Senate debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007; Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007; Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008

In Committee

9:46 am

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

I must admit that I do not agree that two years is sufficient when you have powers this extreme. We are all being told that this is an emergency that requires urgent action, and that is the justification for all of this being bulldozed through. To then say that we do not have to look at its consequences and its implementation until after two years is stretching it a bit. But, from the Democrats’ point of view, one could even concede to a two-year review—although I think it is far less than adequate—if it were actually put in the act as a legal requirement, along with the requirement that it be independent, comprehensive and that it be tabled in the parliament. The minister cannot give the guarantee that that is going to happen because he does not know who is going to be in government in two years—or who the minister will be, or any of those things. Even amending this by making it a review after two years, and each year after that, would at least give us some certainty that this would happen. Beyond requiring it to be independent and comprehensive, this does not constrain this government or a future government in how they would go about doing it or in the framing of that review, beyond assessing its impact on Indigenous communities, and it is hard to believe any review could do otherwise, given the focus of all these laws. So you really do have to wonder what the government’s objection is to just putting it in the law, even if we reluctantly go with two years instead of one year, which the Democrats would be prepared to do in the continuing spirit of trying to be cooperative and trying to find at least some common ground here and demonstrate some shared intent to deliver positive improvements. Putting this in the act simply means that people can be more confident. I really cannot understand the government’s refusal to allow that to happen even if we agree to make it two years rather than one. So I certainly at least make that offer on the public record. It is not, in my view, the best situation, but it is far better than nothing or the general but unenforceable commitment that the minister has given.

Comments

No comments