|
senate vote 2014-09-23#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-11-14 16:58:12
|
Title
Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Suspend standing orders- Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Let Senator Lazarus move his motion
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.95.1) to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html), which was moved by Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus). This means that the standing orders will be suspended so that Senator Lazarus can move that [his motion](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/22%20Chamber%20Documents/Dynamic%20Red/30%20september_joint%20select%20committee%20motion_PUP) to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration is given precedence.- The majority agreed that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) should be able to move his motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committee). In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html).
_Background to the motion_- ###What will the committee do?
Senator Lazarus explained that his motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration was motivated by the fact that, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for Senator Lazarus' full explanation).- The select committee will inquire into and report on:
- * what the [Queensland Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Queensland) has done with funds given to them by the [Federal Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia) since 26 March 2012 (which is when Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office);
- * [judicial independence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence) and [separation of powers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers);
- * the approval process for development projects related to exporting resources or services;
- * whether the Queensland Government's policies are consistent with Australia's obligations under [international law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law), including [environmental law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_law) and [human rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law) instruments; and
- * how appropriate it is for the Federal [Minister for the Environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_the_Environment_%28Australia%29) to delegate his approval powers to the Queensland Government under the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999).
- But! Because of Australia's [federal system of government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia), the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.
- ###Background to the motion
- Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) explained that he proposed to establish this select committee because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his [full explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1)).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-23#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-08 13:29:43
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.95.1) to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html), which was moved by Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus). This means that the standing orders will be suspended so that Senator Lazarus can move that [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/22%20Chamber%20Documents/Dynamic%20Red/30%20september_joint%20select%20committee%20motion_PUP his motion] to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration is given precedence.
- _Background to the motion_
Senator Lazarus explained that his motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration was motivated because, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for Senator Lazarus' full explanation).- Senator Lazarus explained that his motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration was motivated by the fact that, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for Senator Lazarus' full explanation).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-23#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-08 13:29:09
|
Title
Committees — Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee; Appointment- Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Suspend standing orders
Description
<p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 418 standing in my name relating to the establishment of the Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government administration related to Commonwealth government affairs.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.95.1) to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html), which was moved by Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus). This means that the standing orders will be suspended so that Senator Lazarus can move that [http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/22%20Chamber%20Documents/Dynamic%20Red/30%20september_joint%20select%20committee%20motion_PUP his motion] to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration is given precedence.
- _Background to the motion_
- Senator Lazarus explained that his motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration was motivated because, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for Senator Lazarus' full explanation).
<p>I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and ask that it be taken as formal.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Is there any objection to this motion, as amended, being taken as formal?</p><p>An honourable senator: Yes.</p><p>Leave has been denied.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lazarus moving a motion relation to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion circulated in the chamber to establish a select committee on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>You have five minutes to speak on the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>The Australian Constitution states that there must be a clear separation of powers between the parliament, the executive government and the judiciary in Australia. The separation of powers and functions ensures no single body is able to exercise total authority or to misuse power. This system is considered to be one of the fundamental elements of a fair, democratic and honest government.</p><p>In Queensland our parliament consists of one house, the lower house. There is no upper house to provide the critical checks and balances needed for open, representative and transparent governance in parliament. Over the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters. In fact, on 9 September, at four minutes to midnight, the Queensland government introduced a last-minute amendment to the mineral and energy resources bill to remove the legal rights of land owners to object to mining projects being undertaken on their land. The Commonwealth allocates funds to the state of Queensland and Australian taxpayers need and deserve clarification in relation to the appropriate use of these funds by the Queensland government. The Commonwealth has an obligation to ensure that funds are being used appropriate purposes. The select committee will consult with the Queensland community to undertake these assessments. It is for this reason the chamber must ensure that this motion is established and a select committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration be considered. Standing orders must be suspended to enable this to happen.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>It is a disappointing matter that we are discussing the potential of a highly unprincipled motion which seeks to breach some very fundamental parliamentary procedures and conventions. For those who are entertaining the adoption of the motion, I simply draw their attention to page 77 of <i>Odgers</i> where it is very clearly set out:</p><p class="italic">The Select Committee on the Victorian Casino Inquiry presented a report … it had decided not to continue its inquiry because of advice provided by the Clerk of the Senate and by Professor Dennis Pearce in relation to limitations on the Senate’s powers to compel evidence from state members of parliament and other state office-holders.</p><p>That was a determination made by the Clerk of the Senate in response to a letter I wrote to the clerk on 14 August 1996. Not very long ago in this place we heard about this clerk having always stood to protect the integrity and reputation of this chamber. In his letter to me of 15 August 1996 he made it very clear. 