Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I think at this stage of the debate it is probably opportune for the opposition to contribute to the committee stage, and perhaps allow Senator Brandis some opportunity to at least deal with the facts of the matter that Senator Ludlam is raising. However, from the opposition's point of view I can indicate that our response to this amendment will be not to support it. Indeed, for almost all of the amendments other than the government amendments the position will be pretty much consistent.

These are the reasons for this, in part already referred to by Senator Brandis with respect to the quite exhaustive process that this bill has been through, where many of these issues have been dealt with by the joint committee and weighed up in terms of the balance between both the powers that are required in our current national security circumstances and the adequate protections that need to prevail. Of course, if the government is convinced by additional matters such as those that Senator Leyonhjelm forecast earlier, we are in a position to reconsider what has been reached as a joint position arising out of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Let me remind the Senate that that process involved the public and key stakeholders providing input through the intelligence committee's inquiry process. From the Labor Party's point of view, we are confident that the measures provided to our security agencies by this bill are both necessary and appropriate. We are also confident that the intelligence committee has reviewed this bill thoroughly and had no additional amendments beyond those recommended by the committee—which, indeed, the government has adopted. That said though, we certainly have an open mind if there are further additional issues that come forward arising from broader consideration as now the crossbenchers have had the opportunity to raise these. Were the government of a mind to make further amendments, then we would consider those—as indeed we have with respect to the issues that have been raised around torture.

Perhaps for the committee's benefit I can also indicate at this stage that when we get to the amendments around torture that the opposition will not be proceeding with those. We have been assured—and I wait to hear from Senator Brandis—that when we get to the government amendments there will be additional commentary added to the explanatory memorandum to deal with the definition of what torture is, which was our concern in that matter.

But just before we reached 12.45, I would like to put on the record my concern at how this committee stage debate has been proceeding. Unfortunately, we just saw the process deteriorate to farce. Senator Macdonald moving Greens' amendments in committee stage amendments is something I have not seen in my time! Indeed, had they sought to, it was available to the government to proceed with their own amendments. I think we could get to the first one at about third if they were frustrated at dealing with what, from my point of view, were fairly reasonable questions during the committee stage consideration.

But I would say to the government that this process becomes more lengthy than necessary when amendments are circulated later than perhaps should have been the case, like when the minister tells the Senate that a matter raised by one of the senators is a public document and then we discover in subsequent debate that that public document is not yet public but will be made public later in the day, and when the minister ignores my suggestion that there is nothing to stop him, as minister, making available to the Senate the substance of his response to the scrutiny process. I think it is unfortunate that we have deteriorated the committee consideration in this way. I would encourage the government to ensure that when we return to the committee stage that we are in a position to deal with the issues that have been raised by the scrutiny committee and that we can move more promptly through the amendments.