Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Again, I'm referencing the lack of a regulatory impact statement and the fact that one was not done before introducing this bill. What concerns me is—and I would really like to get a deeper understanding of this—given that the inquiry evidence in particular has now highlighted that there are a number of problems and there is confusion and a clear divide between the evidence from employer groups and unions as to the operation and function of this legislation, why wouldn't you get that regulatory impact statement? Given that the problems that you're trying to seek are hypothetical and untested, why not just proceed to that point and take away the confusion and concern? As you articulated earlier, your view is that the employer groups are wrong. Why not use a regulatory impact statement to actually prove that they're wrong?