Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Hansard source

We will certainly take advantage of the avenues available in the Senate to try to get to some further detail. Of course, I accept there are matters that would be the subject of trade, where it is necessary to have a background check. That is defined not in the existence of the transaction but in what is being transacted and what its purpose might be. I would have thought that is covered in other areas. For example, the same clause makes provision for the purposes of external affairs—for that to be a reason for a check—for purposes related to Australia’s national security or defence, or for a national emergency. They are the reasons we have good cause to have intrusive checks on people who are individuals living freely in Australia as citizens. They are the reasons we do it. It is not because they are trading but because the nature of their trading is such that it affects a question of national security, defence, a national emergency, international agreements or international aspects—obligations we may have. It is not the trading per se. Therein lies the concern we have in the way this bill is drafted. I think this bill could and should have been drafted to properly address matters of concern on which we all agree, without casting the net so widely. It is a convenient way to draft it. It makes it easy for the administration in the future, in a sense. It makes it easy for the government, in a sense, in the future, because they can pretty well use these powers to go wherever they want, but that is not, I think, what the parliament or the people of Australia would prefer. I think the example the Attorney gave in answer to my question highlights exactly the problem, and we will see whether there is a better and more complete answer or some other remedy that the Senate legislative committee is able to identify.

Bill agreed to.

See this speech in context