Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the following bills, the bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee:

(a)

Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007 for inquiry and report by 13 September 2007; and

(b)

Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 for inquiry and report by 10 September 2007”.

It is becoming a regular Thursday morning activity for the government to come in here and whack down its desired outcome for bills to be referred to the Selection of Bills Committee and to demonstrate its willingness to ignore the views of anyone else in this chamber. I repeat once again that, unless there has been an extremely good reason, the longstanding convention has been that any request for a bill to be referred to the committee has been agreed to. Certainly I have heard of no reason of any substance to explain why the Democrats’ request for these two pieces of legislation to be sent to the committee should be rejected by the government. The government’s attitude seems to be: ‘We don’t like it, so we’re not going to support it being referred.’ Frankly, that is not good enough. The government is quite entitled to vote against the bills should they come on for debate in this chamber, but to block the bills from being examined by committee and to deny the opportunity to seek public input into these bills are very different matters.

It is very important to maintain the distinction that referring a bill to a committee does not indicate support for what is in the bill; it indicates support for the concept of enabling a bill and the matters that the bill addresses to be examined. Putting forward policy proposals in a legislative form is, I think, probably the key task of a parliament or a legislature. To refuse to allow that to be done without good reason or without any reason of any consequence at all other than, ‘We don’t feel like it,’ or ‘We don’t want that issue to be raised,’ is, in my view, just not good enough.

It should be emphasised that the Selection of Bills Committee Report No. 13 of 2007 is referring six bills, including—I accept—two private senators’ bills. The government is going to request the referral of the four other bills to committee later this afternoon. This has also become a consistent pattern: bills that we have not seen or bills that have just been introduced that morning are referred across to a committee.

The two Democrat private senators’ bills would require only short inquiries. This is partly a reflection of the reality that there is a real prospect that the next sitting could be the last before the election. It is also partly a reflection of reality that, whilst the legislation that we are seeking to refer has not been examined previously, despite what the government might say, it is an attempt to put into legislative form issues that have been raised. I point particularly to the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007. The Democrats have had legislation seeking to remove discrimination in this area in this chamber since 1995. So the broad issue is not new, but the form in which it is being put forward here is new. This is new legislation, and it is being put forward in the first sitting week after a report was brought down by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, following a comprehensive inquiry. It is a new piece of legislation; it is in a new format. It might be addressing an old issue but it is addressing it in a new way, following a comprehensive inquiry.

That is one reason why the Senate inquiry does not need to be particularly long. It is simply examining whether or not the legislation adequately addresses the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. I emphasise that support for the principle of this report has been expressed by people across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, we keep seeing support expressed for the principle, but any efforts to enact that principle in law continue to be blocked. This seems to be another example of where an effort to implement a principle that everybody says they support is blocked by the government. This shows that the government’s words cannot be believed. The government are not genuine about addressing this issue of discrimination against same-sex couples, because they keep blocking every attempt to address it—and this is yet another one.

Migration is another area where the issues are old. These issues were raised and debated here in 1998. However, the context in which migration laws are operating is new, so I believe that it is appropriate for them to be examined. A new bill has been put forward; it was introduced last week. (Time expired)