Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7692:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 16 and 17), omit "40 sitting days", substitute "4 sitting days".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 8 and 9), omit "40 sittings days", substitute "4 sitting days".

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 59 (lines 11 and 12), omit "40 sitting days", substitute "4 sitting days".

(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 61 (lines 29 and 30), omit "40 sitting days", substitute "4 sitting days".

These amendments obviously relate to the matters we have been discussing so far this morning. They go to the fact that the amendment that the parliament just unfortunately disposed of means that the Attorney-General can still make rather arbitrary decisions to attach new categories of metadata to the bill and refer the matter to the PJCIS, and then has to return to parliament within 40 days for ratification of this executive decision. What happens—it could be six or eight months or more after the Attorney's decision is first made depending on the time of year and the sitting schedule—if parliament does not ratify the decision? What would the obligation be? Presumably that lays a fairly heavy obligation on service providers in the meantime—money would need to be spent; systems would need to be set up depending on the volume of material that would need to be collected. What happens to that material if parliament does not ratify the decision? We will just have to take it as read that the money is wasted. Would there be an obligation on service providers to destroy the material they had collected between that executive decision being made and the parliament knocking it back?