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

You have tried, yes. I have to say, Senator Ludwig and Senator Johnston, that you did have a bit of a chest-beating exercise before this debate adjourned earlier today. I move Democrat amendment (9) on sheet 5327:

(9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 69 (line 14) to page 70 (line 5), omit subsections 15KI(1) to 15KI(3), substitute:

        (1)    A court or tribunal may grant a witness protection certificate provided:

             (a)    the court or tribunal has undertaken an independent assessment of the asserted need for witness anonymity and satisfied itself that the need is genuine and well-founded in the interests of:

                   (i)    national security; or

                  (ii)    the personal safety of the witness;

             (b)    all other less restrictive protective measures have been considered and found to be inadequate in the circumstances;

             (c)    that a court or tribunal may, only in exceptional circumstances, convict (or enter a judgement against a party) based either solely or to a decisive extent on the testimony of any anonymous witness.

Democrat amendment (9) is in relation to witness protection certificates. We seek to remove the ability of the chief officer to grant a witness protection certificate and to replace that with a court or tribunal. Again referring to my remarks in the second reading debate, obviously we see this as being a stronger mechanism and do not believe that there is a sufficient argument before us to support the changes proposed in the bill. I hope that the government and the Labor Party will consider the amendment before us.