For the sitting period
3-13 April 2000
Mandatory sentencing: pressing the government
Before the sitting period began there was much
speculation about the measures which might be adopted by the Senate
in response to the government’s refusal to allow the House of
Representatives to consider the Senate’s bill on mandatory
sentencing (see Bulletin 140, p.1). Controversy over the matter
continued. On the first sitting day standing orders were suspended
to allow the moving of a motion to send a message to the House
asking that the bill be considered. Time normally spent on
government legislation was taken up by debate on the motion, which
was passed and the message duly sent. On each subsequent sitting
day a similar message was sent, the necessary motion being passed
without resistance by the government. The government continued to
suppress debate on the messages in the House, and was able to avoid
dissent in its own ranks by the offer of funds to the Northern
Territory to reduce the impact of its mandatory sentencing laws.
More severe measures against the government were not supported in
the Senate, the Opposition indicating that it was not prepared to
suspend consideration of government legislation. On two occasions,
on 3 and 11 April, the Greens senator, Senator Brown,
attempted to move for more extreme sanctions, but was not
supported. The penalty imposed on the government became clear at
the end of the sitting period when legislation required by the
government to be passed before Easter was not concluded.
Censure of minister
The dispute over Aboriginal affairs, arising
initially from the mandatory sentencing matter, was brought to
boiling point by statements by the Minister for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, in a submission to
a Senate committee, on the appropriateness of the phrase "stolen
generation". On 10 April, after another lengthy debate, the
minister was censured for "failure to fulfil his ministerial
responsibilities and provide leadership in indigenous affairs".
This is the second occasion on which Senator Herron has been
censured by the Senate, the first occasion being in 1996 when he
was censured for giving misleading answers in relation to funding
of Aboriginal programs.
Orders for documents
Senator Herron was also involved in continuing
disputes about government refusals to provide information in
response to Senate orders for documents.
In response to the government’s failure to
provide some documents on the matter of the magnetic resonance
imaging machines, a motion was passed on 10 April requiring the
Community Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a further hearing
on the matter and directing the minister to provide relevant
officers for the hearing. A letter from Senator Herron repeated
that the Minister for Health and Aged Care was still reviewing
relevant documents to see whether they could be released. The
hearing duly occurred on 11 April, at which departmental officers
were closely questioned about the nature of the documents and the
reasons advanced for not producing them. Further action over the
matter is expected.
On 3 April an order was passed for documents
relating to the now notorious Riverside Nursing Home. On the
following day Senator Herron provided a letter indicating that the
government was concerned about prejudice to litigation arising from
release of the documents, and would take advice. This matter is
therefore also expected to continue.
An order was passed on 6 April for a report
relating to heavy trucks. It was stated that the report was due to
be presented in any case, but Senator Harris persisted with a
motion for an order for the report. Provision was made in the
motion for the report to be presented to the President when the
Senate is not sitting, the deadline falling in a non-sitting
period.
Documents were produced on 10 April in response
to an order passed on 15 March for documents relating to the work
for the dole scheme.
A Senate order passed on 25 March 1999 was
directed not to the government but to the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission and required a report on anti-competitive
practices by health funds and providers in relation to private
health insurance. A voluminous report by the Commission on the
subject was presented on 12 April and was the subject of
debate.
Government contracts and
secrecy
A remedy for the problem of claims of commercial
confidentiality in respect of government contracts was offered by
Senator Murray. His motion, modelled on the Senate’s
successful order for production of indexed lists of government
files, would require departments and agencies to publish on the
Internet details of all contracts except where a claim of
confidentiality is explicitly made, and would require scrutiny by
the Auditor-General of any contracts claimed to be confidential.
The motion was referred on 12 April to the Finance and Public
Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 26
June 2000.
Appropriation bills and recalcitrant
ministers
Under the procedures applying to appropriation
bills, if the contents of the bills are considered at estimates
hearings there is no committee of the whole stage of the bills
unless amendments are moved, in which case debate is confined to
the purpose of the amendments. The unusual step of moving
amendments to the additional appropriation bills was taken by the
Opposition on 5 April. They were candid about the reasons for this
step: it was to provide a further opportunity to question the
government about matters within the responsibility of the Minister
for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator
Macdonald, following his refusal to answer some questions at
estimates hearings. Senator Macdonald’s approach to the
hearings was the subject of a special report by the Rural and
Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and a report
by the Procedure Committee on the scope of questions at estimates
hearings. The Senate adopted the Procedure Committee’s
report, thereby providing an authoritative view on the proper scope
of questions and repudiating Senator Macdonald’s view of
relevance. After some debate the appropriation bills were finally
passed on the last day of the sittings with the Opposition
withdrawing its amendments.
