|
senate vote 2014-09-30#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-11-13 16:13:22
|
Title
Description
- The majority wanted to [end debate](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.106.1) on the question of whether the [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committee)'s inquiry should include the former [Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh) Government (that is, that the period of inquiry should [begin on 21 March 2009](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.105.4) rather than 26 March 2012). This means that the question will now be asked immediately without further discussion (see that [division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-30/4)).
- ###What will the committee do?
The [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) would ask the committee to inquire into and report on:- 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.
Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus), who introduced this motion, explained that he believed the motion was necessary 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)).- Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) explained that he believed the committee was necessary 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)).
- ###Background to the motion
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) managed to [amend](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5) the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) and therefore include former Labor Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s government.
- Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down [without a division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944)).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-30#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-11-13 16:01:40
|
Title
Committees - Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration - Put the question- Committees - Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration - End debate on whether to include Bligh Government in inquiry
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.106.1) that the question be now put, which means that debate on the question ends and the vote occurs without further delay. The question in this case was whether the Senate agrees to an amendment moved by Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-30/4)).- The majority wanted to [end debate](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.106.1) on the question of whether the [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committee)'s inquiry should include the former [Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh) Government (that is, that the period of inquiry should [begin on 21 March 2009](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.105.4) rather than 26 March 2012). This means that the question will now be asked immediately without further discussion (see that [division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-30/4)).
Senator Abetz' [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.105.4) related to Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus)' [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a Select Committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration.- ###What will the committee do?
_Background to the motion_- The [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) would ask the committee to inquire into and report on:
This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced a motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration that relate to Commonwealth government affairs. The motion sets the period of time to be covered by the inquiry to begin from 26 March 2012, which is when Queensland Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office.- * 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).
The first time this motion was introduced, on 23 September 2014, it failed after Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) successfully amended the period of time covered by the inquiry so that it began from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) (see the division on that amendment [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5)). This would have included former Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s previous Labor government administration into the inquiry. Following this successful amendment, the motion lost the backing of its Labor Party supporters and it was voted down without a division (read more about when a division occurs [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur)). Read more about the failure of this first motion on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944).- 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.
When first introducing his motion, Senator Lazarus explained that he 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 the full explanation).- Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus), who introduced this motion, explained that he believed the motion was necessary 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)).
- ###Background to the motion
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) managed to [amend](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5) the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) and therefore include former Labor Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s government.
- Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down [without a division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944)).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-30#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-10 13:03:06
|
Title
Committees — Appointment- Committees - Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I move the motion circulated in the chamber relating to the establishment of a select committee on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration:</p><p class="italic">(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration related to Commonwealth Government Affairs, be established to inquire into and report on:</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.106.1) that the question be now put, which means that debate on the question ends and the vote occurs without further delay. The question in this case was whether the Senate agrees to an amendment moved by Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz).
- Senator Abetz' [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.105.4) related to Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus)' [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a Select Committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration.
- _Background to the motion_
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced a motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration that relate to Commonwealth government affairs. The motion sets the period of time to be covered by the inquiry to begin from 26 March 2012, which is when Queensland Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office.
- The first time this motion was introduced, on 23 September 2014, it failed after Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) successfully amended the period of time covered by the inquiry so that it began from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) (see the division on that amendment [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5)). This would have included former Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s previous Labor government administration into the inquiry. Following this successful amendment, the motion lost the backing of its Labor Party supporters and it was voted down without a division (read more about when a division occurs [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur)). Read more about the failure of this first motion on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944).
- When first introducing his motion, Senator Lazarus explained that he 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 the full explanation).
<p class="italic">(a) the amount of Commonwealth funds allocated or paid to the State of Queensland since 26 March 2012, with particular reference to:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the purposes for which the funds were appropriated by the Parliament,</p><p class="italic">  (ii) performance measures in relation to Commonwealth funds paid to the State of Queensland,</p><p class="italic">  (iii) identified breaches of funding agreements or conditions,</p><p class="italic">  (iv) the proportion of the Queensland State budget derived from Commonwealth funds, and</p><p class="italic">  (v) whether any Commonwealth funds have been used by the State of Queensland for state government advertising or party political purposes,</p><p class="italic">(b) 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 class="italic">(c) approval process for the development of projects for the export of resources or services insofar as they are administered by the Commonwealth or under a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth;</p><p class="italic">(d) the extent to which Queensland State Government policies and practices are consistent with Australia's obligations under international environmental law instruments;</p><p class="italic">(e) whether it is appropriate for the Federal Minister for the Environment to delegate his approval powers to the Queensland State Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by way of approval bilateral agreements or strategic assessments;</p><p class="italic">(f) the extent to which Queensland State Government policies and practices are consistent with Australia's obligations under international human rights instruments, with particular reference to:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the administration of prisons, and</p><p class="italic">  (ii) detention without trial; and</p><p class="italic">(g) any other matter the committee considers relevant.