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

I will just indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. They are substantially similar—maybe even identical—to amendments that we have further down the running sheet. We would also in one of my forthcoming amendments—which I could maybe just speak to really briefly now—propose that, similarly, to the way we wanted to handle the definition of metadata and the definition of information that is caught within the scope of the bill, we fundamentally disagree with this process of doing it by regulation, this very long tail of time for the PJCIS to make up its mind followed by eventual parliamentary ratification.

In the event that these amendments of Senator Leyonhjelm's fail—and you never know your luck in a big city—and Senator Leyonhjelm has indicated constraining the definitions then we would be proposing that, in the instance that the government wanted to expand the service providers caught by the bill, it would do what governments normally do and bring such a decision to parliament. We would be supporting these amendments, and I am just foreshadowing that we have some similar to come.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7661 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Ludlam, that would also dispose of your amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7669.

Those amendments took a long time to draft. I would just like to put a very quick question to the Attorney before we move through: what criteria will the government apply for adding a service provider to the scope of the bill?