Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take that interjection from Senator Shoebridge. There are now government amendments that have arisen from that scrutiny process. So, whilst I'm not asking Senator Brown to give a mea culpa in terms of this process, I sincerely hope that the government reflects on this situation.

Just taking on Senator Shoebridge's point in relation to government amendments, I'll quote from the report, which I contributed to through my membership as the deputy chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The 'committee view' in relation to this bill in paragraph 1.49 states:

In general, submitters supported the operational efficiencies that the bill would create and in particular, the Law Council suggested areas in which the bill could be further improved. The committee urges the Australian government—and where relevant AUSTRAC—to take these suggestions into consideration prior to the bill being debated in the Senate.

That's the result of the review by the committee which both Senator Shoebridge and I sit on. Paragraph 1.50 states:

The committee expresses concern with the bill's provision for procedural fairness, as raised by the Selection of Bills Committee and the Law Council, in relation to the ITP Act. The committee agrees that the primary legislation should set out a non-exclusive list of considerations to which the Attorney-General must have regard …

Paragraph 1.51 states:

The committee acknowledges the advice from the AGD—

and this takes on Senator Shoebridge's point—

that it will be proposing amendments to the bill to take into account many of the concerns identified by parliamentary comments.

I'll read that again. It states:

The committee acknowledges the advice from the AGD that it will be proposing amendments to the bill to take into account many of the concerns identified by parliamentary comments. The committee welcomes this advice, which will improve the bill.

That should be how this place works. Bills, specifically of this nature dealing with criminal law, should in the usual and ordinary course be referred to the relevant committee so that it can discharge its scrutiny function.

I note that Senator Shoebridge noted that the government is proposing amendments to this bill. I do hope there is some learning in relation to this on the government side. When committees in this place scrutinise legislation they typically provide amendments that will enhance, improve and deal with unintended consequences contained in bills. I do hope that this process causes some reflection on the part of the government.