Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

So that implies you can bring new facts to the table; that's the fundamental point of my question. You might recall I gave an example of a situation where perhaps a mistake had been made by ASIO. In order to initiate a TEO, we have got to have some sort of brief before the minister. My concern is that, at the next stage, the brief is not tested. You can shrug your shoulders, Minister, but there might be someone innocent caught up in this, and we need to be very respectful of the manner in which we treat citizens who may well have been subject to false intelligence. I don't mind if we take someone who is a terrorist and we deal with them as suggested by the act. My only concern here is that when ASIO presents information that is flawed in some way, it needs to be tested at some stage along the way. In the original jurisdiction of a court, that can be tested. You said that it's in the original jurisdiction but then you said it can't be appealed on a question of fact. So there's an inconsistency in your answer and I'm trying to get to that inconsistency. Can you please help me out, Minister?

I will move to section 30 of the bill. Section 30 does raise issues of constitutionality because it states:

If section 14 is not a valid law of the Commonwealth—

So there is some doubt as to whether it is constitutional, then—

(a) it is Parliament’s intention that this Act operate as if that 26 section had never been enacted; …

In effect, what that does is remove the review authority's role in this process. Is that the correct understanding of how that provision works?