Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

It is worth reiterating where we are now at: we are debating in committee the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 and specifically Democrats amendment (5). At the heart of this matter is what the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended, which is that the proposed citizenship test questions be tabled in parliament. It seems that the Democrats have proposed a sensible solution to the problem—that you use a legislative instrument to effect that recommendation.

The government should not be afraid of using legislative instruments; it should not be concerned about it. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances will oversee regulations that engage such legislative instruments. The government should not be afraid of scrutiny. The government should not be concerned that the process allows people to have a look at matters such as this to ensure that it meets the commitment and that it continues on an ongoing basis to meet the requirements under the legislation. On balance it seems to me that the government is trying to walk away from oversight. It is not major oversight; it is sensible oversight that the Democrats are proposing. That is why Labor supports this amendment. It reflects not only the Senate committee’s recommendations but also Labor’s view that the questions should be publicly available.

In the current scheme of things the government does have the majority in the House. If the government does not like the matters and is concerned then it can oppose any disallowance motion and win that debate. But a disallowance motion is really the end point. If you look at the way the Senate works, not a lot of disallowance motions are raised in the first instance. But, if you are concerned about that, you are really concerned about the end product, the end of the road. You should be more worried about ensuring that you get it right. In that way you should not be concerned about oversight, because if you get it right then the matter will not get to that end point. You will not end up having to be concerned about whether a disallowance motion is passed.

The Temporary Chairman, Senator Watson, runs the Regulations and Ordinances Committee admirably, as I understand it. There he occasionally puts disallowance motions on matters but then comes back in after consultation with the minister and has those motions removed because the consultative process has fixed any problems. What concerns me is that, in terms of oversight, scrutiny and public availability of documents, this is an admission by this government that it wants to walk away from it all or that it is afraid of it—I am not sure which. The government set up the process with good legislation, which was supported by Labor, to allow legislative instruments to be utilised in this place and now wants to walk away from those commitments. It does not want to use the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which has been in place since 1932, to oversight its legislation and ensure it meets necessary commitments. I guess we will hear the answer from the minister. But let us not hear, ‘We simply don’t like the process,’ or ‘It’s not going to meet our commitments’; let us hear an appropriate response that says more than simply that.

I am happy to have the cognate debate with Senator Nettle’s foreshadowed amendment and then split the question. Senator Nettle’s amendment that I suspect she will move reads:

A determination made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument and a question within a test, or a component of a test is deemed to be provisions within the meaning of section 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and is subject to disallowance.

On that basis it seems to be very similar to the Democrats’ amendment currently before the chair, and the comments I have just made are germane to Senator Nettle’s foreshadowed amendment in any event. I do not want to prolong the debate, but the government needs to not only justify why not but also demonstrate why their system will provide a better oversight.