Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I listened to Senator Nettle’s motivation with care. Of course, she picks up a generalised fear that has been expressed from all sides—and I do not mean all political sides but from all sides of the community, in business and in politics—of the dangers of this legislation drawing into its ambit, often in an unintended sense, people who otherwise should not be caught up in it and would be found subsequently to have acted honourably. It is one of the reasons we argue strongly for a very strong oversight regime and a very strong review regime—to make sure that those unintended consequences are followed through.

However, returning to the amendment specifically, there are two issues at hand. Firstly, this legislation should be consistent with other legislation, and that is an important consideration. The second issue is whether the narrowing of the definition is appropriate. As outlined by the shadow minister, it does have the effect of essentially wiping out the four categories and replacing them with just one, an offence under division 103 of the Criminal Code. The four categories at present are:

• (a) an offence against section 102.6 or Division 103 of the Criminal Code; or
• (b) an offence against section 20 or 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945; or
• (c) an offence against a law of a State or Territory that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
• (d) an offence against a law of a foreign country or a part of a foreign country that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

I am sympathetic to the broad worries that Senator Nettle expresses but I do not think, on balance, that the solution the Greens have found is an adequate one; it limits the definition too starkly. But it does draw our attention again to the fact that, if the legislation passes as is—which it is going to do as the government has the numbers—the government must ensure that there is an adequate oversight regime to ensure unintended consequences do not manifest themselves. I hope that the minister, in consideration of the next tranche of, shall we call them, technical amendments, might give some further thought to that matter. It is, in my view, something which worries parliamentarians from all sides of politics and it needs to be addressed.