Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

If it gives me an answer, I am happy to use ‘government’. That would be helpful. As I have indicated, the 1978 Nagel report also talked about article 3. I did want to use that, but I am not going have time now. I might have time to use that shortly. More broadly, if you look at the development, the government are now perhaps placed in the UK position. Quite rightly, you do not have article 3 of the protocol to consider, but you do have article 25 of the ICCPR. It would be helpful to understand how you would not offend article 25 of the ICCPR, given the matters that I have just addressed more broadly, and why it would not be found to be a breach of article 25 of the ICCPR. I have highlighted a couple of cases where not only could it be an inconsistent application but also the legitimate objective is unclear and whether it is proportionate to the outcome. The simple answer may be that you have just followed the US and copied. Choose your answer.