David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I cannot help but remind the Attorney-General that we have dealt with criminals at a Commonwealth level now without delayed notification warrants since we have had Commonwealth criminal law. The trouble I have with this provision is not that delayed notification warrants might be needed under the current circumstances; I do not find the argument that we anticipate that it these will be needed for the indefinite future at all compelling. If it is anticipated that there will be an need for them in four years' time, they can be re-enacted.

If it is felt that preventative detention orders and control orders are serving a useful purpose—and the evidence suggests so far that that is not the case, but perhaps they will be shown to be serving a useful purpose—then they will also have to be re-enacted. There is nothing wrong with legislation that lapses unless it is felt that it is serving a useful purpose and therefore is justified and maintained. The assumption that we know what will be the circumstances relating to terrorism, or whatever else the law is intended to apply to, in years ahead cannot be made today. We do not know.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue on the one hand that delayed notification warrants can be justified. I am really not disagreeing with that, although I certainly will vote against the bill itself—but for other reasons. But to suggest that we can anticipate that this is going to be required indefinitely into the future is illogical. I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider.