Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Nationhood, national identity and democracy, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report is not a typical Senate committee report. It was a new challenge for the Senate staff who helped us to produce it. With that in mind, let me just give a special acknowledgement of the committee's secretariat, whose expertise and diligent work in dealing with what is a very complex problem made it possible to reach this point. I'd especially like to thank the committee secretary, Sophie Dunstone, and her team, made up of Dr Emma Banyer, Antony Paul, Sara Lailey, Brooke Gay, Sofia Moffett and Margie Morrison.

I would also like to record my appreciation of the works of Senator Stoker, who was the deputy chair for most of the duration of the inquiry, and Senator Henderson, who replaced her for its completion. I'm also grateful for all the committee members who participated in the inquiry: Senators Chisholm, Green, Dodson, Scarr, Thorpe, Chandler and McKim. The report we tabled today is nearly 80,000 words. It's much longer than most Senate reports. It contains 18 focused policy recommendations that go to building confidence in our democratic system. They are recommendations that go to the heart of all policymaking. They are about sustaining public trust in government and our political system. That is a major problem for democracy here and internationally.

This is a problem whose nature has changed throughout the inquiry, as a result of the pandemic. Recent political research highlights that people are in search of certainty and security as they have been lashed by the devastations of the pandemic. The restoration of confidence in science is gratifying. However, there are clear signs of fatigue in the public response. The RedBridge survey, which has been given prominence on the front page of the Herald Sun today in Melbourne, has highlighted that it's the poorest and most vulnerable of our community who are the most sceptical, for instance, about things like the various side effects of any vaccination program. So the question about the depth of commitment to the government's assurance, in my mind, remains an open question.

This report shows that we ignore the threats to our democratic system at our peril. The core recommendations that we present today are about strengthening the parliamentary process, and, in particular, the committee system, as the most important means by which parliament holds the executive government to account. It's about a way of focusing public trust by strengthening public institutions and, as I say, especially through the use of parliament. We call for the strengthening of the parliamentary committees because those committees have the role of providing the Australian people with direct access to this parliament. We argue that members of parliament must also be more vigilant when it comes to defending the democratic process and discharging their responsibility as elected representatives and ensuring adequate scrutiny of legislation.

Nearly half of our legislation now contains some form of delegated legislation, and far too much of it contains measures which cannot even be disallowed by this parliament. We have a responsibility to restore trust in the accountability of the people's elected representatives. We must strengthen our civics and citizenship education to ensure that citizens understand the democratic choices that they have in how this place operates. We call for further political education on the value of science, through the establishment of a parliamentary office of science. This report reflects the fact that this inquiry was conducted in a greater spirit of bipartisanship than is usual in Senate committees of this type. The original Senate reference was identified on 29 July 2019. The pandemic delayed our work. It caused us to question the way in which we operate and asked us to present the material that's before us in different ways. There were some 205 written submissions conducted through three public hearings. The report gives us a snapshot of what Australians thought about themselves and their country in this time of global anxiety.

However, the decline in public trust in public institutions and democratic processes has been apparent at least since the global financial crisis of 2007-08. The origin of that decline can be traced beyond that upheaval to the end of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s. In liberal democracies, the consequences of the decline in trust has been a backlash against what people refer to as the elites—or at least against those perceived to be the elites. It is a backlash from people who feel, and I believe often rightly, that the system no longer works for them. These are people who feel that they have been excluded from a full share in the opportunities that are available to others. These feelings of resentment and alienation have driven a rise in populist political movements, and, in some countries, especially in Eastern Europe, liberal democracy—I would say social democracy—has all but been extinguished. The liberal world order that many in the West expected would arise at the end of the Cold War has in fact yet to be achieved.

Populism is not an inherently bad thing, and populist attitudes are not confined to any one part of the political spectrum, but the populist movements that have transformed politics around the world in recent times have mostly been on the far Right. They have whipped up virulent nationalist sentiment in pursuit of their aims—the kind of nationalism that all too easily spills into xenophobia. This is what has been happening in countries like Hungary, Russia and Poland. It's been present in events such as the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom in 2016, in the election of Donald Trump in the United States and in the resurgence of the far Right parties in France, in Germany and in Italy. It's far too early to tell whether or not the movement started by Donald Trump in the United States will survive his electoral defeat. The upheavals formed by the global context were the basis on which this Senate committee examined its work. Australia has not experienced the chaos, the deceit and the manipulation of hatreds that we've seen in other countries. We've done a much better job than many other countries in coping with the stresses and strains of globalisation. But, in undertaking this inquiry, we were also aware of the decline in trust which allows populist politics to take hold, and that certainly has been happening here as well.