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Committee will inquire into and report on the adequacy of Commonwealth oversight of the approval of coal seam gas projects in Queensland.</p><p class="italic">(3) That the committee presents its final report on or before 27 March 2015.</p><p class="italic">(4) That the committee consist of 5 senators, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Ito be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens, and 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Palmer United Party.</p><p class="italic">(5) That:</p><p class="italic">(a) on the nominations of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and minority groups and independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee;</p><p class="italic">(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and</p><p class="italic">(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.</p><p class="italic">(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.</p><p class="italic">(7) That the committee:</p><p class="italic">(a) appoint as chair the Leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate and,</p><p class="italic">(b) elect as deputy chair a member elected by the committee.</p><p class="italic">(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.</p><p class="italic">(9) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.</p><p class="italic">(10) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members.</p><p class="italic">(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine any person and any document, to move from place to place (including, but not limited to, major metropolitan and regional centres in Queensland and the committee shall conduct public hearings in Nambour, Ipswich, Mackay, Rockhampton, Kingaroy, Mt Isa, Bundaberg, Toowoomba, Townsville and Cairns) to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives .</p><p class="italic">(12) That the committee shall report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.</p><p class="italic">(13) That the committee has power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.</p><p class="italic">(14) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.</p><p class="italic">(15) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily <i>Hansard</i> be published of such proceedings as take place in public.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, on a point of order: I think under the standing orders I am entitled to ask the mover to read out the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>You are entitled to ask that, but I think in this context it is a lengthy motion. It has been circulated, and a number of senators have referred to the circulated motion. I do not consider it necessary for the motion to be read. Senator Lazarus has moved his motion—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On a further point of order, Mr President: it is in the standing orders that I can ask for it. Never have I understood that to be refused in my long time here. This motion was dropped on my table—I do not know about anyone else—five minutes before the debate started. I am told it is substantially different. On a cursory look it seems exactly the same and that is why I would like Senator Lazarus to read out all four pages so we can all follow through—</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I haven't even got it.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>He haven't even got it. I would like him to read it through so that I can understand it.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator Macdonald. My understanding is, and I am prepared to take this away and come back to you if I am incorrect, that a previous president or presidents have ruled in relation to whether standing orders are not quite specific on reading out a motion that has been circulated and every senator has had the opportunity to read it. I will come back to you, Senator Macdonald, if I am incorrect, but I believe that I am correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>How was it circulated? I have not seen the motion. It is not on my desk. I do not know what we are talking about.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Heffernan, motions, as you know, are often circulated in this place. If you do not have one on your desk, I am sure there is one here at the table that you could avail yourself of.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Mr President, have you somehow ruled that a point of order cannot be taken on standing order 86?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>No, I will clarify that again, Senator O'Sullivan. The motion that was originally moved and passed by this Senate and that was moved by Senator Lazarus. He sought to set aside so much of standing orders that would prevent him taking a course of action. Standing order 86 falls into that category: it would prevent him taking the action he was seeking. The Senate passed that. That was a clear resolution of the Senate only three votes ago. We are now setting aside parts of standing orders that would prevent him doing this. Outside of this context, standing order 86 could be applicable, but not in this context.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I would like to seek a clarification, Mr President. As I understand it, this motion is for an inquiry—I have just received the motion, thanks, though I have not read it yet—into aspects of the present Queensland government and some environmental aspects of the previous government to do with coal seam gas or something. It is part of the deal that Senator Conroy stuck together at the back of the chamber in question time. Can I just seek clarification. The editor and author of this motion is a bloke called Clive Palmer, on the other side of parliament. My question is: given that he has court action in a commercial matter with the Queensland government, isn't there a conflict of interest that is intolerable to this chamber?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>No, Senator Heffernan, you are debating an issue. That is not a correct—</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>No, I'm not; I'm seeking a clarification—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The clarification is, Senator Heffernan, that Senator Lazarus has circulated that motion in the chamber, and that is all that the Senate needs to be concerned about.</p><p class="italic">Senator Heffernan interjecting—</p><p>Senator Heffernan, unless you have a fresh point of order, you have no point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, on the same grounds, on the conflict of interest point, does Senator Lazarus have any conflict of interest in this particular issue with, perhaps, family members?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Macdonald, it is entirely up to Senator Lazarus if he wishes to disclose any other matter that is on his register of interests, so that is not a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan, I am going to move on unless there are substantive points of order which need to be addressed, which I do not see happening.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>I have just one final clarification, Mr President. Again, I will have to show my newness in this place. Senator Lazarus moved a motion to set aside standing orders in order that he might be able to do something—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>And he articulated what he wanted to undertake.</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>I am certainly not going to take advice from you after the mistakes that were made earlier.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Just direct your remarks to me, Senator O'Sullivan.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>In doing so, the Senate accepted that he could move a motion. This is where I become confused. The value of the decision of the Senate I would have thought expired at the moving of the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>No, if I could clarify that for you, Senator O'Sullivan: he sought to set aside as much of the standing orders as was necessary to complete a course of action, and that involved two steps. That was articulated and understood by his original motion, which the Senate passed. With all respect to senators, I intend to move on. We now have a debate and the debate is on Senator Lazarus's motion that he has just moved, which is the substantive motion. Senator Abetz was seeking the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>Not having gained a single voice in support of this motion last week, the Senate is now being forced to reconsider this motion. What are the arguments in favour of it? The mover of the motion is completely mute. Not a single reason has been advanced by the mover. He simply gets up to move the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>I'm sick of talking about it, Eric—just move on.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|