Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I draw Senator Lundy's attention to the paragraphs in the Houston review which talk about Malaysia, which talk about how they were not confident that the arrangements that were in place could deliver any of the safeguards which the government had claimed were there. It is all here in the Houston report, making it very clear:

… the operational aspects underpinning the current provisions in the Arrangement need to be specified in greater detail as part of a broader revision to enhance the protections for transferees that it aims to provide.

So let us not pretend that there was anything there.

But the point I was making was in relation to a sunset clause, because that is specifically the amendment we have here before the committee tonight. The government thought in principle and in reality that it was reasonable to put in a sunset clause on Malaysia. What I am asking you is, if it was reasonable and sensible to put in a sunset clause on that bill, why you would not put a sunset clause on this one. It is the principle of whether or not you think that the bill should end that I am asking about. On one occasion you did; on this one you did not. I just want an explanation as to why it was good enough before and it is not good enough now. It is not about the compromises that you have made; it is about the issue of why a sunset clause was reasonable before and why it is not reasonable now.