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

I seek leave to make a short statement in this debate. I do not believe there are any other speakers left.

Leave granted.

I rise to talk not about the specifics of the bill but about the process, to support the comments of non-government colleagues and also to offer a compromise in this debate. Honourable senators would be aware of the Selection of Bills Committee proposals that were volunteered by the Australian Democrats and I understand that, as of today, the Labor Party has put forward a reference proposal for selection of bills and has now foreshadowed that with a change to a 12 June reporting date. I think that is preferable for all of us on the non-government side. But, having said that, given how desperate we on this side of the chamber are to debate in some detail these complex technical, technological, political and legal bills—65 pages on the access card were tabled yesterday—would the government even consider the dates that were put forward by the Australian Democrats in the selection of bills process? That proposal was for hearings to begin in the weeks beginning 5 March or 12 March, with a reporting date of 26 March or indeed 20 March, which was the date we were prepared to put forward directly to the minister and today in the chamber.

I am aware that these access card bills, in the form of an exploratory draft, have been around for some time. I do not know about you, but I cuddled up with mine over the summer holidays and read it, along with Andrew McGahan’s Underground and Anna Funder’s Stasiland just to get me in the mood. I think that there is a strong argument for an inquiry into these bills, even given that there has been an exposure draft, and especially given that there is a changed piece of legislation, which was tabled in the House of Reps—not the Senate; the House of Reps—yesterday. So will the government even consider a compromise, given the desperation on the non-government side about not just the complex nature of this legislation but the fact that it is a large volume of legislation which in the case of the access card potentially represents the greatest single privacy intrusion into the lives of the Australian people ever?

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.