Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Last week, when Senator Hanson introduced the bill to which she refers in this motion, my colleague Senator Duniam made a statement to the Senate, which I wish to quote in full in the context of the debate we are currently having:

While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills—

that we strongly opposed.

The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process.

It was with concern that a first reading was denied last week in relation to this bill. I say that not because the coalition has a formal position on this bill—I say that, indeed, as somebody who, very clearly at a personal level, abhors the weaponisation of issues that affect, particularly, vulnerable young transgender or other individuals across Australia. However, it is important to ensure that this parliament is able to function and that issues that are considered in parliaments around the world—that have been the subject of consideration by, for example, both conservative and Labour governments in the United Kingdom—are able to be considered in this parliament. This parliament ought to have the same abilities for people to bring forward issues at least for consideration under the normal standards and procedures. It will become an increasingly difficult and dangerous precedent if parties that can muster the numbers deny the first reading of a bill.

The structure and process that we have in this parliament for bills to be considered on three substantive votes are important. There is the first reading—simply enabling a bill to then sit on the Notice Paper and for senators to have the opportunity to use that time to consider it, often for it to be referred to a committee, but not always, and for that time to be an important point of understanding the content of a bill before a substantive or meaningful vote is taken. The second reading is the customary substantive and meaningful vote on the overall principle of a bill, but oftentimes senators choose to grant a second reading subject to potential amendments being considered and ultimately reserve their position on the third reading.

Each of these steps plays an important role in the way we go about our business in this place. If we enter an environment where those who can muster the numbers routinely deny a first reading on issues, it will make it harder for senators to do their job. It will particularly make it harder for those on the crossbench to do their job and also potentially for those in opposition, now or in the future, to do their job, as well as any who could be the victim of being silenced in terms of having their bills enter into that formal process of parliamentary consideration.

So we will be voting to grant that first reading, for that opportunity for the first reading to be had—not because we have taken a position in relation to the substantive nature of the bill itself but because we have a principled position in relation to the way the parliament should conduct its affairs and its business and the way the rights of individual senators to bring bills forward should be respected and subject to routine processes and consideration, rather than having those routine processes subverted through an early rejection at the first reading stage.