Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I do support this amendment. I think that it goes beyond simply the spirit in which it has been put, in terms of the minister describing it. This is a good amendment because it puts beyond any doubt whatsoever what would happen if any individual acting on behalf of the Commonwealth takes any action, even if it occurs outside Australia, that would contravene a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory. Jurisdictionally, it puts beyond doubt that, if there is no reach, that conduct should not breach what would ordinarily be the laws of Australia. The minister says it is unnecessary. There is an argument that this particular bill is unnecessary insofar as the Commonwealth is confident that it would win the High Court case. The government is taking, I think—for want of a better word—a belt and braces approach to absolutely guarantee that there is no ambiguity and no doubt in terms of the government's approach to the payment of offshore processing centres.

What Senator Leyonhjelm is doing that the government is rejecting is effectively the same belt and braces approach, saying, 'Let us make sure that there can be no illegality and that we do not countenance, in terms of the funding of these centres, any illegality,' notwithstanding that it may be lawful, for instance, in another country. So I think that this is a belt and braces amendment that is very worthy, and I congratulate Senator Leyonhjelm for moving this. It puts beyond doubt, in the same way that the government is intending to put beyond doubt, the funding of these offshore processing centres. That is my position in respect of this.

If I can go back, with your indulgence, Mr Acting Chair, I asked questions of the Attorney earlier in the debate, about five or six hours ago, in terms of the issue of legal costs because it is something I have raised with the minister's office. I appreciate how busy Minister Dutton's office has been in respect of this, and maybe they contacted us and I did not know about it. It seems that the goalposts have been shifted. I understand why. It is to remove any ambiguity. But insofar as legal costs have been incurred and insofar as those parties that have instituted this challenge could now be subject to quite significant cost orders against them, what is the attitude of the Commonwealth in respect of that? Will they now be pursuing, with the inevitable defeat of any action, those parties that have issued proceedings to date, which now, it seems, will have absolutely no chance of succeeding in the High Court once this bill is passed?