|
senate vote 2018-10-15#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-02-01 13:43:58
|
Title
Documents — Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel; Order for the Production of Documents- Documents - Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel; Order for the Production of Documents - Let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to an order for the production of a document, namely the final report of the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-10-15.105.2) to suspend the usual rules to allow a vote to happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend the [standing orders](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html).
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended, as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to an order for the production of a document.*
<p>Leave is not granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, and at the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended, as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to an order for the production of a document.</p><p>It's interesting that leave hasn't been granted by the Labor Party, I understand? I wonder what deal the Labor Party—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Rice, it was Minister Cormann who denied leave.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>Okay. Leave has not been granted. What a farce! Just four days ago all 20 recommendations of the Ruddock review were leaked to the media, and yet we, as the Senate, are not able to see this report. In the meantime, of course, we have had the Labor Party and the government moving, backflipping, to reject at least one of the Ruddock review recommendations in that they are now supporting, so we are told, removing the ability for religious schools to be able to discriminate against LGBTIQ students. However, we do not know anything about the rest of the report. There is so much of this report that we need to see. We are told that the Labor Party is potentially supporting the rejection of another of the Ruddock review recommendations, and that's to end the ability for schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ staff. But we still have not seen the report.</p><p>How far have we come when, just a month ago, we had our requests for this production of the Ruddock review report rejected twice by Minister Cormann on the grounds that it was not in the public interest? How on earth can it not be in the public interest now? We have had so much that has changed—all of these backflips over the last month. A month ago, when we first moved an order for the production of documents, we were told that we were waiting impatiently for the report to be released by government but nothing was happening. Now, with that leak, with those two OPDs and with the pressure of an impending by-election, we have had these backflips, but still the government has not seen fit to comply with an order for the production of documents to provide the document.</p><p>In his response to the previous two OPDs and in his answer to a question by Senator Pratt today, the minister is still insisting: (a) this document should not be released because of cabinet confidentiality; and (b) it's not in the public interest to release it. On the first of those, it doesn't even appear that this document has been to cabinet. The minister is being very tricky in saying that, because the report has been submitted to the government, it is, therefore, a cabinet document. This does not fit the grounds as to what a cabinet document is. It should not be grounds; otherwise, almost any document could be considered to be a document subject to cabinet confidentiality. Second, it's whether releasing it is not in the public interest. Clearly, it is in the public interest now for this document to be released. Where we have got the backflips going on, where we have got a government talking about introducing legislation and where we have got recommendations of this review being rejected by government and the Labor Party, it has to be in the public interest for us to see not just the 20 recommendations that have been leaked to the media but the full body of the Ruddock report.</p><p>It is particularly important that we see it before the Wentworth by-election, so the voters of Wentworth know where the government stand and know where they are heading as to whether they want to increase discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse and intersex people. It is important that the community sees this, because we know some of those recommendations that were leaked last Friday are extremely worrying. We need to know the background of those recommendations. There is worrying terminology in recommendations 15 and 16, which recommend amending legislation to protect not just religious belief but also religious activity as a protected attribute in our antidiscrimination law. How far is that being considered? Religious activity could be an awful lot of stuff and include a huge amount of extra discrimination against LGBTI people. Recommendation 20 says that the Commonwealth Attorney-General should take leadership of the issues identified in the report and that consideration should be given to further Commonwealth legislative solutions if required.</p><p>We need to see the discussion that is included in this Ruddock review. We need to see the whole report. There are no grounds for the government to be withholding it from the Senate, the Australian community or, in particular, the voters of Wentworth, who are going to the polls on Saturday.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I refer to my comments this morning responding to the suspension motion moved by Senator Hinch and explaining why the government is not prepared to support a suspension motion: because it would disrupt the orderly processes of the Senate. There are, of course, appropriate and more efficient avenues available to deal with the proposed motion, and I made some remarks this morning on the substantive issue.