|
senate vote 2021-12-02#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-19 16:37:09
|
Title
Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report- Committees - Selection of Bills Committee; Report - COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021
Description
<p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>I present the 14th report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in <i>Hansard</i>.</p>-
- The same number of senators voted for and against the [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-12-02.68.1), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *At the end of the motion, add:*
- >
- > *"and, in respect of the [COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1325), the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 February 2022".*
<p>Leave granted.</p><p class="italic"> <i>The report read as follows—</i></p><p class="italic">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</p><p class="italic">REPORT NO. 14 OF 2021</p><p class="italic"> <i>2 December 2021</i></p><p class="italic">MEMBERS OF THE CO MMITTEE</p><p class="italic">Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)</p><p class="italic">Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)</p><p class="italic">Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)</p><p class="italic">Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)</p><p class="italic">Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)</p><p class="italic">Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)</p><p class="italic">Senator Raff Ciccone</p><p class="italic">Senator Katy Gallagher</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacqui Lambie</p><p class="italic">Senator the Hon James McGrath</p><p class="italic">Senator Rex Patrick</p><p class="italic">Senator the Hon Anne Ruston</p><p class="italic">Secretary: Tim Bryant</p><p class="italic">Ph: 6277 3020</p><p class="italic">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</p><p class="italic">REPORT NO. 14 OF 2021</p><p class="italic">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 8.10 pm.</p><p class="italic">2. The committee recommends that—</p><p class="italic">(a) the <i>provisions </i>of the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021 be <i>referred immediately </i>to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);</p><p class="italic">(b) the <i>provisions </i>of the Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021 be <i>referred immediately </i>to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2022; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the <i>provisions </i>of the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 be <i>referred immediately </i>to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 April 2022.</p><p class="italic">3. The committee recommends that the following bills <i>not </i>be referred to committees:</p><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><p class="italic">4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:</p><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><p class="italic">5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:</p><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><p class="italic">(Dean Smith)</p><p class="italic">Chair</p><p class="italic">2 December 2021</p><p class="italic"></p><p class="italic">Appendix 1</p><p class="italic">Name of bill:</p><p class="italic">Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021</p><p class="italic">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</p><p class="italic">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</p><p class="italic">Possible submissions or evidence from:</p><p class="italic">Tax Institute of Australia, accountant bodies, tax academics, finance industry bodies</p><p class="italic">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</p><p class="italic">Senate Economics Legislation Committee</p><p class="italic">Possible hearing date(s):</p><p class="italic">16 January 2022, 18 January 2022</p><p class="italic">Possible reporting date:</p><p class="italic">3 February 2022</p><p class="italic">(signed)</p><p class="italic">A Urquhart</p><p class="italic">Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the report be adopted.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I seek leave to move the two circulated government amendments together.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>Leave is granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">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".</p><p>And I move:</p><p class="italic">At the end of the motion, add "and the following bills not be referred to committees:</p><p class="italic">Religious Discrimination Bill 2021</p><p class="italic">Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021; and</p><p class="italic">Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021".</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>Order! Senator Waters, are you on your feet on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Yes. The point of order is I can't hear what our speaker 30 centimetres away from me is saying over the interjections.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>I agree. There were far too many interjections in the chamber. I call all senators to order. Senator Rice, you have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>I move as amendment to Gov2:</p><p class="italic">That the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2022.</p><p class="italic"><i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>We'll take that as an amendment to Senator Rice's date if it is agreed.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>As I understand it, that is the government putting back the position to where we started over a week ago.</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>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.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|