The Senate is Supposed to be the House of Review

I’m putting it on the record that this government’s legislative processes are compromised. There are numerous examples of shoddy and rushed Bills being bulldozed through into legislation.

I ask here for a simple review, a chance to hasten slowly and ensure that one such piece of rushed, yet vital legislation, has the opportunity to be done correctly.

Minister Watt could not even grasp the concept of ‘independent’ review. Labor is the party of control.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, constituents lack confidence in Labor when it comes to security, especially after the last few weeks. So I’m wondering whether or not you will be supporting my amendment to do a simple review of the legislation, especially the amendments. If not, what is the problem?

I remind the Senate that last week’s highly significant Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 saw 31 amendments from the government to its own legislation in the House of Reps plus 20 amendments in the Senate. There was a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill, and those from the crossbenches and the Liberals brought them to 69. Minister Burke has been falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter mining and energy union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft worth billions of dollars. We’re told that the Greens oppose the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They said so themselves just last week. Yet the Greens now support it because Labor has apparently agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous Nature Repair Bill apparently in return for Labor’s support for disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law not before the Senate.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim, a point of order?

Senator McKim: It’s a point of order on relevance, Chair. The bill that Senator Roberts is referring to is actually not the bill that is currently before the Senate.

The CHAIR: We do allow some latitude, although I do take the point. I think Senator Roberts is trying to underpin his arguments for a review. Senator Roberts, please keep it to the point.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased you could see that, Chair. That’s exactly what I was doing. The government has a very shoddy reputation and is lacking credibility for its legislation that’s been rushed and bullied and bulldozed into this place from the start of its term. So, Minister, I ask whether or not you’ll be supporting our amendment for a simple review of the legislation.

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thanks Senator Roberts. No, we won’t be supporting the amendment putting forward a review. As I made it clear earlier in this debate, we are modelling this regime on the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime. So we have some confidence in its ability to work, given it’s been based on a regime that already exists. In addition—I don’t know if you were here, Senator Roberts, when I mentioned this before—one of the amendments that we’ve tabled, clause 395.49, requires the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to deliver an annual report about the operation of this regime. That is intended to give a level of transparency going forward to how this regime is operating, and we think it is an adequate measure to ensure that there is transparency in the system.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that the legislation will have a ministerial report, but we are suggesting an independent review, not a government report.

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I can’t really elaborate on my previous answer.