Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Ludwig. I just want to make clear for the record, based on the minister’s comments earlier, that I did not intend—and I do not think others in the chamber intended—to have a go at the AFP when the minister was saying that, to be fair, they did not necessarily have policy approval et cetera. I am not having a go at the AFP here. In fact, as Senator Ludwig has suggested, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask the AFP about these proposed changes. I think we are having a go at the government in that we are dealing with this legislation and these new amendments only circulated this week. I think this issue of what looks to me like a broadening of the definition of ‘an intended recipient’ is relatively important.

This definitional change has the effect of allowing the AFP network to access emails. I think that these are relatively important matters, but the fact that it is being put forward as some kind of technical amendment bothers me. It bothers me more that people do not seem to have respect for the fact that the Senate committee met in good faith in a short time frame and did its job of scrutinising some of the changes in this legislation. We would have liked the opportunity to discuss these issues. I am certainly not having a go at the AFP or anyone else, for that matter, except government, with whom the policy responsibility lies. I do think that there are potential consequences—unintended or otherwise—of these amendments. We are talking about amendments (5) and (6), but I guess (6) in particular should have been thrashed out in that committee stage. On that basis, my inclination is not to support this and to ask for more information from government and relevant agencies.

Question agreed to.