Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The question I've got is in relation to its appropriateness. The point I made is that the minister actually giving directions with respect to the functions and powers of this body is quite a powerful executive ability to influence the operations of this body. It's an opportunity for the minister to influence. It's an opportunity for the minister to wield executive power. Why is it that that instrument through which executive power is wielded is not subject to a disallowance process? Isn't it appropriate that in performing its function as a house of review that the Senate has the power to access and utilise the disallowance process if appropriate? As someone who has given great service to this chamber over many years, the minister well knows that it's very rare for the Senate to actually ultimately disallow an instrument, but the fact that the power is there is extraordinarily important for the scrutiny process. So what is the particular basis upon which it is said that it is appropriate for there to be no disallowance process?