|
representatives vote 2020-05-13#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-05-15 12:31:29
|
Title
Bills — Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020; Second Reading- Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Debate
Description
<p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That this bill be now read a second time.</p>- The majority voted in favour of the following [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-05-13.6.1):
- > *That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.*
<p>Agricultural exports are an economic powerhouse for Australia and are expected to be worth around $43 billion in 2019-20.</p><p>We are one of the top 10 agricultural exporting countries in the world, exporting around two-thirds of our agricultural production each year.</p><p>Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key commitment of this government.</p><p>We want our agricultural industries to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that flow from growth in our region and globally, and we want to support the National Farmers Federation goal to grow Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.</p><p>To help us achieve this, we need to ensure we have appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and in turn to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate.</p><p>This bill will facilitate agricultural exports for the emerging medicinal cannabis and hemp industries. It will remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and ensure legitimate exporters of narcotic goods are supported to access emerging export markets.</p><p>This bill will allow certification of legitimate exports of narcotic goods. It is critical that our trading partners continue to have confidence in the safety and integrity of Australian produce.</p><p>This bill will enable the growth of export markets for hemp and medicinal cannabis industries. The bill will support the initiatives of the government to reduce red tape, bust congestion in regulation and enable agricultural industries to come out firing, after the threat of COVID-19 has passed.</p><p>For Australian farmers, reliable access to overseas markets means increased profitability and certainty for further investment in their properties and people.</p><p>For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports, and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.</p><p>For Australians, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia.</p><p>The bill is just one of the initiatives that the government is progressing to modernise the systems that underpin our very valuable agricultural exports. This is a crucial step that removes unnecessary regulatory barriers and supports the Australian agricultural sector as it continues to grow.</p><p>I commend the bill to the House.</p><p>Debate adjourned.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I understand it's the wish of the House to grant leave for the debate to be resumed at a later hour this day.</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. The ayes have it. The Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Sorry, I wasn't in the House at the time. I understood the issue of leave was to be put later and it was not agreed with the government on that issue.</p><p class="italic">Mr Littleproud interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Hang on. We hear one point of order at a time.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Sorry, I had to run here. I apologise.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Take a moment. It's okay. Don't cough!</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>What I believe was just stated to the House was that you'd been advised or were of the belief that leave was being granted for this to be resumed at a later hour today.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The government have put that proposition to the Labor Party, to the opposition. We have not agreed to it. We have agreed to it on other bills where the government have made the case as to why they are urgent. They have not made that case on this bill, therefore the opposition's view is that this should be dealt with in the normal way, which would allow for it to be listed tomorrow.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I'll hear from the minister on this.</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I do respect what the Manager of Opposition Business has put, but you did ask and you did put it to the House, and there were two voices that said yes to the motion that was put. Effectively, it was voted on, and there were no dissenting voices.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I'll just make a couple of points before I call the Manager of Opposition Business. I'm obviously not party to any discussions between the government and the opposition. As I said, I'm only guided, and I understood it was the wish of the House. The minister is right: he then moved the motion, and I put the motion, but in the situation we're in I'd just say to all members that a degree of cooperation is important. If there is going to be a disagreement, you should be clear on that. Before we take the next step, I will say: the minister is right, but clearly, had the Manager of Opposition Business been here—and it's not his fault he's not here all the time—a different course would have occurred. Yes, you're right: I've seen it happen in the reverse. I think it's a bit hard on the two members who aren't privy to the negotiations to imply that they were in agreement when I read out, 'I understand it's the wish of the House'. I'm not quite sure which step you want to take now, but I'm going to call the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I'd seek leave for the question to be put again, as the standing orders allow, if there's agreement from the House, where there has been a misunderstanding.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Minister?</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I accept that. That's fair.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Okay. I'll put the question again, and that is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Can you state the question?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Sure. The minister moved that leave be granted for the debate to be resumed at a later hour this day.</p><p class="italic">Mr Burke interjecting—</p><p>He sought leave. He moved that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. That was the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>And that is now what's being put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>That is what was put and is now being re-put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Can I speak on the motion now that the question has been stated?