Westminster system, bill consultation period, scrutiny committees across Australia, respecting process, utilising Parliamentary mechanisms effectively.
Dr RAHMAN (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I will speak to the process, not the substance of what we are discussing. This is coming to a head repeatedly, with discussions regarding scrutiny and what should and should not be sent to a scrutiny committee.
We are playing fast and loose with the Westminster system and what we should and should not do. The only part that is embedded in our process is that we provide the Bill and the time for people to consider the Bill and consult widely in the community in whatever form they determine consultation to be. Twenty-eight days have been provided. This is not a Bill on urgency, so there is ample opportunity for everyone in this House to solicit feedback from people in the wider community.
It is important to note that a scrutiny committee is not a substitute for this legislature; it is an additional mechanism that did not exist under the original Westminster system provisions. This is foreshadowing debate to some extent—not that anyone knows—as later this evening I will speak about the Scrutiny of Legislation Conference that members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee attended. We learnt a lot at that conference, and I will table documents when I speak about it later.
I point out that scrutiny committees do not function the same way everywhere. They are not all functioning as ours does, but at least we have a scrutiny committee. The reality is that we have gone from having nothing to having something.
If the opposition and crossbench are dissatisfied with the government’s prerogative to choose when to send things to the scrutiny committee, that is a subject they should take up separately. They should challenge the sessional orders, mount a campaign and seek to change the terms on which the scrutiny committee operates, but at this time we have sessional orders and a process. We must respect that process. I am a believer in process in this regard. This government at least had the decency to put a scrutiny committee back in place.
My personal position—I am happy to declare it—is that I would prefer the scrutiny committee to address things as a de facto standard, as is the case in many other jurisdictions, but if that were to be the case we would need a legislature with a lot more resources than we have at the moment. I do not want our scrutiny committee to just become a pointless forum for protest. That is essentially what it will be if we continue down this track.
I implore all members of the Assembly to think carefully about how best we can utilise the mechanisms at our disposal. I understand the intention behind the amendment. I do not disagree with the intention, which is to provide people in the community an opportunity and a voice to speak on an important Bill. I will consult widely with my community about the Bill, and I encourage you all to do the same and bring back your collated data to the Chamber in six weeks’ time so that we can systematically go through it.
The question of whether you are heard to your satisfaction is a matter of our democratic process. I am not rejoicing in the democratic system we have here; it is essentially a winner-takes-all system. However, the reality is that the people of the Northern Territory, in the most recent election, elected a government of 17 of us. The 17 of us are collectively doing the best we can to progress the Northern Territory socially and economically in a balanced way. Not everything we do will be to your liking or of your choosing, but it will ultimately be a matter for the people to decide whether they are satisfied with our direction and governance.
I am all for having a discussion about our processes, how our committee system works, how our motions work and, frankly, the standard of conduct in this place, which I still generally find is pretty disgusting. It is up to all of us collectively to do something about that.
This amendment will not pass. Rather than bemoaning it not passing or politicising the Bill not being sent to a scrutiny committee, concentrate on speaking for the people you represent, bringing those voices to the Chamber and fighting your corner in that regard. We will do the same.
I believe the intention behind the Bill is sincere. I do not believe that the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment is out to nefariously destroy …