PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
per cent of the 670,000-odd enrolment transactions that we carried out in the close of rolls period online. We had 1.3 million applications for postal votes. We would not have survived had we not introduced an online postal vote application system, which lightened the load by
AUSTRALIA
some 370,000. You have to not only deal with the efficiency and effectiveness of using modern technology but also deal with the people challenges”. Senator the Hon. Jacinta
Collins focused on the decision by the AEC to appoint a retired Australian Federal Police (AFP)
commissioner, Mr Mick Keelty, to conduct an inquiry rather than call in the AFP from the start. Mr Killesteyn responded “that
we had no information about the circumstances of the ballot papers being missing. Just like any other organization, before we make a referral to the AFP, we
THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Act 2013 On 15 November the Treasurer, Hon. Joe Hockey, MP, introduced the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill for the purpose of increasing the Commonwealth debt ceiling from the current $300 billion to $500 billion. Mr Hockey commented that “the legislative limit has been lifted three times since it was introduced by Labor in 2008. Of course, we never had to have a debt limit, because we paid off the debt that we inherited previously from Labor. And, what’s more, we left the previous Labor government with more than $50 billion in the bank. So, we did not need to have a debt limit, because what we did was wipe out all of the net debt and left money in the bank”. The Labor Opposition took a hard line approach to the government’s
proposal arguing that they would only agree to raise the debt limit to $400 billion in the first instance. The Shadow Treasurer, Hon. Chris Bowen, MP suggested that if the government claims that it would need to introduce legislation in another six to 12 months raising the debt limit beyond $400 billion then it should. Mr Bowen stated “well, if they need to come back for more they should come back, and we will consider it based on the evidence put before the House. And we will be constructive, just as we are being constructive on this occasion”. The Australian Greens initially supported Labor’s approach to increasing
the debt limit to $400 billion in the first instance. However, the Greens and the government later struck a deal to scrap the debt ceiling altogether in exchange for the government agreeing to a range of accountability measures. The Greens currently control the balance of power in the Senate. Senator Christine Milne stated that “the Australian Greens are pleased the government has agreed to our proposals to abolish the phoney debt ceiling and to increase parliamentary scrutiny and justification for government debt”. Senator Milne further stated that “because of the Greens agreement, the public will now be able to see whether the government is incurring good debt to invest in our future, or bad debt to cover up a shortfall in revenue. It’s time Australia had a much more mature debate about how to fund the long-term infrastructure that the nation needs like high-speed rail and better public transport. The Commonwealth will now have to be much more upfront and transparent about how projects will be funded”. During debate in the Senate on the Green’s proposals, the Leader of the
Opposition in the Senate, Sen. the Hon. Penny Wong, noted that much of what Senator Milne was seeking was already available on the public record. Consequently she asked the Assistant Treasurer, Sen. the Hon Arthur Sinodinos, if “he could advise the Senate of what additional information the
58 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One
Australian Greens have actually obtained as a result of the agreement with the Treasurer”. Senator Sinodinos responded that “what the debt statement will be doing is consolidating information that, as Senator Wong mentions, is available in a number of places. As part of this, it will also be including, as I understand it, the within-year peak in debt, which can fluctuate”. He noted that “importantly, these debt statements will not be issued just at the time of the Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook or the budget; they would be issued—and hopefully this would be a rare occurrence—every time there is an increment of $50 billion or more since the last budget, MYEFO, PEFO or additional statement in the actual face value of Commonwealth stock and securities on issue”. The House of Representatives accepted the Senate’s compromise offer
on the Bill after initially disagreeing to the Senate’s amendment to reduce the debt ceiling from $500 billion to $400 billion. The Senate Procedural Information Bulletin (SPIB) noted that the “proceedings were somewhat unusual in that the Senate made a request, as well as amendments, on the consideration of the message from the House disagreeing to the Senate’s amendments”. The passage of the legislation through the Senate was notable because
of the late stage in which the Senate made a request. The SPIB notes that “when requests are made at an earlier stage in proceedings, the Bill is not read a third time in the Senate and any amendments are not conveyed to the House, until the House has transmitted its decision on the requests to the Senate and the Senate has accepted the decision”. In this particular case the Bill had already been read a third time. Section 53 of the constitution provides that the Senate may not amend
a Bill so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. However, in these cases section 53 does allow the Senate to make ‘requests’ of the House of Representatives to omit or amend certain items. The SPIB notes that section 53 provides that a request may be made at any stage and this is the crucial point in the context of this Bill. Senate standing order 140 elaborates on the procedures available to the Senate under section 53 and expressly provides that a request may be made at specified stages in the consideration of a Bill including on consideration of any message from the House of Representatives referring to the Bill. The SPIB notes that “despite the availability of this procedure since the standing order was first agreed to in 1903, it is not apparent that the Senate has ever made a request at this late stage in proceedings, as part of an alternative package consequent on the rejection of the Senate’s amendments”.
try to establish some facts. That is what this inquiry is intended to do: to establish some facts. If ultimately Mr Keelty believes that there was some criminality or the potential for criminality, and provides some information as to that, that might be a basis for us to refer to the AFP. But, at
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72