'As a matter of law the power of the Senate to compel the attendance, amongst other matters, of state officials is another reason for Senate committees not seeking to summon such persons.' His advice of 1996 is as true today as it was all those years ago. Just in case you think the 1996 view as expressed by the then clerk was wrong, he gave us a learned paper entitled <i>The Senate's power to obtain evidence</i>, where again he refers to his advice in relation to the Victorian casino inquiry.</p><p>I can understand, with great respect, Palmer United, without much experience in this chamber, thinking this might be a good idea, but the Australian Labor Party knows, as a principle called comity, that this is a dangerous track to walk down. It has been tried by this Senate before, in 1996 with the Victorian casino inquiry. That attempt fell flat on its face because of what we know to be the legal principles involved. So I especially call on the Australian Labor Party not go down this route. Once parliament starts investigating other parliaments, or indeed one house starts investigating another house, you could have the ludicrous proposition of the Queensland parliament playing the same game, having an inquiry into a certain matter and then technically, when we as federal politicians arrive in Queensland, the Queensland state government could use its law enforcement agencies to pull us off the streets of Queensland, to bring us before the bar of the Queensland parliament to give evidence. Is that what we want to do, to set that precedent? It is a farce. That is why this convention, which dates all the way back to the United Kingdom and the Westminster system, is very clear. If you want the tit for tat where the parliaments of Australia can act against each other, that would turn this show into a farce.</p><p>I can understand that the Palmer United Party does not have long-term experience in this area, but I know that Senator John Faulkner does and I know that Senator Penny Wong does. That is why, in the event the suspension of standing orders get passed, my friend and colleague Senator will move an amendment to the substantive motion to delete 26 March 2012 and insert 21 March 2009, and then let us see whether the Labor Party are willing to support that amendment and whether Palmer United are willing to say that this is not a vendetta against Mr Newman but against all Queensland governments, that they want to see that the money has been responsibly spent. That will test the integrity of those opposite but my greatest disappointment is with Labor. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>We will be supporting the Palmer proposition. We believe that this is a house of review and we also respect the rights of all senators to propose inquiries. All senators have the ability to seek advice about the actions they are taking and in terms of letting the process follow through in terms of what has happened. Remember, Mr President, I have been a party to a number of inquiries put forward by this Senate reviewing the Queensland government's actions. In fact, several years ago I was a member of an inquiry that looked at a Queensland government decision to have amalgamations of local government centres. This inquiry was put forward by the then government—as we have now. They incorporated a number of senators and we put forward an inquiry on which I sat. For several months we looked at the issue of amalgamation of local government councils in Queensland under the Queensland government legislation.</p><p>We also did an inquiry—which I was again privileged to be part of—looking at the issues around the creation of the Traveston dam in Queensland. Again it was a motion put forward in this place by Queensland senators. We went to Queensland and had a range of inquiries there on the issue under the Queensland government—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Commonwealth legislation. It was the EPBC Act!</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>It actually did have a link to the federal government, I take your point, but the issue was around actions of the Queensland government. So, in terms of the process, we have a proposal here that is looking at actions that are happening in the Queensland government currently. We believe that this inquiry will be able to continue. Of course, it will be taking advice as it continues about appropriate processes to take part and also what issues would be important in the proceedings of said inquiry. That happens as we go through the process. Labor will be supporting this proposal. We will continue working in this way and we will see how it goes.</p><p>A government senator interjecting—</p><p>A technical term, Senator. We will look at what happens and the procedures will be taken care of as it operates. We will be supporting the Palmer proposal.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Senator Lazarus, the motion that you have moved is unlike any motion that has ever been moved in the 113-year history of the Senate. And there is a reason for that, Senator Lazarus. The reason is that the motion is a gross abuse of the process of the Senate, is probably unlawful and is likely to attract a constitutional challenge in the High Court.</p><p>Senator Moore, you have been a member of this chamber for many years. You and those around you have the experience of this chamber to know better than this. You know that a motion like this is an abuse of the power of the Senate. You seek to justify it by saying, 'There have been inquiries before into a variety of topics that bear upon the jurisdiction of the states.' That may be so, but what this motion seeks to do—unlike the motions to which you have made reference—is to have a comprehensive inquiry into the entire administration of the government of a state. As you well know, Senator Moore—you are visibly embarrassed to have been traduced into supporting this motion—that is an abuse of the process of the Senate.</p><p>The device of this motion is, in seven paragraphs, to find a tenuous link between a Commonwealth interest and a state policy. So tenuous are some of these interests that they are non-existent. Take, for example, subparagraph (b):</p><p class="italic">The administration of the Queensland courts and judicial system insofar as it relates to cross vesting arrangements, with particular reference to judicial independence and separation of powers;</p><p>In the first place, that is an invitation for the Senate to have an inquiry into the entire judicial arm of the Queensland government. Secondly, just by the way, the tenuous link insofar as it relates to cross vesting arrangements is incompetent, because the cross vesting arrangements were struck down by the High Court in Wakim's case as long ago as 1999. So the motion as framed is incompetent, apart from being an abuse of process.</p><p>We know where this comes from. We know it comes from the member for Fairfax's vendetta against the Queensland government and we know the commercial interests he seeks protect. And we must wonder why it is that he has put up those senators, whom he controls, to perpetrate upon the Senate the imposition of creating a constitutionally improper inquiry to serve his commercial interests and to prosecute his political vendettas. If there were to be any doubt about that, when is the reporting date of this vaunted inquiry? The reporting date is 'on or before 31 March 2015'—just by coincidence, the expected date of the next Queensland state election.</p><p>Then we see the composition of the committee. It has always been the practice of this Senate that the composition of Senate committees should broadly reflect the political composition of the chamber. Mr President, do you know how many government senators there are to be on this committee? There is to be one. There are 76 senators, 33 of them are government senators, but there is to be only one government senator on this inquiry. That is a violation of the bases upon which Senate inquiries are constituted.</p><p>Might I close by referring, as my leader did, to advice by the distinguished former Clerk, the late Harry Evans. When something—though on a much more modest scale than this—was contemplated in 1996, Mr Evans said: 'If the matter were litigated, the High Court would be likely to have regard to the possibility of the system of government being brought to a halt by the Commonwealth and state houses establishing inquiries into overlapping subjects and summoning a large number of each other's officers. The same officers could be summoned by different houses to appear at the same time. An implied immunity might well be seen as necessary to preserve the system of government itself. In any event, the undetermined legal question is less important than the matter of comity between the houses of parliament and between the Commonwealth and the states. It is a parliamentary rule that houses do not summon each other's members and officers. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|