Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

You haven't answered that question, because we're actually now talking about a duty to consider. You've answered in relation to the duty to consult, but not to consider. But, even in the curated version for the public consumption, the public version of the Solicitor-General's opinion, it says there is room for argument. His advice says that there is room for argument as to whether there is an implied constitutional to consider representations.

So again, it is a matter of record from the third tranche of advice from the government's own Constitutional Expert Group that there were differing views among the expert group as to whether the proposed amendment is likely to be interpreted by a court as giving rise to a constitutional obligation for government decision-makers to consider relevant representations by the Voice even if parliament did not require this. How can the government guarantee that a court would not give rise to a constitutional obligation for government decision-makers to consider relevant representations?