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

Minister, could you describe for us why the government has taken the approach of embedding that as a policy decision rather than embedding it in the bill? You will be aware that some of the very strong criticism that has been made of this bill is that it is effectively a 'trust us' approach, in that the bill allows behaviour to which the government then says, 'No, our policy is not for that to be allowed.' That is the fundamental problem that I have with the drafting of the bill. I will go to those when we go through it clause by clause, because my amendments are explicitly around closing these loopholes. Minister, you have just stood up and said: 'But of course that is not our intention. Of course, we will not do that.' I am not seeking to verbal you, but that would be inconsistent with the operation of the convention.

I should put Senator Nash on notice that I will be seeking her view on whether this is also coalition policy or whether this policy might change subsequent, for example, to a change of government. That is why we embed these things in law: so we do not have to worry about arbitrary policy decisions that could change according to contingency. So, Minister, I will return to this at length unless your answer is profound and brilliant. Why don't we just enshrine this in law instead of trusting ministerial statement that may come at some future time?