David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9) on sheet 2060 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "(if any)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 65(1B), insert:

(1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b).

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit "(if any)".

(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 4, insert:

4A After subsection 65(2)

Insert:

(2A) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated or used under paragraph (2)(a) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of that paragraph.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 15), omit "(if any)".

(7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 27), after subsection 137(1B), insert:

(1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a).

(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 5), omit "(if any)".

(9) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 14), after subsection 137(3), insert:

(3A) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated or used under paragraph (3)(a) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of that paragraph.

These amendments, taken together, would amend the two substantive elements of this bill which currently provide a capacity for the Attorney-General to limit the sharing of the foreign intelligence information obtained under a warrant whereby the bill as drafted permits the Attorney-General to specify a purpose for which the information can be shared. But the drafting, very intentionally, in providing purpose, if any, identified by the Attorney-General, does not require the Attorney-General to so specify the purpose for which the information can be shared.

Given the government's position that there are critical safeguards in the bill, it's our view that that should be more than verbiage, it should be included in the actual drafting of the bill. These amendments taken together require the Attorney-General to put a purpose in and, to avoid doubt, provide that foreign intelligence information cannot be communicated if the Attorney-General does not approve in writing any purposes. That's the ultimate safeguard.

So while our amendment doesn't expressly provide for the Attorney-General to put a purpose in, what it does say is if there's no limiting purpose identified by the Attorney-General then the information cannot be shared. That, of course, is a powerful incentive for the Attorney to turn their mind to what an appropriate limitation should be, what the appropriate purposes should be. That is consistent with the rhetoric in support of the bill, and we move it for that purpose.

Minister, you say the government's position is that there are critical safeguards in the legislation. Is it true that the Attorney-General doesn't need to put a purpose in? Is that true? Would that be the effect of these amendments?