Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I do not want to hold up this part of the committee stage. I do have serious concerns about some aspects of the increased penalties in this legislation. I take the Attorney's point about the general judicial discretion in determining penalties, in determining a sentence, for instance. But I think sometimes having something drawn to the attention of the judiciary—as is done quite often particularly by state governments on so-called law and order matters—and directing the judiciary to certain matters that should be of particular emphasis or importance, particularly in respect of the public interest in such matters, would be a good thing and would be an added safeguard. Depending on how the committee stage goes, I hope that the government can at least seriously consider that particular amendment.

The logical extension of what the Attorney is saying is that if the court already has the discretion to take these matters into account then what harm is done if we elevate that concern about public interest within the legislation? It is a remark I address also to the opposition—if they are so minded to look at that. All I ask is that it be considered in the course of this debate because I think it would provide some comfort to those who were concerned about any overreach in these matters. Having said that, I am grateful for the Attorney's answers.

Finally, notwithstanding that the Witness K matter is before the court, I think we can safely discuss circumstances similar to Witness K or a similar hypothetical example in the context of considering how this law would apply in increased penalties and in disclosure. I will not take it any further than that at this stage. Witness K is a real-life example. Whilst we cannot comment on what the court will do, we can, I think, comment on allegations and the sets of circumstances that may present themselves again at some time in the future in respect of some of these operational matters.