Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support these amendments for the reasons that the shadow Attorney-General has put forward. They're good reasons. I'm sure the shadow Attorney-General was putting them forward as a good-faith attempt to address a real problem with the bill. In doing so, the amendments nail the problem with the bill and the reason it shouldn't pass. So, while I support these amendments, I suggest to the House that if the amendments fail, the bill itself should be defeated.

What the amendments seek to do is ensure that we don't move to a situation where a minister has unfettered power and is able to issue warrants that are not supervised by an issuing authority. That would be a huge, huge step. I think it speaks volumes that the minister hasn't bothered to respond to the amendments and explain why it is that all of a sudden we should remove the role of a judge or an issuing authority. He can't bring himself to make a contribution on that front. These amendments highlight that the bill is, in effect, a big power grab to entrench in ministers powers to do things that would otherwise be unlawful—namely, bring someone in for questioning, hold them, seize them, without having to go to a judge to seek permission.

I respect the shadow Attorney-General and I respect the reasons for putting the amendments forward, but I would suggest that in putting them forward he's put his finger on one of the big problems with the bill. If these amendments fail, the bill itself should be opposed.

See this speech in context