Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commence where Senator Ludlam left off. The opposition did participate and thank you for your compliment. We did participate in a very robust and healthy way through the committee process. At the conclusion of the committee process we were satisfied with the amendments and we were satisfied with what the government is putting forward. Again, I will indicate that we will be opposing the three amendments (2), (3) and (4) that Senator Ludlam has just moved. He did not really address amendment (2) but if I could draw the attention of Senator Ludlam to page 7 of the bill which indicates at clause (h) that the committee has the power:

to inquire into any question in connection with its functions which is referred to it by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House upon that question.

So either chamber of the parliament itself, the Senate or the House of Representatives, by simple majority can instruct the committee to inquire into matters that would fall within the purview of the amendment (2) that Senator Ludlam has indicated his support for.

The other matter is in relation to the reporting of the reasons for the minister not disclosing his or her reasons for making a determination under subsection (4). The amendments that Senator Ludlam is putting forward do not really strengthen those provisions because in 5A under amendment (3) the minister still does not have to provide the information and so what would be gained from the clause I do not know. Also we must give the minister the freedom to not disclose any information even if it is within the limited form that Senator Ludlam is suggesting. Even in a limited form material that is disclosed by the minister to the committee may include enough material for identification of a person or a reason that would be not in the interests of the minister, the agency or indeed the country. I indicate that we will not be supporting those final three amendments, (2), (3) and (4). We do support this bill, Senator Ludlam, as I indicated earlier. We did have robust discussion, as you know because you were present with me during the stages of the legal and constitutional committee and also as we have discussed around the table at the Australian Crime Commission and Australian Commision for Law Enforcement Integrity PJCs. We believe that there has been enough robust debate, enough thorough examination, which you acknowledge, so therefore we are satisfied with the government’s bills and that is why we will be supporting them.