Scott Morrison makes dramatic bid to stop medical transfers plan

The Morrison government has made a stunning last-minute political play to throw out the Kerryn Phelps-inspired plan to speed up the medical transfers of boat people.

• Kerryn Phelps’ medical transfers plan
• Medivac transfers will cost $1.4b
• Asylum seekers exploiting medical transfers

The Morrison government has made a stunning last-minute political play to throw out the Kerryn Phelps-inspired plan to speed up the medical transfers of boat people.

Using a technical argument on parliamentary practice, the Government has argued the Senate was not in fact allowed to pass laws such as the proposal which it signed off on last year because it would cost money.

The Morrison government has used a technical argument.

Legal advice from the Solicitor General has been tabled in parliament by the speaker which shows that any amendments that increase the expenditure are unconstitutional.

The government last week released advice which found the changes which would give any two doctors the power to sign off on medical transfers from Nauru and Manus Island would cost $466.2 million in the next two years alone.

Under the Constitution the Senate is banned from making changes to legislation that would create spending on government services above and beyond that approved when the Appropriations Bill passes parliament.

Independent Member for Wentworth Kerryn Phelps. Picture: AAP

The guide book for the House of Representatives explains the purpose of this is to “avoid what is known as ‘tacking’ on to a bill other measures” which is exactly what happened in the final day of parliament last year when Labor supported the Greens and crossbench to hijack a piece of government legislation.

Government sources believe this means the House cannot pass the bill. Labor, however, was still digesting the advice but initial reactions were that it could still pass.

The advice states that the decision on whether it was unconstitutional could not be answered in this case by the High Court and that it was ultimately a decision for the parliament which raises further questions about the practical consequences.

Questions have also been raised as to the whether the Governor-General would sign off on the bill, which has to happen before changes made in parliament become law, given the Solicitor-General advice.