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

This also links to two further Democrat amendments—amendments (4) and (6). The minister is right. This does address some of the Democrats’ concerns and does come again from the valuable work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It does not address all of them, which is why we still prefer the version that we have in our amendments. The effect of the government’s amendment is to put in place a 12-month time limit. We think that is fairly long and we prefer a one-month time limit, which we have in our amendment (6). We appreciate that is not going to get the support of a majority in this chamber.

We also think that there is merit in requiring a declaration to specify a cessation time in writing. It is currently open for that to be done, but it is not required. If we modify the privacy requirements, protections and laws in a particular circumstance, it would be useful for the people involved to have an idea up front of how long those variations or exemptions are going to operate for, rather than it just being for a period of time that could potentially be negated by a revoking of that legislation. If the time is not specified at the start of the declaration, there is a risk that people who are acting under the modified privacy protection regime will not have a clear understanding of when those changes are going to cease to have effect—unless it is the full 12 months; but the government could come in at any stage part way through those 12 months and revoke that under the provisions. Then you would have to make sure that everybody was aware at that stage that the revocation had occurred. There is more risk there of people perhaps inadvertently being unaware that the changed circumstances—the modified privacy requirements—were no longer applying. That is why we think that the approach of the Democrats is better. Having said that, clearly the government’s amendment is an advance on what is in the bill.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (4) and (6) from sheet 5095 together:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 2 to 5), omit subsection 80L(1), substitute:

        (1)    An emergency declaration must:

             (a)    specify a cessation time; and

             (b)    be in writing and be signed by:

                   (i)    if the Prime Minister makes the declaration—the Prime Minister; or

                  (ii)    if the Minister makes the declaration—the Minister.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 15 to 22) omit section 80N, substitute:

80N When declarations cease to have effect

An emergency declaration ceases to have effect at the earlier of:

             (a)    the time of the cessation specified under paragraph 80L(1)(a); or

             (b)    the time at which the declaration is revoked; or

             (c)    the end of one month commencing when the declaration is made.

                   (i)    if the Prime Minister makes the declaration—the Prime Minister; or

                  (ii)    if the Minister makes the declaration—the Minister.

I basically just spoke to these amendments. Amendment (6) is more in conflict with what we just agreed to than amendment (4). Either way, clearly, the government prefers what it put forward. Because I love failing and being rejected so comprehensively and continually, I want another opportunity to lose!