Public and Senate scrutiny is a joke
Posted by Dave Bath on 2007-07-07
It’s fairly clear that the current government doesn’t want public (or even Senate Committee) scrutiny of bills, if even the resources available to Microsoft can’t get a submission in within the time given to the public.
The ALP Minority Report to the Content Services Bill 2007 (designed to keep internet porn from unsuspecting minors) details the shocking timeline and procedural shortcomings that are all too common these days.
The single line conclusion of Senators Lundy, Webber, Wortley and Conroy is blunt:
Labor Senators do not consider that the inquiry process was sufficient. Insufficient time was allowed to review the submissions and to prepare for the inquiry.
This is another example of the pressure decent parliamentarians are under, as described by Andrew Barlett in Modern law making (2007-06-27), and demonstrates how powerless MPs are in the face of a double-majority and an executive that uses that power arrogantly.
In the report (with the PDF dated 2007-06-13) we see the timeline summary: 2007-05-10 (Referred), 2007-05-16 (Advertised), 2007-05-28 (Closed, with 4 submissions), 2006-06-01 (Inquiry, looking at 8 late submissions).
I’ll say it again, Microsoft couldn’t get in their response until two days after submissions closed. If MS can’t react to a bill in time that directly affects their business, does this indicate reasonable time for public debate?
The "procedural failings" section of the minority report is worth quoting in full, although bolding is mine.
Labor Senators note certain concerns regarding the conduct of this inquiry.
The Bill was referred to the ECITA Committee for inquiry on 10 May 2007. On 16 May 2007, the Committee advertised for submissions to be received by 28 May 2007.
Labor Senators do not consider that the Committee had sufficient time to adequately review each of the submissions.
Only 4 submissions had been received by 28 May 2007. These 4 submissions were from Festival of Light, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Mr David Bath and The Arts Law Centre of Australia.
On 29 May 2007, 2 submissions were received from Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc and Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association. It was then agreed by the Committee to hold an inquiry on 1 June 2007. Later that day, a further submission was received from Communications Alliance.
On 30 May 2007, 4 further submissions were received from Internet Industry Association, Microsoft Corporation, DMG Radio and Australia Subscription Television and Radio Association (the latter 2 submissions being received after 6.00pm).
On 7 June 2007, 6 days after the Inquiry was held, a final submission by Free TV Australia was received from the Committee. This submission was dated 1 June 2007.
The method by which this inquiry process was handled would appear to demonstrate the methods by which the Government will go to ensure that their bills are passed through Parliament with only limited external scrutiny of legislation.
Given the receipt of late submissions and no obvious time imperative to pass the Bill through Parliament, Labor Senators query why the inquiry process was so swift.
See Also:
- Australian Democrats Senate Watch page which puts some figures on some other issues.
- In a Grievance Debate, Peter Andren MP, independent member for Calare, lamented the lack of scrutiny and review of new legislation by Parliament. He singled out Government advertising for particular criticism.
Balneus Political advertising: paid, free, and under-the-wire « said
[...] auditor" can stop it, it’s easy to slip past parliamentarians given the lack of time for review, and it would be onerous to get involvement of the high court, the only non-political organ in the [...]