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

I am happy to accept that and indeed withdraw the allegation against the minister if, as he said, he was indeed in deep conversation with the whip. But maybe he could stop interjecting or talking while other members of the Senate are speaking. There are some learned legal minds on that front bench—I can see one standing up right now, and that is meant as a compliment. I notice that he took it, too! There are minds on that front bench, as indeed there are on the other side, who will recognise that we are dealing with some complex issues that have wide-ranging obligations.

I understand that the government will put forward a case of urgency in relation to this bill. Then let us have some time to debate it—not just on the floor of this chamber during this cut-off debate and not just in the committee stage of the bill. Give us some time to consult with the legal brains out there, which my office has been doing hurriedly and specifically in dealing with the case that has brought about this so-called ‘necessary’ and ‘urgent’ change of law. I would like to know what other organisations, like the Law Council, and other learned and community minds think about this legislation. Anyone in this place who has dealt with Crime Commission law or the act that precedes it or who has been on committees like the NCA committee—I was for a period—will understand that even the basis of those acts have some fairly vexed and controversial principles in them, and this deals with one of those very sections, which is quite concerning. I appeal to the Senate, and I am happy to move an amendment to have the bill considered later this week:

At the end of the motion, add:

; and (c)   the bill not be further considered until Thursday, 20 September 2007.

I am happy to move that on behalf of the Australian Democrats. We are not seeking to delay this process unnecessarily. We are not seeking to prevent the legislation being debated. I understand that we need to deal with the cut-off provision motion, but I appeal to senators on all sides, in the interests of scrutiny and fair debate and to ensure that this legislation is looked at properly, that we be given the opportunity to consult with relevant authorities, community groups and legal avenues. Will you consider that this legislation be delayed to a later hour of not this day but another day, because it is third on the Notice Paper for today, third on the red. That is unacceptable given that we have just had briefings and were informed less than 24 hours ago of this piece of legislation? I appeal to my colleagues and I am happy to take your advice.