Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I still have one other amendment to refer to. Whilst I am quite sympathetic to the opposition’s amendments moved by Senator Macdonald in relation to subclause 3, my concern is that there could be some administrative complexity with respect to that. I have discussed that privately with Senator Macdonald. We still have the mechanism of disallowing it. I am just worried about what would occur in the context of the consultation and all the steps that are required by having that 15-day period. I just think that is unduly onerous. If the Senate are minded to knock this out, they can do so well within that 15-day period. The flip side of it is that we can deal with it earlier. Presumably, if the new charges are so obnoxious, the majority of the Senate will get its act together and get onto it. So I cannot support that.

In relation to subclause 4, I understand the intent of what is being moved by the coalition. My concern is that the conditions, the trip-wires, that have been set up here are simply too prescriptive. I think that the government will be judged by what it does with this money and by the commitments that are made. I think the danger is that if we are simply too prescriptive about, for example, the meaning of ‘substantial harmonisation’—this is the sort of stuff that we lawyers salivate about; it is judicial review—it will not be a lawyers picnic but a lawyers smorgasbord. I am concerned, but I commend Senator Macdonald for raising this. There are some legitimate concerns. I think, simply by raising them, it really sets on the agenda the sorts of things that need to be considered. But making it that prescriptive is something that concerns me. I can just see it fraught with a number of legal minefields. In summary, my position is that I support the first and second amendments of the coalition, but I cannot support the third and fourth.