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

As I understand it, the government amendments have been moved en bloc. I will speak to them in that way. So that we can at least have a debate on some of the issues with regard to the amendments to this bill, given that the government has now moved en bloc its amendments, I can indicate that our amendments (1), (6) and (8) to (12) will no longer be required to be moved. We will still move amendments (2) to (4), and (5). We will not move amendment (7).

In terms of the amendments moved by the government, the Labor Party do thank the government for moving to address the Senate committee recommendations and ensuring that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (National Investigative Powers and Witness Protection) Bill 2006 [2007] has been through reasonable scrutiny in this place. What I think has been lost in the debate on this particular bill is that while there has been some commentary in respect of one part of it—and I will come back to that particular part—the majority of the bill is a tidy-up exercise in addition to an exercise in ensuring that the legislation is up to date and that there is consistency across jurisdictions. That is the greatest import of this bill. It is, as we said in the second reading debate, an omnibus bill that achieves that process.

Turning to the individual amendments moved by the government, amendments (1) to (3) contain various items. I understand there is a sheet which deals with matters which the government proposes by way of amendment. It would be helpful to have that; it was tabled earlier today. There may not have been an opportunity to photocopy it and provide it to the opposition at this point in time, but I make no complaint about that. When we look at the position that the government has outlined, we see that recommendation 1—which is accepted to the extent that, although the government indicates that it departs from the national model legislation developed by the joint working group of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Australasian Police Ministers Council—is accepted, as it would be rare that a controlled operation would be desirable in circumstances where no suspected offence with a maximum penalty of at least three years was involved. The Labor Party thanks the government for that amendment.

The government has indicated that recommendation 2 has been accepted in part. Recommendation 3 is not accepted, but the alternative recommendation is accepted in part. As fully outlined, recommendation 4 is similarly accepted. I am not sure whether the minister outlined in his statement before parliament today the additional part, which may or may not be presently to hand, as to which amendments go to which recommendations. If he did not, it would be helpful. If the minister is in a position to do that, it might help to facilitate the process. I will assume that the minister does have that information or that his advisers can provide it. That would allow us, when we look at the various amendments, to compare them to the recommendations of the committee and examine the position that the government has indicated on the response to the recommendations of the Senate standing committee.

We note that recommendation 6 is not accepted. The committee recommended that the federal government limit the offences in relation to which delayed notification search warrants may be issued for offences involving terrorism, organised crime, death or serious injury with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is with disappointment that the Labor Party see that the government has not circumscribed that amendment in terms of recommendation 6 of the Senate committee. We differ with the justification. We are more broadly in agreement that the power should exist. We just differ over when it should be available—unlike the Democrats and Greens in respect of this debate. Recommendation 10 and the remaining recommendations have all been either accepted or accepted in part.

I think that demonstrates the strength of the committee. I usually take the opportunity of thanking both the secretariat and the chair of the relevant committee—in this case, it is the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—for ensuring that there was a joint response from the opposition and the coalition senators, because the strength of the committee process is demonstrated by the ability to obtain recommendations and amendments that accord with those recommendations from the government. Therefore, the committee deserves recognition for that work.

If the government could also indicate which amendments were moved which are not part of the recommendations and which are also not procedural in nature, it would be helpful. I do not expect those which are of a procedural nature to be advised on but, for those which are of a substantive nature, it would be helpful to understand which government amendments have been moved in that way. Of course, this happens when you move them en bloc. We have not had the ability, other than today, to examine them. For the record, what usually occurred with the previous minister was that at some point we would have that type of exercise so that forearmed would be forewarned and so that we could confine the debate in this chamber to the issues which we disputed or disagreed on. Rather than have a wide-ranging debate in the committee stage, we could confine it to the matters which we disagreed on.

It does seem that at least we disagree in respect of confining the delayed notification warrant. On that matter, if I could, I would ask that to be taken out of the bloc because we do not want to agree with the government on that amendment but rather we want to divide on it. We would oppose it and prefer Labor’s amendment in respect of that matter. I think that is reflected in the running sheet. It seems that government amendment (11) is in conflict with opposition amendment (8).

As I said earlier, we will not be moving opposition amendments (1), (6) and (8) to (12), and government amendment (8) would be withdrawn. You have made no change to the delayed notification warrant amendment. If that is right, by the look of it it falls to a position where we can agree with all of those amendments and then continue with our preferred position in respect of opposition amendments (2) to (4), (5) and (7)—if that is helpful.