Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens amendment proposes that a panel of three be appointed, as Senator Ludlam has argued. The role of the monitor as it currently stands in this bill means that a single-person monitor can operate flexibly to review legislation. The difficulty surrounding the role of a three-person monitor—although it would be a plural, I guess, as proposed by the Greens—is that it would add complexity and possible cost to the role in terms of coordination required for the role to operate successfully, and I think Senator Ludlam has not articulated particularly what the actual discernible benefit or improvement would be. Having three people in the role does not in and of itself add importance or prominence. It simply adds another two persons, which can add complexity and of course there is the question of how they would then operate as a three-person panel. None of that detail seems to have been made clear in the scheme proposed by the Greens.

I would also note that this proposal by the Greens was not canvassed in the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the bill, even in the Greens’ additional comments. I stand to be corrected on that. It seems to have been a later thought. The difficulty around the scheme is that the panel cooperate by a majority verdict or unanimous court. We may end up finding split decisions and no mechanism within the legislation to deal with that eventuality. The idea of an independent monitor, following the work of the Sheller review and looking at experiences overseas—particularly from the UK—is that the force and prominence which a single person can bring to look at legislation comes with its own merit. The person should be clearly prominent, have the ability to operate flexibly and have the ability to examine legislation without the complicating factor of another two persons also doing similar work across the field.

The challenge in these amendments is that none of the detail is supplied. The Greens proposal in the current form is not in a fit state to be adopted in the Committee of the Whole and be genuinely workable, in the government’s view. The amendments would fundamentally alter the role and operation of the monitor and perhaps even the nature of their function as well. For these reasons, the government cannot support Greens amendments (6) to (14). In addition, it is always open for senators to push their wheelbarrow on certain issues in this chamber. I do think, upon reflection, Senator Ludlam, it is ill-considered. I do not mean to direct that at you personally. It is a matter that I think, upon reflection, you might not want to proceed with. But I will leave that with you.