The decline is measurable. The Democracy 2025 project, based in Old Parliament House, has tracked the fall in public satisfaction with democracy in this country, from 78 per cent of the survey respondents in 1996 down to 41 per cent in 2018. The disaffection with the democratic process and public institutions has not, however, been a relentless downward plunge. There have been peaks and there have been troughs. In particular, the decline in trust that seemed so widespread when the committee began its work became less evident once the pandemic was underway. It was replaced by a renewed public confidence in the power of government, particularly in the power of the states. It remains to be seen whether that confidence will outlast the pandemic. What is undoubtedly true is that the level of civic engagement and debate in this country remains disturbingly low. Australians respond, in my belief, if they are persuaded that politicians and this parliament are acting in the defence of their living standards, their liberty and their democratic rights. I remain absolutely confident about that.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee hopes that this report can be treated as a benchmark for Australians whenever they debate ways to preserve and extend the country's vigorous democratic history. I commend the report to the chamber.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I acknowledge for the record Senator Carr's outstanding contribution to this process. I joined this committee only two weeks ago, and the first document with which I was confronted was Senator Carr's 250-page draft report. I did enjoy reading it immensely and I think it reflected a great deal of thought on Senator Carr's part. I would like to put on the record Senator Henderson's and my thanks to all the people who made submissions to this inquiry and all the people who gave testimony. Also, we would like to thank Senator Stoker for her assistance in preparing the dissenting report. I will come to the extent to which it is a dissenting report. It is labelled as such but that perhaps does not reflect the true spirit of it. I will come to that.

Before doing that, I would like to associate myself with the remarks that Senator Carr made with respect to the importance of the committee process in parliament. I absolutely, 100 per cent, agree. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks that Senator Carr made—and I'm sure, Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, if you were in a position to do so, you probably would as well—with respect to the increasing trend for delegated legislation to be brought into effect without it being subject to appropriate disallowance procedures. I 100 per cent associate myself with those remarks.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson and I have provided a dissenting report, but it is important to note there are many, many, many things in this report with which we agree. We agree with many of the recommendations either entirely or in principle, or with the sentiments underpinning them. That needs to be placed on the record.

One of the areas where perhaps we do diverge in some respects from our good friend Senator Carr is in regard to the preponderance of time in which the report deals with extreme populism on the right wing. We see extreme populism and extremism of all types as something which occurs on both the Left and the Right, and I think one only needs to refer to the disaster in Venezuela that is unfolding after the extreme left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez. I draw to the chamber's attention our concerns in that regard.

We also have some reflections in relation to the characterisation of movements such as Brexit. I note that Senator Carr did state that populism in some cases is justified, but movements like Brexit tend to lead one to question whether or not a populist movement is simply an authentic expression of dissatisfaction with the order that's in place that leads to radical change in order to give ultimate expression to the majority will of the people. The question is: when does that validity, when does that authenticity and when does that acceptable expression of democratic will start to transcend into something more to go into the realms of the extreme? That is a debate about an area we could discuss for many, many hours in this chamber, and I don't propose to do so this evening.

I absolutely agree with Senator Carr with respect to the state of social cohesion that we have in this country. I think we can all be proud that we live in a country which does have a great deal of social cohesion. We've demonstrated that over the last 12 very, very difficult months, and we stand in great standing when we look at what has occurred in other countries in that regard.

I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations where we do have a divergence of opinion. I know that Senator Carr is sitting there with bated breath, waiting for my revelations to unfold—maybe not totally bated; some other analogy might be more appropriate! Recommendation 7 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government investigates options to allow dual citizens to run for, and sit in, the federal parliament.

We recognise that this recommendation is simply calling upon the Australian government to investigate options; however, Senator Henderson and I believe that it is appropriate that, if someone seeks election to this place, they should not have any allegiance other than to Australia. There is a renunciation process which people can go through if they are dual citizens to renounce any allegiance to a foreign power before they seek election to this place. I should note in this respect that 'renunciation' is not the renunciation of their past, of their heritage, of their ethnicity or of their personal history—far from it. It is simply a renunciation of allegiance to a foreign power. That is the view which Senator Henderson and I hold. In stating that position, we have the utmost sympathy to those parliamentarians who were caught up unawares in the dual citizenship debacle of a few years ago.

The other area in which we would like to express some concern with recommendations is in relation to recommendation 9, which states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with the Australian Media Alliance, through a co-design process, to develop a national strategy to tackle fake news and misinformation.

We simply say that, for any proposal which seeks to limit or in any way regulate free speech, it must be incumbent on the government to consult extensively and make sure that any such proposal does not trip into the area of stifling free speech, and we make that point in the dissenting report.

Recommendation 15 states:

The committee notes that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recently tabled its report on the 2019 federal election. The committee recommends the Australian government works with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to develop and implement strategies to increase voter enrolment and voter turnout …

We simply note the fact that, as evidenced in its 2018-19 annual report, the Australian Electoral Commission made the following comment in relation to the 2019 federal election:

With the largest ever number of Australians enrolled to vote and a national enrolment rate of 97 per cent, we also saw a large increase in early voting and an increase in turnout for the House of Representatives. At 91.9 per cent, turnout was nearly one per cent higher than at the 2016 federal election.

So there was a higher turnout at the last federal election than there was for the federal election before that. From that perspective, Senator Henderson and I are gratified that many, many Australians—the vast majority—are engaging in the democratic process, as they should.

Finally, recommendation 18 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with academics, national institutions and cultural organisations, and the non-government sector, to develop a long-term national strategy to strengthen Australia's democracy.

