Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

There are a few aspects of this report that I would like to comment on. Firstly, I would like to note that the report does refer the legislation dealing with the citizenship test to a committee. That committee has about six weeks to examine that issue, which is much longer than committees are used to getting these days but still not quite as long as the Democrats would have liked, as is shown in the appendix to the report. But at least there is some opportunity for that examination, which is more consultation than was provided when the whole issue was first put on the agenda at the end of last year.

The Democrats also share the concerns regarding the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. This is compounding an error. When the very significant amendments to the land rights act were put through the Senate last year, they were sent to a committee and the time frame for that inquiry was totally inadequate. When you are dealing with an issue that is so fundamental, that is so important and that affects people’s rights so directly then you need to make sure that consultation was done properly. It was very clear that there was insufficient consultation with a whole range of affected traditional owner groups in the Northern Territory. That increased their anxiety, that increased their concern, and it was so obvious that that was going to happen.

Indeed, I can remember speaking in this chamber when such notions as changes to the land rights act were first floated by the government and saying that I welcomed the opportunity to debate those and that I did not have a closed mind; but the one thing the government had to do was to make sure that those changes were put forward and that the people who were directly affected were given an adequate opportunity to consult and to consider those changes. It was not so much that I or other senators should have been given the opportunity to look at them; it was that the people who were directly affected should have been given the opportunity to look at them so that they could inform us and inform themselves.

That process was so flawed that eventually even the minister himself—after it had gone through parliament, of course—did concede that there were a few flaws with the process and that it could have been done better. Yet what do we see here—legislation, admittedly much narrower in its focus but still dealing with issues and concerns that are very current, very alive, very controversial and very much surrounded in uncertainty, and the committee is being prevented from looking at it at all. If there were a start-up date of 1 July that relied on a budget measure or something like that then maybe you could justify it, but there is not.

There is simply not sufficient reason to say that this has to be rubber-stamped now and that there is no opportunity for community input or examination of the issues surrounding the legislation. It is an extremely serious abuse, I would argue, of the Senate’s power. It is a very dangerous precedent, one of the many precedents that have been set in this area in the last couple of years. But the trouble, of course, is that this becomes an ingrained practice and we all become used to it.

There are a couple of other Senate committees that are reporting back on Monday. Maybe we can get away with that sort of time frame for those bills, but we are getting more examples of grossly inadequate time frames that are simply not allowing the people who are directly affected to be consulted—let alone allowing the Senate, which is making these decisions, to consider the issues. If we become used to that practice being the norm, to that being usual—another rubber-stamped Senate committee—it will become ingrained in the community as well.

I am certainly starting to hear from people who are saying: ‘There’s no point in putting in a submission to a committee because the time frame is not long enough. It is not being taken seriously, it is being rushed through and it is all going to be rubber-stamped.’ Even if that is not accurate 100 per cent of the time—and it is not accurate 100 per cent of the time; I accept that the government does sometimes listen to recommendations in committee reports—and if that is the attitude that is developing out there then that is a serious problem and it is degrading the Senate committee system.

I would also note that the Democrats wished to have the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 referred to a committee. That has not been agreed to. I will not push that point in terms of an amendment, because there is no point. We all get used to not bothering anymore, but the point still needs to be raised that we believe it merited examination. Indeed I would suggest that other legislation dealing with journalists’ privilege—which I know is important and which I know people want passed but which only appeared less than a month ago—would have merited some examination as well. It is a serious concern and one that we need to flag every time. Otherwise, these sorts of things will become accepted practice and the Senate will not be the only loser; the community will be as well.