Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

Rather than elaborate, in the first instance I would like to ask a question of the minister. If, like the minister is telling us, all of this is happening—all of this the government agrees to but wants to happen through administrative and regulatory arrangements—what is the problem with putting it into the legislation? If you agree with that—if it does not cause you a problem, if you agree with the opposition that we ought to apply those risk management principles and if you agree with all of the statements that we have made—what is the problem with actually making absolutely clear beyond doubt by enshrining it in legislation that that is a requirement that is applied? I do not understand what the problem is. I understand that governments always want to leave themselves a back door, that they want to have as much flexibility as possible and that they do not like it if the parliament ties them down. But, other than the ‘Yes, Minister’ reasons, like the department telling you, ‘We don’t want the parliament to prescribe what we should and should not be doing,’ what is the problem? I have listened to what you have just said and to your comments, which are essentially, ‘We agree with all of this, but we are already doing it through ministerial councils and regulation.’ I have read the letter that the Deputy Prime Minister has written to Senator Hanson-Young very carefully. There is a lot of very friendly language and the Deputy Prime Minister is very generous in her comments towards Senator Hanson-Young. She essentially says, ‘Yes, we are going to do all of this’—tick, tick, tick—‘through regulation through this and that.’ If you agree with it and are going to do it, why not agree to put it into this legislation and be done with it? Why are you wasting time, Minister?