We simply say that we consider Australia's democracy to be vibrant, robust and healthy. While we have no issue with the sentiments expressed in this recommendation—far from it—we're not exactly clear what this strategy would mean in practice. As with the vast majority of the report, we certainly agree with the sentiments that underpin it.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee, titled Nationhood, national identity and democracy. As a participating member of the committee, I didn't haven't to do the hard work; I came along and listened sometimes and obviously had the privilege of assisting the chair with aspects of this report. I wish to reflect on the unique nature of the inquiry. As the chair has already pointed out and noted in his foreword, this is not a typical report for a Senate inquiry. It makes relatively few policy recommendations but engages in a deeper examination of our democratic processes and foundations.

The release of the report comes at a time when we have seen a troubling decline of trust in public institutions. As noted in the report itself, this decline is measurable. The Democracy 2025 research project, based in Old Parliament House in Canberra, has tracked a fall in public satisfaction with democracy, from 78 per cent of survey respondents in 1996 down to 41 per cent in 2018, and the chairman has already referred to that. The release of this report also comes merely weeks after we witnessed with horror the violent assault on democracy at the Capitol in the USA capital—a violent assault that grew from the manipulation of truth and from the deliberate fanning of hatred, built on generations of unresolved racial oppression. Nothing could make clearer the precious nature of our democracy; nothing could make clearer the need to nurture and protect it; nothing could make clearer the need to build unity, respect and common cause across our diverse populations; and nothing could make clearer the need for truth-telling, to heal and build trust and peace for the future.

As this report acknowledges, the concept of Australia's nationhood and national identity is deeply vexing for First Nations peoples. The true history of this country has, in the words of anthropologist Bill Stanner, been shrouded in a great Australian silence. The report notes that, for many decades, official versions of Australian history have been told as if it starts from the arrival of Captain Cook and the First Fleet. The report also quotes Justice Jayne Jagot of the Federal Court:

By the doctrine of terra nullius, the common law of Australia could not and did not recognise the laws and customs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. … until 1992 and the Mabo decision, to acknowledge that land is the land of Aboriginal people would have conflicted with legal doctrine. That legal doctrine … did great harm to our society, and its consequences continue today …

What we have fortified through these harmful narratives, and what this report suggests—and this is important—is that we can reclaim our history and that it is an opportunity to develop a deeper and more honest foundation for our national pride. And we have much to be proud of in the long history of the First Nations peoples: at least 60,000 years of occupation by the oldest continuing culture on earth; over 500 different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations; around 270 different language groups; peoples and cultures with deep spiritual connections to land and waters; stories, songs, dance and art that are rich and unique and precious. What is often not told is the unique capacity of the First Nations peoples to live in this diverse land and develop their beliefs and philosophies, accommodating the wisdom of its lessons. This is a legacy that all Australians can identify with through our common humanity, our common occupation of these lands, as the outcry over the Juukan disaster has demonstrated.

I welcome and commend the committee on its recommendations calling for an active approach to the teaching of history which embraces First Nations history, civics and citizenship. Importantly, this recommendation urges a model that includes resources developed by First Nations peoples. It's a basic concept, but, for far too long, our history has been written, interpreted and misinterpreted by others. The report's second recommendation recommends awards for excellence in teaching, including for the teaching of First Nations history and civics. Teachers who can bring alive our history, particularly those who can balance two-way learning across cultures and even languages, are worthy of celebration. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by the chair in his foreword:

… a higher level of civics engagement … is the best defence of democracy, and the best means of building a more just and equal society.

This starts but doesn't end with what we teach the next generation in schools. Those of us in this parliament have a role to play. Strengthening our democracy includes strengthening our work in this place. It means valuing our system of parliamentary committees, as the chairman has pointed out, which are a critical way for this parliament to reach the Australian people and for those Australian people to participate in the work of this parliament. It means safeguarding the role of the parliament and passing legislation, not merely resorting to delegated legislation as has recently been the case during the pandemic—and the chairman has pointed that out. It means allowing and ensuring adequate scrutiny of government and parliamentarians, including through our process of budget estimates and our National Integrity Commission. It means having a broader vision about what our country can become. As the report states:

Contemporary conversations about nationhood and national identity are about writing the next chapter in Australia's story …

First Nations peoples have expressed their formula for nationhood, for national identity and democracy, and it's called the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I commend the committee for recommending that the Australian government prioritise 'engaging fully and respectfully' with the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

In only three months time, it will have been four years since First Nations peoples gathered in Central Australia and composed the Uluru statement. Four long years, all of them under a coalition government, and what have we achieved?

Much has been promised; little has happened. Uluru was no really revolutionary document. It sought constitutional reform to empower First Nations peoples to take their rightful place in this country. It called for a First Nations voice to be enshrined in the Constitution. It sought a makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement making between governments and First Nations and truth telling about our history. It talked about voice, treaty and truth. As modest as this agenda is, its implementation would go a long way to bringing a new peace to this nation, a new enrichment of our identity. As I said in this place yesterday, may those opposite open their hearts and embrace the Uluru statement. This is the gap that has to be closed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.