The Absentee Dissenters
A Tale of Two Reports
Senator Kim Carr, Chair, Senate Inquiry into ‘Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy’
1 ...Members of Parliament must be more vigilant when it comes to defending democratic processes, discharging their responsibilities as elected representatives and ensuring adequate scrutiny
In July 2019, the Senate referred an inquiry to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. The inquiry was recognition of a growing sense that democracy was under threat. Public trust in democratic institutions was declining. Notions of national identity, which could be the roots of a democratic community, were changing as the world became increasingly interconnected. Political divisions appeared to be increasing in the face of rapid economic, social and cultural change. Public trust in elected representatives was at record lows. The committee set out to engage with these trends in a bipartisan way.
2
In February 2021, the Senate Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy delivered its official report, recommending measures which could significantly strengthen Australia's democracy and improve parliamentary and government decision-making.
It is the outcome of 20 months consideration of submissions from 210 individuals and organisations, backed by erudite discussion papers and two roundtables with experts drawn from many disciplines. The report contains eighteen recommendations.
The Senate Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy delivered its official report, recommending measures which could significantly strengthen Australia's democracy
Attached to this was a second document, a dissenting report from members of the same inquiry - except that this supplementary offering provided nothing constructive. The reason for its existence is a puzzle, although it could reflect the growth of an unhealthy culture in which parliamentarians devalue the work of the Parliament and its processes.
The dissenting report was written by deputy chair of the inquiry, Senator Sarah Henderson (LP Vic), and countersigned by an ambivalent Senator Paul Scarr (LP Qld). Senator Henderson had replaced the original deputy chair, Senator Amanda Stoker (LP Qld), thirteen days before the final report was due to be tabled. Senator Stoker had been promoted to be a junior minister. Senator Claire Chandler (LP Tas) was replaced by Senator Scarr on the committee at the same time.
The main report begins with a foreword from Senator Kim Carr providing a broad context for the inquiry.
The second – dissenting – report begins ‘... we acknowledge and respect the bipartisan origins and conduct of this inquiry...regrettably however we did not participate in the inquiry's hearings or have the opportunity to question witnesses.'
In his tabling speech Senator Paul Scarr's tenor was again one of general support for the committee's findings, stating that “[the dissenting report] is labelled as such but that perhaps does not reflect the true spirit of it...we agree with many of the recommendations either entirely or in principle, or with the sentiments underpinning them.”
The dissenting report apparently took less than twelve days to prepare.
It supports several of the main recommendations, opposes several others and promotes the government without dissenting, in others. It raises the question of why the Senators, Henderson and Scarr, troubled themselves with producing a report that is premised on the fact that they were not able to pass judgement on the content of the inquiry, but that in general supports the outcome of that inquiry. Why, if not to undermine the process itself?
On seven of the eighteen recommendations, the Dissenters agree in principle, then confuse that support by saying they need more information or analysis, as well as making points more appropriate to the later stages of the process. The Dissenters would know that after tabling in the Senate, the government has three months to provide an initial response. They would also know that the report would be subject to debate in the Senate. Subsequent action rests with the government.
Following are samples of the main report and the thrust of the dissenter's responses.
Extract 1: A Parliamentary Office of Science
Recommendation 14 is that the Australian government establish a Parliamentary Office of Science, modelled on the United Kingdom Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, to provide independent, impartial scientific advice, evidence and data to the parliament, and all Members and Senators.
The dissenting report apparently took less than twelve days to prepare.
This recommendation was based on submissions by the Australian Academy of Science and by one of Australia's most eminent scientists, Professor Ian Chubb, a former Chief Scientist and Vice Chancellor of the Australian National University. Professor Chubb participated in one of the Committee's round table meetings on behalf of the Academy.
The Academy noted that the Australian government had a Chief Scientist and a National Science and Technology Council, but considered that these functions were not sufficiently integrated. It referred to the potential to politicise subject matter in a way which threatened Australia's democratic and free political process
− by disincentivising experts from engaging and providing advice and evidence.
The Australian government had a Chief Scientist and a National Science and Technology Council, but considered that these functions were not sufficiently integrated.
The Dissenters' Contribution:
‘...we query whether the establishment of a Parliamentary Office of Science would be an unnecessary replication of the work currently conducted by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) led by Australia's Chief Scientist as Executive Officer'.
‘In Australia, there is no shortage of robust, world-class scientific information including from the CSIRO, the Academy of Science, the Royal Institution of Australia, the Defence
Chief Scientist, and the various State Chief and Lead Scientists. We also note the expert research support provided to members and senators by the Parliamentary Library'.
Observation:
The Chief Scientist, NSTC and the Chief Defence Scientist are all accountable to, and to that extent under the control of, the Executive. None is likely to treat independent advice to a back-bench or Opposition MP as a priority.
