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

Briefly, the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendments that Senator Xenophon has brought forward for the simple reason that anything which improves the operation of the Public Interest Advocate is, we think, a profoundly good idea. Senator Brandis took enormous umbrage a short time ago at my admittedly loose language when I pointed out that the government relatively frequently 'instruct'—which was the word I used—the Federal Police to investigate the source of various leaks. They do not instruct; you are quite right, Senator Brandis. But you regularly refer matters to the Federal Police and then they get to choose. One example that is pretty close to my heart, and Senator Hanson-Young addressed it in her second reading contribution, is that at least eight times which we are aware of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection referred matters that appeared in TheGuardian and TheWest Australian newspapers about sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, violence, self-harm, attempted suicides, rape and catastrophic mistreatment of human beings in our care. Instead of investigating the issues that have been raised in the public interest by these publications, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection—at least eight times that we are aware of—has asked the Federal Police to try and find out who is talking. That is the kind of repellent behaviour that provides part of the reason why we are supporting Senator Xenophon's amendment.

It is my understanding that the way the public interest monitors in Queensland and Victoria work is that they are contradictors. They are not there to decide whether or not a particular warrant is in the public interest; they are actually there to push back and argue for the narrowing of warrants—for example, to circumscribe the number of people, the number of devices or whatever it is. They are there to improve the quality, and evidence that we took in our telecommunications interception inquiry, as I mentioned before, indicated that processes improved in Victoria and Queensland as a result. My question to Senator Brandis is: would it be your expectation, on your reading of the way that the government has drafted these amendments, that the Public Interest Advocate, in performing the role that you have established, would be arguing against referrals by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, or could we expect that those investigations by the Federal Police would continue?