</p><p>Let me quickly address the issue in relation to cabinet confidentiality. This is a report that was commissioned by the cabinet to inform cabinet deliberations. The cabinet deliberation does not commence at the point that a final recommendation is put in a submission to the cabinet for the cabinet to make a final decision. Cabinet confidentiality and cabinet deliberation commences quite a bit earlier than that. If that wasn't the case, then draft cabinet submissions would be subject to FOI and to orders for the production of documents, but, of course, they're not. This is a document that was commissioned by the cabinet to inform cabinet deliberations. It was received by the government in May. The minister with lead responsibility for putting a recommendation to the cabinet is considering this report as an important input.</p><p>Let me make a final point, and it's a very important point. This particular report touches on some sensitive issues in relation to which good Australians have sincerely held and genuine views on both sides of the argument. The way the government is considering this is with a view to bringing Australians together and not dividing them. It is going to be very important for us to respond to this report—as a government, and, ultimately, as a parliament—in a way that is appropriately balanced and that protects against discrimination on a whole range of grounds, including sexual orientation and religious belief. We believe that we need to consider all of the recommendations carefully. The government will release the report in due course, following proper consideration of its recommendations by government through the deliberative processes of cabinet, as I advised the Senate on 20 September, and that remains our position.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>The opposition will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders today. Unfortunately, we have before us a situation where the Greens have once again sought to use the Senate as a means for their political stunts and not for proper debate. As Senator Cormann highlighted, this is the second time we've been faced with a similar attempt today.</p><p>The normal practice for the moving of motions in this place is to give notice one sitting day in advance, and this is for a good reason. This is so that all senators are afforded the chance to consider the detail of what they're being asked to vote on. In this case, the motion was only circulated a few minutes before we got to the matter. That process has not been observed in this case, and there is no reasonable argument for this motion to be rushed through the chamber at this stage of the day with less than one hour's notice. There will, of course, be occasions where motions do need to be moved more urgently, but we do not believe that this is one of those occasions.</p><p>I need to put on the record that the Labor Party is very concerned that the government has not released this report, a whole five months after it was received. We question what the government has to hide. We believe that Australians should have the opportunity to consider the full report and not just the selections of it that someone has leaked to date. We have asked for this report to be released time and time again. This motion, if the government responds to it and it's dealt with in a timely fashion through Senate processes, may be the last straw that finally convinces the government to produce the report. It's clear what's happening here. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is choosing to put his political fortunes front and centre by sitting on the report until the Wentworth by-election this weekend. Mr Morrison knows full well that constituents in the electorate of Wentworth will be very unhappy with what this review appears to contain.</p><p>In any case, the opposition respects the procedures of the chamber, and in that context I'll encourage the Greens to observe the proper process: lodge this motion in line with normal Senate practice, and then the opposition can give it the serious consideration that it deserves—tomorrow, for example. Tomorrow we can come into this place and vote, knowing that we have given the motion detailed consideration.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>The Centre Alliance won't support the suspension of standing orders, for the same reasons that have been mentioned this morning and by Senator Collins and Senator Cormann. We would support the body of the motion if it were to be lodged in the regular fashion. I do wish, however, to challenge what Minister Cormann has said in relation to his claim over the cabinet documents. He undermines the doctrine itself when he makes a claim which is not warranted over a document. The chamber is not asking for any record of your deliberations in cabinet. That is not what has been asked for. We're asking for a report that was commissioned by the Prime Minister at—I'm just going off the website—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>On a point of order, this report was not commissioned by the Prime Minister; it was commissioned by the cabinet. It was a cabinet decision to commission this report.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>That's a debating point.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Even if you say that it was commissioned by the cabinet, the doctrine clearly states that the document must be a submission of cabinet. It must at its point of birth have had submission to cabinet as its dominant purpose. Cabinet submissions typically have a particular form. Cabinet guidelines state that they shouldn't be more than about 50 pages. I wonder how many pages this particular document is. It's very clear in law that you cannot just tack a report onto the back of a cabinet submission and have that document attract the protection of the doctrine. In this instance the government has a half report out there, which may not even be fair to Mr Ruddock and his views. What has been put out is disturbing. The best thing I could encourage the government to do, even without the need for a motion to be brought tomorrow, would be to simply table the document in accordance with the original order. Let's resolve the controversy.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Rice, to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</p>
|