Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear an amendment referred to as a ‘wheelbarrow’. As I said in my opening comments, this was canvassed at quite a great deal of length during the original Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into Senator Troeth’s private senator’s bill. We moved these amendments partly, as I said in my comments before, for diversity of opinion and background but also, as I indicated, there is a resourcing question. We are tasking this to a part-time commissioner—who will undoubtedly be very well qualified but who will nonetheless be part time and have other unrelated responsibilities—with, I believe, two staff from within the Prime Minister’s department. Can the minister tell us what process the government or the Attorney has in mind for reviewing workload constraints on this office and whether he seriously believes that an office of this size will be able to undertake the functions that we are tasking it with, as we pass this legislation? The questions, to be a bit more direct, are these. How has the government assessed that an office of this size will be sufficient to undertake this work? What process of review do you expect to occur from time to time? What reporting will there be to the parliament as to whether this office actually has the resources that it needs?