Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Coming back to the response of the Attorney-General to my question regarding the INSLM, I would observe that you are quite right, Attorney-General: we 'Green people' did not have an opportunity to be part of the Liberal-Labor club on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security because, as everybody knows, it is a committee for which sole membership is available to the two old parties and none of the crossbenchers have an opportunity to be part of that—to examine the proposed legislation, to ask questions and to hear from the witnesses in person.

Coming back to the point that you made, Attorney-General, in relation to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's previous recommendations and reports, you were the person who used the word 'heed' in terms of how important it is to have a person in that role and how you will be moving to have someone in that role, but again you are trying to have things all ways. You are saying that it is important to have someone to heed their reports. I have just checked, because my initial reaction was that the word 'heed' is not a neutral term. It is not a term that means just 'take note of'. It has connotations of being guided by, taken to heart, to follow, attend to, listen to, pay due regard to. I do not know what your attitude will be to the new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor that you are proposing to appoint, but it would seem to me logical and reasonable that if someone is appointed to that position—a position that is acknowledged to be an extremely important position, a position which the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security indicated should be filled with absolute urgency—it would be sensible to heed their advice. In fact, it is interesting that you suggested that, because Liberal and Labor members of parliament on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security were able to come to a consensus on the recommendations for changes to this legislation, that that would somehow reflect the overwhelming view of the Australian public. I do not think you can logically conclude that, and certainly I think it is pretty clear from the submissions in relation to this bill that the bill, as it stands—even with the amendments that are being moved by the government today—will not reflect the overwhelming views of those organisations in Australia who are in a position to understand the implications on civil liberties and human rights in Australia by dint of their longstanding work and understanding of these issues and also their experience in seeing how these sorts of issues play out overseas.

I could come back to the fact that, much as you extol the virtues of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the government has not seen fit to pick up all the recommendations of that committee. If I could take you to recommendation 2, which refers to ensuring clarity around the terms 'supports and 'facilitates' in the provisions in the bill that extend the control order regime, certainly this is a term whose potential and vagueness has concern among people who have made submissions on the bill. Recommendation 2 was seeking to ensure clarity around the term 'supports and facilitates'. I note that the government has apparently accepted that recommendation, so, Attorney, can you please explain how these terms have been redefined in the redrafted explanatory memorandum?