|
senate vote 2023-08-07#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 13:58:36
|
Title
National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Opposition members- National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Opposition members on PJCIS
Description
-
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.58.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [James Paterson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/james_paterson) (Liberal), which means it failed.- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.58.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [James Paterson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/james_paterson) (Liberal), which means it failed. The purpose of the amendments was to ensure the presence of Opposition members on the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security) (PJCIS).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 4 to 13), omit the item, substitute:*
- >
- > *11 Subsections 28(2) and (3)*
- >
- >> *Repeal the subsections (not including the note), substitute:*
- >>
- >> *(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 4 members of the Senate; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 4 members of the House of Representatives.*
- >>
- >> *(3) The members must consist of the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 7 members who are Government members;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 6 members who are Opposition members.*
- ### Current wording of that part
- > *11 Subsection 28(2)*
- >
- >> *Repeal the subsection, substitute:*
- >>
- >> *(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) 2 Senators who are non-Government members; and*
- >>>
>>> *(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are non-Government members.*- >>> *(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are non-Government members.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2023-08-07#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 13:57:06
|
Title
Bills — National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; in Committee- National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Opposition members
Description
<p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>As anticipated, unfortunately, our first amendment has failed. However, we have a backup amendment on sheet 1982, which I will move shortly and which seeks to deal with the same substantive problem. If senators are wondering, I think it might be a few minutes before we come to a vote, so they could leave the chamber if they need to.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-07.58.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [James Paterson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/james_paterson) (Liberal), which means it failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 4 to 13), omit the item, substitute:*
- >
- > *11 Subsections 28(2) and (3)*
- >
- >> *Repeal the subsections (not including the note), substitute:*
- >>
- >> *(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 4 members of the Senate; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 4 members of the House of Representatives.*
- >>
- >> *(3) The members must consist of the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 7 members who are Government members;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 6 members who are Opposition members.*
- ### Current wording of that part
- > *11 Subsection 28(2)*
- >
- >> *Repeal the subsection, substitute:*
- >>
- >> *(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) 2 Senators who are non-Government members; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are non-Government members.*
<p>An honourable senator: Hear, hear!</p><p>Or, if you wish, you could stay and listen to what I'm sure will be a scintillating debate; I'll let you make up your own minds! It depends how far you have to go in the building. The amendments on sheet 1982—</p> <p class="speaker">Jess Walsh</p><p>Senator Paterson, I'll just interrupt you there. If senators who are not participating in this discussion in the committee stage could either leave the chamber and take your conversations outside or resume your seats in silence, that would be appreciated.</p> <p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>As I was saying, the amendment on sheet 1982 seeks to preserve the government's stated intent—prior to this debate, anyway—for the rationale for increasing the size of the PJCIS. They say it is due to the workload of the PJCIS and it will facilitate the establishment and population of subcommittees and other such things. If that is the case, if that is their motivation, then this amendment preserves that. It also preserves the ability of the government to have more flexibility in the members from each chamber whom they appoint. It will require that four members come from the Senate and four members come from the House of Representatives, but the remaining members can come from either the House or the Senate.</p><p>Why that's important is that there was public reporting after the election, after there was a delay in establishing this committee, that the reason for that delay—it was Ellen Whinnett in the<i> Australian</i> who was particularly reporting this—was that the government was unable to come to a resolution internally about which members should be appointed to the committee, because they had factional, state and House and Senate balances that made it complicated. If that is the government's concern, this amendment deals with that as well. I understand the government wasn't able to support the previous amendment. I really hope the government is able to support this one, because it does allow them to expand the PJCIS; it just prevents it from being extended to a member of the crossbench or a minor party, which, as I've already outlined, the coalition is concerned would compromise operational security.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>The Greens don't support this amendment. Indeed, we think it would create a significant problem, having two contradictory elements in the legislation, one being the provision in the schedule that I read on the record to the minister earlier and the other being this. It would create incoherent legislation, as well as being offensive in principle.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>The government will also be opposing this amendment. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, the changes that are being proposed in this bill would increase the number of members of the committee, and that is about making it easier for the committee to manage its workload. As I've already pointed out, it would create a greater capacity to establish subcommittees, to undertake some of the work that the committee is required to do. As for the composition of the committee, as Senator Paterson is aware, the current legislation does not dictate a certain number of government or opposition members, and we don't believe it's necessary to dictate that in the way that Senator Paterson's amendment would do.</p> <p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>Just briefly, I will make an observation on that, and then I will move my amendment, for the benefit of the chamber, so it shouldn't go too far. That last part of the minister's answer was revealing. It appears very clear then that the cat is now out of the bag: the government does intend to appoint a member of the crossbench or a minor party. Otherwise, all this amendment seeks to do is formalise the convention, which is well established on this committee and respected by both parties when in government, save for one brief exception—which I think it's worth pointing out was in the minority parliament period of the Gillard government, who clearly as a result of that were forced to do a deal with then-crossbencher Mr Wilkie to put him on the committee in exchange for confidence and supply. That is not the case today. This government has a clear majority in the lower house—maybe not a comfortable one but a clear one. That means that it is not necessary for them to do a deal with Andrew Wilkie for confidence and supply, or with any other crossbencher or minor party member. So they could formalise the convention on this committee that says that only members of the government and the opposition serve on this committee and which preserves the balance. It concerns me, from the minister's answer, that the government in fact intends to use this opportunity to dilute the opposition presence on this committee and to increase the government's proportion of the committee. That would be very concerning. With that, I move the amendment on sheet 1982:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 4 to 13), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">11 Subsections 28(2) and (3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsections (not including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:</p><p class="italic">(a) 4 members of the Senate; and</p><p class="italic">(b) 4 members of the House of Representatives.</p><p class="italic">(3) The members must consist of the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) 7 members who are Government members;</p><p class="italic">(b) 6 members who are Opposition members.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>The question before the committee is that the amendment moved by Senator Paterson on sheet 1982 be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|