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

My concern with the Leader of the Government's response is this: that, because it is a question of 'desirable to do so' under what is proposed in the omnibus bill, it gives such a broad discretion to ACMA that any realistic opportunity of judicial review or intervention by the Ombudsman will in effect be lost because it is so broad. There is such a broad discretion there that 'desirable to do so' is not the same as being concerned about the public interest or looking at the individual circumstances of an individual that may have been particularly affected by the matter for which they wish to seek intervention or assistance from ACMA. I am concerned that that level of discretion is so broad as to render the opportunity of a remedy through judicial review or through the Ombudsman as largely ineffective. My question to the minister is: does he agree with that proposition as a matter of law? Secondly, does the minister take the view that, in effect, 'desirable to do so' is not something that has been tested in another piece of legislation? Are there other examples of the phrase 'desirable to do so' in other pieces of legislation and similar regulatory frameworks where it has been used, where it has been effective or not? Is there a precedent for the 'desirable to do so' phrase?