Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'll address something the Labor Party said and then I'll come to a question to the minister. I must say, I am deeply disappointed with the Labor Party but not surprised. It was a member on the other side of the chamber who said to me, 'We love playing chicken with the Labor Party because they always swerve.' You've never stood up for anything in this place. I'm asking you to stand up for what is in section 1 of the Constitution—that is, the Constitution vests power in the federal parliament to pass laws, not for them to be made by some faceless person in a back room. These are very important principles of democracy.

To suggest that you're worried about urgency is just poppycock. This amendment could be passed, with the support of the chamber, and it could go back to the House who could consider it. Maybe they could make some of those changes that Senator Birmingham says are necessary but the amendment was drafted by professional drafters so I question that, in the first place. But it could go back to the other place and let's see what the government would do. There is no urgency behind this. The start date is announced. It's not an issue. I think the government understands and the public understands that there would be general support for the proposal. I'm not suggesting everyone will support it, but the Labor Party have indicated they will. So there is no urgency. There is no reason for us not to do our job properly, not to hold ourselves to the standards required of us by part 1, section 1 of the Constitution.

With that in mind, Minister, I want to get an understanding as to why you have taken this approach. You've gone to delegated legislation rather than what is demanded by the Constitution—that is, that laws generally be passed by this place, particularly substantive laws that involve expenditure of up to $4 billion. What was the process the government went through to decide that it was best, in this instance, to usurp the normal process? I know you're comfortable with doing delegated legislation now because it says you don't have to worry about the parliament anymore. What was the basis upon which you decided not to properly draft this, in the first place, put the rules into the primary legislation, which is amendable, and then bring it to the parliament?