Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I want to go back to the capacity for a requirement for reasons to be provided. Senator Patrick, I note, has circulated some amendments. Obviously I don't think they're as good as mine, but they are quite sensible amendments which go to the provision of reasons. I made the point earlier that these are pretty wideranging powers for a minister. A minister can veto an arrangement that Premier Berejiklian, the Sutherland Shire Council, Ipswich City Council or any of the above engages in with a foreign entity. We understand why that is necessary, but I repeat what I said yesterday, which is that I think if ministers do stuff they probably should explain to people what they're doing. My concern is the extent of the power that is vested in a minister by the parliament as a consequence of this is substantial and wideranging. It isn't enough of an answer on that extent of power to simply say, 'Foreign policy is the remit of the federal government.' Yes, it is, but a suggestion doesn't proceed from that that you can simply veto arrangements without providing any reasons or having any accountability.

Leaving aside the minister's arguments about the AAT, which, for the reasons I've previously outlined, I don't think are correct, can the minister explain why she believes it is wrong for a minister to provide any reasons for a decision under this legislation.