Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report of 2011 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1 of 2011, dated 9 February 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The committee is looking forward to a new year of scrutinising all bills and amendments against its terms of reference.

In 2011 the committee will continue to emphasise the importance of ensuring personal rights and liberties are respected, that administrative powers are appropriately defined, decisions are reviewable and parliamentary oversight is maintained.

The committee reiterates that comprehensive and accurate explanatory memoranda can provide the foundation for avoiding adverse comment by the committee, but a poorly drafted one will attract the committee’s attention. An explanatory memorandum is particularly useful when it contains important context and relevant policy information and justifies the proposed operation of each provision.

In tabling the committee’s Alert Digest No. 1 of 2011 I particularly draw the Senate’s attention to the committee’s comments on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill. Unfortunately this bill has attracted significant committee concern. The committee is particularly troubled by the range of seemingly excessive powers and the apparent lack of appropriate safeguards. The committee will be seeking the minister’s advice about numerous provisions, including in relation to the operation of search warrant provisions, the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination in some circumstances, broad discretionary powers and the adequacy of training for ‘authorised officers’.

Another issue of particular concern to the committee discussed in Alert Digest No. 1 arises from the Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill. Items 74 and 76 seek to reduce Medicare’s obligation to notify a patient that his or her records have been seized as part of an investigation. It is proposed that there will no longer be a need to notify patients in circumstances where an officer examines a record but ‘did not obtain any knowledge of clinical details relating to the patient’.

The committee is particularly interested to understand who will determine whether clinical knowledge was obtained, what training each officer will have and whether any safeguards are in place to protect patients and will seek the minister’s advice about these matters.

Several other bills also contain issues of potential concern under standing order 24 and I draw the Senate’s attention to all of the committee’s comments in Alert Digest No. 1.

In relation to its first report, the committee has again received comprehensive responses to issues raised in previous Alert Digests. The report includes the minister’s response, for example, to the Defence Legislation (Security of Premises) Bill issues, which provides further detail about the intended operation of the bill which may be of assistance to senators in their consideration of it.

So there is a fair bit in this particular report. I commend Alert Digest No. 1 of 2011 and the first report of 2011 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.