SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016 of that act. Those terms, I am sure, are well understood to the minister. They provide opportunities for the department to request further evidence and information as to the impacts of the proposed actions but, of course, the act does provide provisions to ensure that public safety is also considered amongst those different factors. The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, your final supplementary question. Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:45): No doubt the minister is aware that shark nets are designed to entangle and kill all sharks to reduce their inshore population numbers. Is the minister also aware that these nets kill protected and endangered species such as whales, dolphins and turtles, and thousands of non-dangerous and endangered sharks? Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:46): As I indicated before, there will be proper consideration of any application that is made by the New South Wales government, as there would be by any other agency that put forward an application, or any other entity, for that matter. It will be assessed properly against the terms of the EPBC Act and, of course, any impacts upon other species, particularly species listed under the EPBC Act, would be considered as factors within such an application and its assessment. Attorney-General Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:46): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the conflict: … appears to be a legal difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General. What is the cause of this breakdown in the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General? Is the validity of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 the only legal difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): Senator Chisholm, it is wrong to characterise the difference of legal opinion that I have with Mr Gleeson about the effect of the direction as a breakdown of relations. Lawyers disagree with each other about the law all the time. That is why I was at pains to try and explain to your colleague Senator Collins that legal propositions are intrinsically contestable. The best evidence of that you could possibly have is to go down the road and look at the High Court of Australia, where almost half of the decisions that the High Court gives are majority decisions in which some of the justices dissent from the majority opinion of the court. At every level in the legal profession, from the most junior lawyers of the land to the justices of the High Court of Australia, lawyers have differences of view about legal propositions. That does not mean there is a breakdown of relations between them. In fact, the entire system of our law is based upon a dialectical process of argument. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: On my left: you have a colleague on his feet waiting to ask a question. Senator Chisholm, your supplementary question. Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:48): I refer to the High Court matter between the Bell Group in liquidation and the state of Western Australia. Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to this matter, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the manner in which it was provided? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): As I recall, in fact, the Solicitor-General appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth in the High Court in that matter. In relation to advice: as you know, the Commonwealth does not disclose legal advice. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order? Senator Wong: It is a point of order. The point of order is direct relevance. The Attorney-General was not asked about the content of the advice; he was simply asked whether advice was provided in relation to the Bell Group in liquidation matter. The PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General has concluded his answer. Senator Chisholm, your final supplementary question. Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:49): Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to the prorogation of parliament, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the manner in which it was provided? CHAMBER
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 65 Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): As I have said in answer to your previous question, the Commonwealth does not comment on legal advice or the fact of legal advice. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! The Attorney-General has answered the question. Workplace Relations Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on recent events that highlight the need for improved governance arrangements for registered organisations? Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:50): I thank Senator Paterson for his question. I can inform the Senate that just this week the New South Wales CFMEU has done a deal to hand senior leadership positions to a Mr Brian Parker and a Mr Darren Greenfield. In relation to the second gentlemen, this is the same Darren Greenfield who has been referred to authorities for making a death threat to a colleague, and, further to that, taking weekly $2½ thousand kickbacks for the CFMEU from crime figure George Alex. In relation to Mr Brian Parker, he has been referred to authorities for perjury, obstructing a Fair Work building inspector and gross neglect of duty. He pressured female superannuation fund executives to leak to him confidential lists of member details, and, when one of those executives was asked by the Heydon royal commission about this leak, she initially denied the truth because 'she was absolutely terrified of what Mr Parker might do to her or to her family'. Commissioner Heydon asked the CFMEU to consider removing Mr Parker from his position. Surely the CFMEU's members deserve better than this. They deserve better than the officials who lead them, who have a history of abuse, intimidation and violence. With deals being done like this, and with examples like this, it is little wonder that we still have approximately 100 CFMEU officials facing our courts. The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question. Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:52): Thank you, Senator Cash; those are very disturbing revelations. What action is the government taking to tackle lawlessness and misappropriation within the union movement? Senator Bilyk: You need to toughen up! Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:52): Senators will be aware that the government has proposed vital reforms to protect hard-working union members by cleaning up the bad behaviour of trade union officials and providing stronger laws for both trade union and employer organisations. Why have we done this? Because hardworking union members should not have their money misappropriated to pay for, for example, extravagant holidays, sex toys, tattoos, concert tickets, imported cars and dating services; they should not have their money misappropriated by officials who think that the hard-working members' money is their own to fund their lifestyles. We have repeatedly brought legislation before this Senate to ensure greater transparency and more accountability of both union and employer organisations. But you have heard the shrieks from those on the other side— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald: I am sorry to interrupt the question and I did not want to interrupt the minister, but I heard Senator Bilyk say, in response to Senator Cash's first answer, that the 'women should toughen up' and I would ask that she be asked to withdraw that. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator Wong: If I may make it clear: as I understood it, Mr President, Senator Bilyk was actually suggesting Senator Paterson toughen up. The PRESIDENT: In any event, there is no point of order. Senator Paterson, final supplementary question. Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:54): We all need to toughen up. How will the government's reforms help to protect union members and employees? Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:54): Those who run both union and employer organisations need to be accountable to their members. The current laws clearly have not prevented numerous examples of bad behaviour. Members fees should be spent for the benefit of the members, not swindled on private follies by those in charge. As a policymaker, when you have a proven fact that the laws are weak and not deterring behaviour then the appropriate policy response is to toughen up the laws, which is what we are seeking to do. CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10:
Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 13
Page 75: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 63
Page 125: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 11
show all

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?