Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear some members on the other side of this chamber saying that, even though I raise my scepticism, I still vote for some legislation. That is resolutely true. I do—and so do you—because we all know that we in this place are the custodians of preserving and conserving the nation and its security. Belittling and demeaning it to the sound bites of the shadow Attorney-General doesn't just cheapen him, though it does; it cheapens the custodianship that we hold on behalf of the people of this great nation.

The purpose of this legislation is actually relatively straightforward. The legislation has been reviewed, recommendations have been made by a committee, those recommendations have been accepted by the government, and we are reviewing the legislation for amendment. But, to do so, we are taking prudent and responsible steps, where ASIO and IGIS, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, are engaging with stakeholders and partners to make sure we get it right.

One of the points made by the shadow Attorney-General, amongst others, is that we've got to get this stuff right, and he's right on that; we do. But his solution is to fast-forward the process, to speed it up, to come out with a resolution before we have clarity and, in the process, to compromise the integrity of the legislation that this nation so desperately needs. And he then belittles and cheapens it with an amendment, the objective of which seems largely driven by his personal frustration that he is sitting on that side of the chamber and not this one. That's it—nine months and personal vendettas. So you can understand why so many people on this side of the chamber treat his long and verbose speeches about his own self-indulgence with such contempt.

This legislation has one purpose, which is to make sure that our agencies have the power they need, so that, as soon as we're in a position to be able to replace it with improved legislation that reflects the concerns of our agencies, of the parliament and its committees, we can do so without compromising national security. I would have thought that's a pretty basic expectation of legislation in this place. I would have thought that we could come to some sort of common agreement that that is in the best interests of our country. I would have thought that, for an opposition, that would have been the least they would expect of a government—not to blindly support it all but to recognise that there is a power in place and that, until the legislation has been developed and prudently amended, it would support the legislation in its place instead of what it has done.

Let's be clear: in the speech of the shadow Attorney­General, and I'm quite sure of those who will follow him, they have revealed their cards, and that is their choice. The people of Australia will assess it and judge it prudently and I've no doubt dismiss it, because, when it comes down to the importance of making sure this nation is safe, they always seem to gravitate their eyes to the side of the coalition rather than the cheap stunts of our Labor opponents.

See this speech in context