Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The good news is this: you don't know what the case of Barratt v Howard is, but it's actually directly applicable to this legislation. And it is not an appropriate response for a minister of the Crown to not be able to state whether the Attorney-General's Department, who is responsible for this bill, has or has not given advice in relation to this. I'm not interested in the advice itself. I know we cannot get that. I appreciate that. But the fact that you are unable to even go anywhere near this federal case when it is on point is yet again another reason why this bill should have been subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Now, it raises the question: is it even compliant with the law? That is the point of the case of Barratt v Howard.

If the bill does not contain a statutory definition of 'unsatisfactory performance', is it correct—just so I can confirm in my own mind here—that the content of that term is effectively determined by the minister through the performance standards?