Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I want to put on the record the Democrats’ strong support for these amendments. I agree with virtually all that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray have said. Perhaps the only bit on which I would differ is this. Senator Ray said that all of these very serious, very strong powers—as he rightly described them—are necessary in the current age, but of course the Democrats do not believe that these powers are necessary. That is why we did not support the initial legislation when it was passed by this Senate, although I do acknowledge the very significant improvements that were made to the historically bad, as Senator Ray described it, legislation that was initially put forward. It is a good reminder to this chamber, when considering this amendment, of the very significant value of actually looking at legislation. Even though the Democrats did not support the final product, we did support the significant improvements that were made to the initial product.

It is a reminder of what has been lost and what will continue to be lost if government senators do not think seriously about the opportunities for improvement with amendments such as these. This is a very simple but very important improvement, an improvement in the legislation itself. It is also an important mechanism to enable the government and the parliament to make necessary improvements in five or six years time rather than in 10 or 11 years time. So even though the Democrats do not support extending the existing powers, because we did not support the initial legislation—our position is consistent with regard to that—we still certainly believe that, if they are to be there, they should be reviewed sooner. Indeed I suggest that five or 5½ years is still a pretty fair distance away for such very major powers.

I imagine the committee, which Senator Ray is a member of, landed at 5½ years as some sort of middle ground—he explained the reasons in his earlier contribution. It is a reasonable position which even the most gung-ho member of the government should be able to comfortably support. It was not an ambit claim; it was not something that pushed things to the outer limit of what should be expected. It was a very moderate recommendation supported by all members of the committee. For those reasons it is particularly appalling and galling that the government rejected it for such flimsy reasons. It would be equally appalling and galling if not a single member of the coalition in the Senate acknowledged that and voted in support of this very moderate amendment.

I think it was in Senator Ludwig’s initial contribution, possibly way back in the second reading debate, where he gave examples of other sunset clauses in various types of legislation. If I remember rightly he said there is a similar sort of sunset clause in the British legislation, which is much shorter again—a year springs to mind. I hope I am not misquoting him on that.