Other legislation
There was a preoccupation during the period with
tax legislation largely arising from the government’s new tax
system.
The New Tax System (Family Assistance and
Related Measures) Bill, having been passed with amendments and
requests for amendments on 11 April, was finally dealt with on the
last day of the sittings with some amendments disagreed to by the
government not insisted on by the Senate.
The New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill, which
the government had hoped to pass during the sittings, did not get
beyond the second reading stage after lengthy debate mainly about
exemptions for benevolent and charitable institutions.
A long-running bill, the Taxation Laws Amendment
Bill (No. 8) 1999, was finally passed on the last day of sittings
with an agreement between the government and the Democrats about
amendments concerning deductions for heritage and environmental
expenditure. The Opposition did not succeed in insisting on
amendments relating to institutions connected with political
parties.
The legislation to deal with the consequences of
the High Court’s finding that state jurisdiction cannot be
conferred on federal courts, the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation
Amendment Bill 2000, was passed on the last day with substantial
amendments moved by the Opposition.
The Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 was
finally passed by the Senate on 3 April after lengthy
consideration, but the government has not dealt with the
Senate’s amendments in the House of Representatives and the
bill is expected to return.
Privilege
The Privileges Committee presented a report on
10 April recommending the publication of a response by a second
person adversely referred to in the Senate, the second response
being to remarks made by the senator concerned upon the publication
of the first response. The second response was the occasion for
further remarks by the senator, which may well continue the matter
(see Bulletin No. 140, p. 3). The Privileges Committee, in dealing
with any future proposed responses, would be able to terminate this
ongoing debate.
The committee also presented a report on 13
April concerning compliance by departments with the requirement
that they train their senior staff in relations with Parliament to
avoid public servants breaching parliamentary rules through
ignorance. The requirement for departments to report on their
compliance arose from a report by the Privileges Committee, adopted
by the Senate, in 1998.
Auditor-General’s
reports
The Procedure Committee presented a report on 12
April recommending an amendment of the standing orders to ensure
that Auditor-General’s reports remain on the Notice Paper so
that there is more opportunity for senators to debate them.
Committees
The following committee reports were presented
during the period:
Date tabled |
Committee |
Title |
3.4 |
Environment, Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts Legislation |
Report—Sydney Harbour Federation
Trust Bill 1999 |
" |
Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Legislation |
Additional Information—Estimates
1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 |
4.4 |
Finance and Public Administration
Legislation |
Additional Information—Estimates
1999-2000 |
" |
Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Legislation |
Additional
Information—Additional Estimates 1999-2000 |
" |
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Legislation |
Report—Broadcasting Services
Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 |
" |
Legal and Constitutional
Legislation |
Report—Annual Reports |
5.4 |
Scrutiny of Bills |
3rd Report and Alert Digest No. 4 of
2000 |
" |
Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Legislation |
Report—Albury-Wodonga
Development Amendment Bill 1999 |
6.4 |
Appropriations and Staffing |
33rd Report—Appropriations
2000-2001 |
" |
Economics Legislation |
Report—Annual Reports |
" |
Legal and Constitutional
Legislation |
Report—Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2)
1999 |
" |
Scrutiny of Bills |
4th Report of 2000 |
" |
Superannuation and Financial
Services |
Report—Superannuation
(Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 2000 |
10.4 |
Privileges |
88th Report—Person referred to
in the Senate |
" |
Corporations and Securities |
Report—Corporations Law
Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000 |
" |
Legal and Constitutional
Legislation |
Report—Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2)
1999—Document |
11.4 |
Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Legislation |
Report—Australian Wool Research
and Promotion Organisation Amendment (Funding and Wool Tax) Bill
2000 |
" |
Employment, Workplace Relations, Small
Business and Education Legislation |
Additional
Information—Additional Estimates 1999-2000 |
11.4 |
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Legislation |
Additional
Information—Additional Estimates 1999-2000 |
12.4 |
Scrutiny of Bills |
5th Report and Alert Digest No. 5 of
2000 |
" |
Environment, Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts References |
Report—ABC On-Line |
" |
Procedure |
1st Report of 2000—Consideration
of Auditor-General’s reports |
13.4 |
Information Technologies |
Report—Monitoring
Australia’s Media |
" |
Privileges |
89th Report—Senior public
officials’ study of parliamentary processes |
" |
Legal and Constitutional
Legislation |
Additional Information—Estimates
1999-2000 |
Inquiries: Clerk's Office
(02) 6277 3364