Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7297:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

It is a remarkable deflection of Senator Johnston's question that when asked how this befuddled situation will be clarified the minister then pointed the senator to an amendment hammered out with the Australian Greens. We are voting against this bill. Let me be clear: I am not happy with the form of the amendments or with the form of the bill, no matter what occurs in the committee stage. I appreciate that the minister has opened up into negotiations on good faith, and I think we have something here that is an improvement on where it was, but it is remarkable to hear the parliamentary secretary refer the opposition by way of improvement to what we have managed to put together. I am glad we did; I am still going to vote against this bill.

Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7297 provides a timetable which outlines a schedule as to when penalties would apply, so this goes towards Senator Johnston's question from before. The amendment more accurately represents the results of the roundtable discussion between Defence and the universities, and serves to make clearer what conduct the law prohibits, what conduct would constitute an offence and when penalties would begin to kick in for each. Senator Johnston is quite right to point out the alarming degree of ambiguity that was introduced in the initial drafting.

I am not necessarily convinced that this amendment completely cleans that up, by the way. This was the best we were able to achieve in the very limited time that we had. Because the government was present at the roundtable discussions—and I know this schedule more accurately represents what was decided—I understand and appreciate that the government is at least willing to support this amendment. It is worth acknowledging, because often you will see a government ploughing on, bloody-minded and not willing to acknowledge that a better way could have been found. This is one instance—and I suspect I have the coalition's support on this amendment as well—in which some ground was ceded and some negotiations were entered into. It is not perfect but it is better than it was, and I commend it to the Senate.