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

This is unsurprising, but Senator Nettle does understand the position that the Labor Party articulates when we see these matters that she occasionally runs up the flagpole. It is not and was not part of the original bill—Senator Nettle knows that. It certainly was not part of the matter that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs could deal with—Senator Nettle knows that. It is not related in that sense to this bill or the parts that fall within this bill—Senator Nettle also, I am sure, understands that. And I am sure that Senator Nettle also understands that the response that I am providing is the principal response of the Labor Party when matters that have not been through the usual process are run up.

This is a matter that Senator Nettle feels strongly about. I have usually been forthright in advising her that there are ways to bring these things before the parliament so she can consider them. There are private member’s bills and a range of other devices. As I understand it, she has also foreshadowed a committee. Be that as it may, Senator Nettle knows that there are a range of mechanisms to be used to appropriately deal with these things. I am not saying it is inappropriate or that she should not do it; I am simply saying that the Labor Party’s position is that we will not go to the substance or merit of the argument because it is a matter that has been tacked on to this bill and has not been through the committee process. It certainly has not been through our process in order to be able to deal with it in a proper and appropriate way. Senator Nettle knows that. I accept that occasionally she does bring these things on in this way. The response of the Labor Party should not surprise her. She has certainly heard me say this before. I can certainly recollect having provided the same view to her in the past.

On the other matter, the Labor Party has said that we think it does require an additional inquiry. We have said that publicly and we maintain that position. In terms of investigating the whole of the Dr Haneef matter, it should be dealt with in that way. I remind Senator Nettle—and I am sure she knows this—that the Australian Federal Police have an ongoing investigation into this matter. There is also an appeal of the 457 matter which is currently being proceeded with by Dr Haneef’s lawyers. This matter, as Senator Nettle knows, goes to the actual legislative regime itself and not so much to the Dr Haneef matter more broadly and so I will not argue that here. It is an inappropriate time to be doing that. I have set out the reasons we will not support this amendment to the bill.