Division Description Changes — Bills — Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020; in Committee — 8th Dec 2020

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-12-08#15 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-03-18 09:08:16	Title Bills — Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020; in Committee Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Parliamentary oversight Description ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ <p>I seek the guidance of the chair. I've got a number of amendments which I'm looking to move and bring to a vote. Is this the appropriate place to do so? I want to make sure that I don't miss my opportunity.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p>~~ ~~<p>It's appropriate for you to commence with your amendments at this point.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ ~~<p>I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1137:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".</p> <p>Let me state clearly the aim of this amendment. We agree with concerns raised by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and the submission made by Mr Andrew Ray and Ms Charlotte Michalowski that the deployment of armed forces should be a matter of last resort and that the decisions to call them out should be subject to stringent parliamentary oversight—not a radical contention, you would have thought. This amendment seeks to ensure a layer of parliamentary scrutiny by making call-out orders subject to disallowance. While we understand that there are concerns around the timeliness and complexity of the call-out process, we do not accept that efficiency concerns cannot be addressed in other ways. We believe that efficiency concerns can be addressed in other ways, and it is not a reason to move past legitimate scrutiny by elected representatives.</p> <p>Throughout the inquiry it was made clear that the desire to streamline the call-out process removes important processes of scrutiny in a way that is not only unjustified but also unnecessary. It is our view that a decision to call out reservists is a significant decision, and it should be one that is deliberated and able to be decided on by the parliament via disallowance of an instrument. Indeed, this view and position were put to the committee by a number of experts, and we entirely agree. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the chamber.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Linda Reynolds</p>~~ <p>The government will be opposing this amendment. The bill as introduced would amend section 28 of the Defence Act to make a reserve call-out a notifiable instrument. This has substantially the same effect as the existing provision, which requires reserve call-outs to be published in the <i>Gazette</i>. This requires publication of the instrument on the federal register, and that is publicly available. We do not believe in any way that it is appropriate for reserve call-outs to be disallowable, noting the significant level of disruption that that would cause for the ADF's operation, its planning and, indeed, for ADF members who have been called out. There are numerous other mechanisms by which any decision of the government to call out the reserves can be scrutinised by the parliament, and scrutiny of the instrument itself is not necessary, noting that the instrument itself does not determine the law. So for these reasons the government will be opposing this amendment.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendment on sheet 1137 be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p>The committee divided. [20:43]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>~~ ~~<p>Question negatived.</p>~~ The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-08.200.1) introduced by WA Senator [Jordon Steele-John](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/jordon_steele-john) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Amendment text > (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument". ### What did the amendments do? [According to Senator Steele-John](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-08.200.1): > We agree with concerns raised by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and the submission made by Mr Andrew Ray and Ms Charlotte Michalowski that the deployment of armed forces should be a matter of last resort and that the decisions to call them out should be subject to stringent parliamentary oversight—not a radical contention, you would have thought. This amendment seeks to ensure a layer of parliamentary scrutiny by making call-out orders subject to disallowance. While we understand that there are concerns around the timeliness and complexity of the call-out process, we do not accept that efficiency concerns cannot be addressed in other ways. We believe that efficiency concerns can be addressed in other ways, and it is not a reason to move past legitimate scrutiny by elected representatives.

~~Jordon Steele-John~~
I seek the guidance of the chair. I've got a number of amendments which I'm looking to move and bring to a vote. Is this the appropriate place to do so? I want to make sure that I don't miss my opportunity.
~~Andrew McLachlan~~
~~It's appropriate for you to commence with your amendments at this point.~~
~~Jordon Steele-John~~
~~I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1137:~~
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".
Let me state clearly the aim of this amendment. We agree with concerns raised by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and the submission made by Mr Andrew Ray and Ms Charlotte Michalowski that the deployment of armed forces should be a matter of last resort and that the decisions to call them out should be subject to stringent parliamentary oversight—not a radical contention, you would have thought. This amendment seeks to ensure a layer of parliamentary scrutiny by making call-out orders subject to disallowance. While we understand that there are concerns around the timeliness and complexity of the call-out process, we do not accept that efficiency concerns cannot be addressed in other ways. We believe that efficiency concerns can be addressed in other ways, and it is not a reason to move past legitimate scrutiny by elected representatives.
Throughout the inquiry it was made clear that the desire to streamline the call-out process removes important processes of scrutiny in a way that is not only unjustified but also unnecessary. It is our view that a decision to call out reservists is a significant decision, and it should be one that is deliberated and able to be decided on by the parliament via disallowance of an instrument. Indeed, this view and position were put to the committee by a number of experts, and we entirely agree. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the chamber.
~~Linda Reynolds~~
The government will be opposing this amendment. The bill as introduced would amend section 28 of the Defence Act to make a reserve call-out a notifiable instrument. This has substantially the same effect as the existing provision, which requires reserve call-outs to be published in the Gazette. This requires publication of the instrument on the federal register, and that is publicly available. We do not believe in any way that it is appropriate for reserve call-outs to be disallowable, noting the significant level of disruption that that would cause for the ADF's operation, its planning and, indeed, for ADF members who have been called out. There are numerous other mechanisms by which any decision of the government to call out the reserves can be scrutinised by the parliament, and scrutiny of the instrument itself is not necessary, noting that the instrument itself does not determine the law. So for these reasons the government will be opposing this amendment.
~~Andrew McLachlan~~
~~The question is that the amendment on sheet 1137 be agreed to.~~
~~The committee divided. [20:43]~~
~~(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)~~
~~Question negatived.~~
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-08.200.1) introduced by WA Senator [Jordon Steele-John](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/jordon_steele-john) (Greens), which means it failed.
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "notifiable instrument", substitute "legislative instrument".*
### What did the amendments do?
[According to Senator Steele-John](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-08.200.1):
> *We agree with concerns raised by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and the submission made by Mr Andrew Ray and Ms Charlotte Michalowski that the deployment of armed forces should be a matter of last resort and that the decisions to call them out should be subject to stringent parliamentary oversight—not a radical contention, you would have thought. This amendment seeks to ensure a layer of parliamentary scrutiny by making call-out orders subject to disallowance. While we understand that there are concerns around the timeliness and complexity of the call-out process, we do not accept that efficiency concerns cannot be addressed in other ways. We believe that efficiency concerns can be addressed in other ways, and it is not a reason to move past legitimate scrutiny by elected representatives.*