George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, I am perplexed. I thought you were a libertarian. Yet the argument that we have just heard from you characterises you as the most rock-ribbed conservative; because if your argument were to be taken to its logical conclusion, we would never legislate for anything because we could never be completely certain about what might happen in the future. We would never reform the law and we would never have amended the Commonwealth Crimes Act since its first iteration in the first parliament 112 years ago.

The fact is that we, as legislators, have to make judgements about how to put the law in the best shape possible in various areas of public policy. When it comes to criminal law, it is possible to identify a gap—as there is here—in law enforcement techniques and capabilities and to say that because we have identified that gap, the law stands in need of reform not for a few years hence but because we have actually identified a gap that is not likely to go away.

I pose to you, Senator Leyonhjelm, once again, the rhetorical question: do you really think that we will ever see the day when some kinds of criminals—not just terrorists—will not operate in networks? Because I do not. If it is in the nature of criminal conduct that criminals, particularly sophisticated criminals, will operate in networks, then there is a rational argument for configuring our search warrant powers in such a way that the execution of the search warrant against one member of that network will not expose the operation so as to enable other members of that work to be tipped off to escape or to rid themselves evidentiary material that might be incriminating or would otherwise degrade the capability of the criminal investigation.

I think that is in the nature of sophisticated organised crime, including terrorist crime. Senator Leyonhjelm, if you think that those considerations are likely to disappear in four years' time, 10 years' time or ever, then I beg to disagree with you. This is a permanent reform to our law, the utility of which—with respect—is obvious.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7597 be agreed to.