last night for a bill to be referred to a committee, somehow, someone from above on the other side has said, 'Actually, we don't like the content of that private senator's bill. We can't possibly have that sent to a committee,' because you're sensitive about the topic that is contained in the bill. All I can say is that the most egregious thing that's happened here is the complete disregard for the process. As I said, it would have been no problem whatsoever if last night you had not wanted to agree with the motion. We would have had the opportunity overnight to settle this the respectful way.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Can I just congratulate the staff—our staff and your staff—for the very respectful way that they manage this process of the selection of bills. It has worked forever in a respectful way. We don't always agree, but, apparently, those opposite have come in here this morning and decided to completely override that.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is not something that is new in here. This is a government that is quite happy to trash convention as long as it suits its political purposes for the moment. All I can say to you is—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
if you trash convention and processes, when you want to use them in your favour, just remember that you've given us the green light to trash processes in a way that works in your favour.
I just want everybody to understand what actually happened. A process was trashed. A convention was trashed. No respect or time was given to anybody to deal with the issue. It was not a process about the opposition; it was a process where a private senator simply wanted to refer their bill to a committee—a process that you had all agreed to last night. Somehow that has been overridden by somebody on the other side and now you've pulled your support. So all I can say is: have a very long think about it, because what you sow is what you reap.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It won't be long until we have an opportunity to pay you back for the complete disrespect that you have shown Senator Bragg by refusing to allow him to have his private senator's bill referred to committee. What are you hiding? What are you afraid of? Clearly, you do not like the idea that his bill—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
is likely to shine sunlight on some of the terrible things that the people that support your party—and your party—have been doing.
You made a mistake last night, and all this has just highlighted the fact that you are running an absolute protection racket for the unions. We've seen it play out this week with the CFMEU. What you say and what you do are two completely different things. You have no intention of bringing the sanctions that would force all this bad behaviour out; you just say you're going to. Here is another classic example of where you will do whatever you need to do to shut down debate about something that you don't like the subject of.
The:
Order! Just before we go to you, Senator Bragg, I did call order at least six or seven times, and there was continued disorder right across the chamber. I remind senators we've just had a division. A number of you are incredibly disorderly because you're not even in your proper places. I remind you of that standing order. Senator Bragg.
11:28 am
Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is very curious, when you think about all the different issues and the difficult issues we debate in this parliament which are the subject of private senators' bills—
Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Bragg, please resume your seat. Senator Bilyk, I've just called the chamber to order. I'm not quite sure which part of that doesn't apply to you. You either sit in here in silence or you leave the chamber. Senator Bragg, please continue.
Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When you think about all the diverse views in this chamber which are the subject of private senators' bills and are always afforded an inquiry, this is not a particularly controversial matter. This is purely a protection racket for an issue, the CFMEU, that the government wants to go away.
The government has pretended to be shocked about corruption in the CFMEU, in the last few weeks. No-one else is surprised, in Australia, that the government has been concealing these issues as part of their alliance with the unions and the CFMEU. All this bill is looking to do is to remove the ability for the CFMEU and the Cbus super fund to access taxpayer funds, because it is an integrity and probity issue here that taxpayers should not be exposed to corruption and wrongdoing. I think, even if there are different views on the idea of having a fund like this—which we don't agree with—everyone would agree that taxpayers should not be exposed to the CFMEU. If it's good enough to put the organisation into administration, then surely it's good enough to protect taxpayer funds invested in this organisation from co-investing with an organisation that the parliament has sought to put into administration.
The fact that there are three CFMEU trustees on the board of the fund and that significant transfers are made each and every year shows that these are linked organisations. The idea that the Cbus fund could co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund exposes the taxpayer directly to corrupt activities—and that is before you even look at the litany of examples where the Cbus-CFMEU cartel has sought to impose a significant tax and levy on construction sectors while it has not done so for its own organisations and its own investments. This is a bizarre turn of events for the government to agree, at selection of bills last night, that this fairly uncontroversial proposal would go to an inquiry, take submissions from interested parties and have a hearing. I would say the only reason the government has changed its mind is because it is fearful of further exposure and unpacking of these issues.
The main objective of the government is to stop exposure of these issues. They want to move on. They want to say they've done the job by putting the organisation into administration. They don't want to look at this exposure through the Housing Australia Future Fund. They don't want to look at any of the governance issues in relation to any of the superannuation funds which are linked very closely to the CFMEU with the various trustees and the financial transfers.
It's very clear what has happened here. The government has had a change of heart. It doesn't want to see any further discussion or exposure of these issues. But the Senate's job is to inquire; the Senate's role is to look at any matter—particularly where there have been significant allegations of wrongdoing. It is a very dangerous precedent for anyone to be voting against inquiry and investigation. That is a job that senators are here to do, and people would be rightly disgusted if they thought we were seeking to conceal wrongdoing and corruption.
We're talking about taxpayer funds. We're not talking about private funds; we're talking about $10 billion of taxpayer funds. The only super fund that has sought to engage with the Housing Australia Future Fund is the Cbus fund, which is chaired by Mr Wayne Swan, who, last time I looked was not the chief investment officer of the fund. He was the chairman of the fund. He also happens to be the president of the Labor Party. He is going out there making commitments of $500 million and saying that he wants to commit to co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund.
The parliament wants to inquire as to whether this is an appropriate party for the government to do business with, and the Senate is saying, 'We are not even going to have an inquiry into these issues or take submissions from the public.' I'm sure there are a lot of builders and developers who've got evidence about wrongdoing in these sectors that would like to engage with this inquiry and would like to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege because they are afraid to make statements in the public domain where they could be thumped by people who have no regard for the law. It is a very dangerous precedent for the government to be closing down an avenue to have an inquiry into a matter of great public interest where taxpayer funds are at stake.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.