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

I think this really raises the question: what has the government got to hide? As I have said a number of times, whatever the commitment and however genuine the minister might be now, he cannot commit nor guarantee that a future government will follow through on those things. Whilst it is pleasing that the government will table plans, this is about reviewing the operation of the laws we are putting in place here. That is very specific to the operation of these laws. We all know that there is a lot to do with the so-called intervention that is already occurring and does not need these laws to occur. So I take the opportunity to make the point that that is precisely why the suggestion that these laws have to be passed today to protect a child from harm tomorrow is simply false.

We certainly do not want to hold up the laws unnecessarily—the Democrats’ position and record throughout this debate have demonstrated that—but we also want to make sure that, as much as is possible, the laws are framed in a way that will maximise their chances of being effective. That process is not only about what we pass through this chamber but about ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of the consequences. It is one thing to do everything possible to try to get laws right when we are passing them—unfortunately, though, we are not doing everything possible; in fact, the government is putting as many hurdles as possible in the way of our doing everything as well as we can—but, after we have passed the laws, the next stage is to review them, however good a job we tried to make of it. The Democrats offered the Labor Party—reluctantly but nonetheless on a better-than-nothing basis—a two-year review, to be put into the legislation. Given that is what the government has said it is committed to, the refusal to have it put in legislation simply begs the question: what is it that it has to hide?

This Democrat amendment provides enormous flexibility as to how that review would occur. All that it requires is an independent and comprehensive review of the act that gauges the impact on Indigenous communities and requires that the report be tabled in the parliament. There is a lot of wiggle room in that; it does not nail the government down very much at all. There is plenty of flexibility, and it is ludicrous to suggest that putting it into law as a requirement for a future government is somehow constraining the flexibility of any review. It raises the only other alternative: there is something there that the government thinks it might want to hide, and therefore it would want to have total control over the reviews so it can get the outcome it wants. It is the usual story of not having a review or an inquiry unless you know the answer in advance. That is the sort of thing we try to avoid here in the Senate when we put in requirements for reviews. Reviews should genuinely be informative and not just another predetermined snow job. And that is the only conclusion people can make—other than there being total intransigence of the government to any proposal that does not come from the government itself, which is also quite possible. Frankly, that is just as big a concern.

I will not keep repeating the remarks I made last night but I would re-emphasise that it is a grave mistake for the government to be totally intransigent to amendments to this bill—to refuse to accept any ideas just because they want to show that they are running the show, that they are in control and that nobody else has any role to play, that everyone else should just shut up and sit on the sidelines and get out of the way, including Indigenous communities themselves. That is the message that has been sent out by the government throughout this process. The attitude they are displaying in this debate reinforces that message. The key problem about that is not that it is irritating—whether I get irritated by it is irrelevant, frankly—but that it seriously compromises the opportunity for the government’s actions to be effective. It is simple reality and simple common sense that anybody who is the subject of significant government intervention into their lives is far less likely to be welcoming of that intervention, and the intervention is far less likely to be successful in the longer term, if the attitude and message that those people are getting from the government is: ‘We know what is best for you. Get out of the way.’ That is just human nature.

It is also a simple reality that we can find any amount of evidence we like to demonstrate that that is what has happened. It is extraordinary, even given the emergency situation and the importance of this issue, that a government that makes even a pretence of having any shred of liberalism in its philosophy could adopt such an attitude. It is such a monumental, interventionist, control economy, paternalistic, nanny state attitude of: ‘We know what’s best for you. Just shut up and take it.’ That is the attitude. I would have thought that this government, given at least one strand of its philosophical origins, would recognise that that sort of approach is not only anathema to liberalism but also anathema to effective activities, effective public policy, effective legislation and effective intervention.

The attitude being displayed even to this very simple amendment and the very generous offers by the Democrats and the Labor Party to water it down so that we at least get some guarantees in legislation simply highlights the real problem here. And unfortunately that real problem highlights the real risk that this government’s blinkered approach—its intransigence, its refusal to listen to anybody or to work with anybody—will make it far more likely, sadly, that all of the government’s activities and actions, however well intentioned, will not have a positive effect. That is the real tragedy. It is not about this amendment being successful but about the total effect of the government’s actions being less likely to be effective because of the completely blinkered attitude the government is displaying.