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Okay. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Thanks very much, Mr Speaker.</p> <p class="speaker">Dan Tehan</p><p>Have you got your breath back?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>It's better than it was. Although I don't think it's quite the week for the government to be making criticisms of whether people are getting their words out at the dispatch box!</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I'll just say to the Minister for Education, his office isn't that close. Be fair.</p> <p class="speaker">Dan Tehan</p><p>He was seriously puffing.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>He must have moved quickly.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I did move quickly. These weeks are functioning entirely on cooperation. The government, for different suspensions, including the one that was moved yesterday, does not have an absolute majority. And, if the parliament were to sit, the government would be incapable of having an absolute majority. With that in mind, that's why there is a high degree of cooperation being sought from the opposition and being granted by the opposition.</p><p>The government put forward two other pieces of legislation where they sought our cooperation and they made a case for why they were urgent. The first of those was the legislation that went through yesterday with respect to the privacy protections for the COVIDSafe app. The case was made as to why it was urgent, and the opposition accepted that case and facilitated debate. We made sure yesterday that by the time it got to past 7 o'clock the member for Kennedy was the only speaker remaining. When he concluded his remarks there was no need for a gag; there was no need for that sort of obstruction to happen in the House. We simply withdrew the additional speakers we had on the list, the minister was able to provide his comments-in-reply and it was done. Similarly, later today we will deal with an aged-care bill where the government have explained the reasons why that is urgent. The urgency of the aged-care bill doesn't go to issues necessarily related to COVID-19. It's urgent for a different reason, but the government has made the case as to why it's urgent, and we've heard that and we've cooperated.</p><p>With respect to the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020, this is a bill that has been hanging around for a very long time, has been spoken about for a very long time—the shadow minister for agriculture has mentioned in dispatches how long this issue has been around—and has never been considered urgent and was never even introduced into the parliament until now. Why there is a sudden urgency for this to get through the House of Representatives in one day when the government have had the issue in front of them for something like a year or more and have never bothered to introduce it before is a case that needs to be made. The government haven't made that case. They've simply said: 'Yes, we want it through. Let's make it urgent'. It's not whether the bill has merit or not; there are lots of bills that have merit that the opposition supports, and I suspect this will be one of them. But the issue of something passing through the parliament in a single day requires the issue to be of a different gravity. There is a reason why the standing orders say that after a bill is introduced you don't go straight into the debate on it. To move that we debate it immediately is a big call. It's a big call that when the government makes the case, we cooperate. We have proof of that yesterday and proof of that again today. But, on this one, they haven't made the case or sought to make the case as to why it's urgent. It is not unreasonable, at all, for this parliament to expect that when a piece of legislation is introduced it will lay on the table for at least a day before we then discuss it and we then debate it. To have a situation where this is put urgently to us without that case being made—it's simply not reasonable and it's not in the spirit of how the parliament has been operating in weeks like this.</p><p>In different weeks I may express different levels of outrage over this sort of behaviour, but, can I tell you, in the context of us all being nice and calm to each other, this is high outrage. It really is unreasonable. I don't blame the minister at the table, but my office had been advised that any attempt by the government to bring it on today would happen after all the introductions had been dealt with. That was the advice that had come through to me. So to then find not only it being introduced without making the case but that the minister introducing the bill, had, I presume, been advised by someone else to move that motion immediately, is contrary to what we'd been told and is contrary to any reasonable case that had been made.</p><p>I don't know if this has something to do with negotiations on other issues in the Senate. I don't know if there's some other reason why the government might have a political objective to push this through so quickly, but if there's a policy case for this being urgent you would have thought that sometime in the last 12 months they would have introduced the legislation. You would have thought, in the whole period that we've had where the issue has been alive, that they would have bothered to draft the legislation. I can't see what's happened in the last few weeks that means that an issue, that, for a long time, has been, 'Yes, we'll get around to it,' is suddenly, 'We're doing this today and it must be completed today.' Unless the government wants to start playing games with the level of cooperation that has been shown in this parliament, I would advise the government very strongly: when you make the case for something being urgent we have proven that we will be cooperative and we will be responsible; when the case is not made, it is unreasonable of the government to use its numbers on a contingency motion, and to use its numbers in various resolutions in this way, in a parliament that is only meeting at the moment because of cooperation. Don't take the goodwill when you want it and then trash it the moment the sittings are underway.</p><p>An honourable member interjecting—</p><p>If nothing else, I've proven I spend more time with music than I do with health! I've clarified that! But the case has to be made, and this does matter. It goes to the whole operation of the parliament. I can't stress that enough. On the policy issue itself, the shadow minister for agriculture will be able to make the case more strongly than me. But, in terms of the processes of the House, don't take the cooperation when it's offered and then refuse a simple opposition request that you need to make the case for urgency.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|