The Royal Institution of Australia is an independent charity dedicated to connecting people with the world of science through news, videos, events and educational resources. The notion of legislators relying on a charity in order to fully comprehend significant complex scientific and technical issues is, frankly, bizarre.
Extract 2: A national social research centre
Recommendation 8 is that the Australian government establish and resource a national research centre on migration, citizenship and social cohesion. The committee wanted flows of migration and migrant settlement to be monitored and issues of diversity and cohesion, affiliation and identity, civic participation and engagement to
be studied. It called for an evaluation of service provision as well as the identification of gaps in existing research.
The Dissenter's Contribution:
‘In principle, we see merit in this proposal. However, prior to agreeing to such a recommendation, we would require further analysis with respect to the need for such an initiative, including the identification of any gaps in current monitoring.'
Observation:
The Dissenters are confusing their role. It is for the executive and public servants to work out how to implement such a program once a proposal is accepted in principle.
Extract 3: Tackling Fake News
Recommendation 9 was that the Australian government should work with the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, through a co-design process, to develop a national strategy to tackle fake news and misinformation. This process should be facilitated through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
3
With any proposal which limits or regulates free speech, it is incumbent on the Australian government to consult extensively. For this reason, this recommendation required further consideration, particularly in the context of relevant government reforms such as the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 and exposure draft Online Safety Bill 2021.
Observation:
The Committee was presented with powerful evidence that fake news and misinformation were a serious threat to Australia's democracy, with educators, scientists and librarians among those reflecting on the impact this subversive behavior was having on society. The Australian Media Literacy Alliance, a national organisation tasked with championing and leading media literacy education for all Australians, would be most unlikely to endorse any proposal to ‘limit or regulate' free speech.
Extract 4: Modernising the National Archives
Recommendation 17 was that the Australian government should amend the National Archives Act 1983 to extend the definition of a public record to include new forms of information storage such as digitised data, and to clarify the rules for public access to the Archives.
The Dissenters' Contribution
Fake news and misinformation were a serious threat to Australia's democracy, with educators, scientists and librarians among those reflecting on the impact
The Dissenters' Contribution:
‘ We require further analysis of the implications of this recommendation before we would be in a position to agree to it.'
Observation:
For the first two centuries of European governance in Australia,
Recommendation 11 suggested that the Australian government consult with the National Youth Commission and Youth Commissioner to develop options to ensure greater youth input into political processes
The Dissenters' Contribution:
records were kept on paper. These records include informal information, correspondence and observations which help historians and analysts understand the context, nuances and people who shaped the progress of Australia.
For efficiency, preservation and convenience material formerly committed to paper is now often recorded and transmitted digitally. Contemporary paper-based documents are now routinely digitalized. Why hesitate to adjust our archives to the digital age? Why would any government want to inhibit the access of future digital-savvy generations to explanations of the challenges confronting contemporary political and community leaders and their decisions in the circumstances of our time?
Extract 5: Australian Youth
Recommendation 11 suggested that the Australian government consult with the National Youth Commission and Youth Commissioner to develop options to ensure greater youth input into political processes of the federal parliament and promote democracy among Australia's youth.
While we agree in principle with this recommendation, we acknowledge the substantial support the Australian government provides to school students in programs such as PACER.
4
Observation:
This response, like a number of others, leads to the question: does this justify a dissenting report?
Extract 6: Uluru Statement from the Heart5
Recommendation 4 was that the Australian government should prioritise engaging fully and respectfully with the calls of the Referendum Council and the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The Dissenters' Contribution:
‘ We support the Australian government's approach which is to finalise details of an Indigenous Voice through the co-design process as the first step, ahead of considering its legal form. We must be pragmatic. Constitutional recognition is too important to get wrong... We have not had a referendum since 1999, which was unsuccessful, noting that only eight out of 44 past referenda have been successful'.
Observation:
This recommendation was based on a majority of submissions to the inquiry and reflects an understanding of the importance of the Uluru Statement to our first nations' people. The Dissenters might be too pessimistic. The 1967 referendum on Aboriginal issues passed with 90.77 percent support from the people. No ‘NO' case was put because the political parties were in agreement.
Extract 7: Citizen rights and responsibilities
In Recommendation 6 the committee called for the Australian government to engage in dialogue with Australian citizens – including prospective citizens – about their rights and responsibilities, and our shared values, history and national identity.
