Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The shadow minister for justice and customs makes the right point, of course, which is that this is more broadly drafted and it is deliberately so. However, if the minister were to accept such a principle with respect just to subsection 234A(1A), I would be more than happy to move an amendment on the floor to this amendment to change it to ‘a decision by the collector under this act with respect to subsection 234A(1A) is subject to judicial review’. It is not my original intention but I would certainly accept a narrower approach.

However, I suspect, based on my experience of the government since they took control of the Senate, that they are not minded to have any amendment ever accepted which does not derive from the government. I think the government’s record so far, Minister Ellison, is that you have accepted about four or five amendments from non-government parties since you took control of the Senate, which reflects your view that all wisdom resides in the government. You might have what you consider to be valid reasons for rejecting this particular amendment in principle, so my sense of things is that you are likely to reject this anyway, but if you were minded to accept it more narrowly defined then I would so move. I gather from the remarks of the shadow minister that he would in fact welcome a more narrowly crafted amendment. I am not going to change it just yet, because if the minister were to reject either proposition then there is no point; but if he were so minded then I would indeed be prepared to accept a narrower casting.