The rushed progress of the Northern Territory ‘emergency response’ legislation through Parliament during the past fortnight raises major concerns about whether Australia's parliamentary processes ensure adequate scrutiny of proposed legislation.
Flawed process produces flawed outcomes. Everyone would like to see good results emerge from the new Commonwealth commitment to addressing major problems affecting child welfare in indigenous communities. It is unfortunate, however, that the input of all relevant parties was not channelled towards this end, and that Parliamentary processes were not allowed full play.
From the broad announcement of radical measures on 21 June to the passage of the legislation through the Senate on 17 August, flaws in the process have been evident. Stakeholders struggled to understand the detail of the measures in this significant announcement policy shift. They have had to rely on information gleaned from media sources.
The announcement and subsequent developments could only be described as ‘policy on the trot’. The legislation — over 500 pages spread across five bills — was available to most politicians less than 24 hours before being tabled and passed in the House of Representatives on 7 August.
After significant public pressure the legislation was referred to the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Committee with a hearing date of 10 August and a reporting deadline of 13 August. Despite the short notice and absence of any call for submissions, over 150 submissions were made to this inquiry.
Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA) called on the Senate to defer consideration of the Bills for two months, in order to allow Senators enough time to read, consult on, and fully consider the implications of the legislation.
During the one-day Senate Committee hearing it was apparent that Senators and witnesses alike had been unable to work through the extensive legislation. But even so, the Committee recommended passage of the Bills unamended. The majority Committee’s view is expressed in only four pages, including recommendations.
In the debate which followed the tabling of the Committee’s Report, other important issues emerged as community groups raised concerns and Greens and Democrats Senators delved more deeply into the implications of the legislation.
Of the many concerns, four were outlined in a submission by CSSA to the Senate Inquiry.
First, CSSA identified the need for more extensive consultation, and for genuine Parliamentary scrutiny, if the outcomes were to be workable and beneficial.
Secondly, CSSA objected to the introduction of racial discrimination into the welfare payment system. Some parties