To support this dialogue, the committee recommended the
Chairman Senator Carr says he and the original Deputy Chair, Senator Stoker, had worked hard to retain bipartisanship despite their different political philosophies. THE COMMITTEE CALLED FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE WITH AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS – INCLUDING PROSPECTIVE CITIZENS – ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
government develop and support educational and school programs that improve cooperation, communication and participation. This would seek to increase critical ability, reduce prejudice and build tolerance, understanding, empathy, and an openness to diversity, as well as enabling people and local communities to get involved in their democratic process across all levels – from small country towns to our suburban cities and nationwide activity. It should also provide prospective citizens with an engaging and informative history of Australian democracy and our system of government as part of their citizenship preparation process.
The Dissenters' Contribution:
We agree with this recommendation in principle. We commend the submission of the Department of Home Affairs to the inquiry and note the positive programs being implemented by the Government which reflect the sentiments of this recommendation.
Extract 8: Dual citizens and Parliament
Recommendation 7 was that the Australian government should investigate options to allow dual citizens to run for, and sit in, the federal parliament.
6
The Dissenters:
Replied bluntly that they did not agree with this recommendation...
Final Observation and Civics Education
The report of the Senate Committee inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy and the related submissions give a keen insight into the issues confronting Australian democracy. It side-stepped some important questions, such as constitutional reform, but at the very least it should be recognised as an excellent base for the development of government and opposition policies. It is also a resource for those wanting to understand issues, shifts and trends in Australian society.
Chairman Senator Carr says he and the original Deputy Chair, Senator Stoker, had worked hard to retain bipartisanship despite their different political philosophies. The resulting compromises meant that in some places the report was less strident than it might otherwise have been. At the last minute the endeavour to produce a bipartisan report proved futile.
7
Given a conscientious and responsible government, however, the main
Like Question Time, the dissenting report reflects a culture in which everything is turned into a political contest - even the most thoughtful and nonpolitical inquiry
report of this unusual committee should elicit a serious and constructive policy response. Such a government would shun the pointless obfuscation of The Dissenters. It would study the evidence elicited from expert organisations and individuals. It would recognise that the recommendations, the text of the report and many learned submissions bring a wisdom and a means to strengthen our democracy and social cohesion.
It would establish a Parliamentary Office of Science to broaden and strengthen the practical knowledge of our legislators, it would ensure that the legacy of the nation's current and future leaders in all fields is accurately recorded in modern archives and that other vital matters, such as militant extremism and fake news, were addressed methodically.
In 1994, a Civics Expert Group chaired by eminent historian Professor Stuart Macintyre produced a report on Civics and Citizenship Education titled ‘ Whereas the people...' The consequent program was instantly scrapped when the Howard Government attained office.
The new Minister for Education in Howard's Cabinet, David Kemp, later launched a ‘Discovering Democracy' program focusing on civics education. But the results still have not been satisfactory and the Senate committee wants civics and citizenship education back on the national agenda. On this issue The Dissenters agreed.
Recommendation 1 is that the teaching of history and active citizenship should be made compulsory in years 9 and 10 and conducted by appropriately trained teachers. The Australian government should increase the time dedicated to civics and citizenship education to at least 30 hours per year. It should review the current civics and citizenship module of the Australian National Curriculum with a view to redesigning it to make it more engaging for students and commit to a review of the new civics and citizenship module in five years to assess its effectiveness in increasing knowledge and engagement of young people in civics and democracy.
It is likely that students visiting Parliament during Question Time will be bemused by the rude, disrespectful display of partisan aggrandisement devoid of the elements which students know to be the purpose of Question Time. And like Question Time, the dissenting report reflects a culture in which everything is turned into
a political contest - even the most thoughtful and non-political inquiry analysing Australian society.
In their studies, students will learn that partisanship is inevitable in the contest of ideas in the Australian political system. They will also learn that our Parliamentary democracy is designed to allow genuine debate, thorough scrutiny and an opportunity for the power of the executive to be curtailed by the representatives of the people.
The inquiry into nationhood, national identity and democracy is far broader than this fragmentary article might suggest. The answers to the questions posed by the committee do not lend themselves to the flourish of a grand announcement. Rather the report envisages a solid program of strengthening, building, educating and monitoring. It also shows the benefits of the Senate committee system and the importance of a bipartisan inquiry.
The dissenting report is without substance. Written less than two weeks before tabling, the questions it poses are why did Senator Henderson author such a superficial, dampening dissenting report? Was it a strategy to pre-empt serious consideration of some of the recommendations or did the deputy chairman want to impress the executive with a show of non-bipartisanship.
The dissenting report reminds us how essential to our democracy it is for Members and Senators to apply the principles of our system, including the separation of powers. If they fail to do so our investment in civics and citizenship education would be wasted. As research into the decline in public trust in our politicians shows, modern generations are quick to distinguish between reality and charade.
Why did Senator Henderson author such a superficial, dampening dissenting report?