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

I'm yet to understand why you would permit the AFP commissioner, or their delegate to continue, on a discretionary basis, to suspend witness protection to a vulnerable witness, and often to their family, when the rationale for the initial suspension has been removed. It's impossible to understand from the government's responses why on earth you're allowing the AFP commissioner to leave vulnerable witnesses without that protection when the original rationale for the suspension has been removed. I could ask again, but I'll probably get another one of those non sequiturs in response. I'll just leave my disappointment on the record.

I note, for the government, that if you think this is a good decision—to leave open the discretion and not to provide witness protection in these circumstances—then you take on board the future risk to witnesses who were denied protection as a result of this decision by the government today. You take on board those risks. Remember that the only reason people are put into witness protection in the first place is because there's a significant risk to the life of them or their family and their loved ones. Not reinstating that protection when the reason for suspension has been removed seems to be bloody-mindedness—nothing short of bloody-mindedness.

Could I ask the government why they also rejected the proposal from the Law Council to have regular reviews of suspensions of protection and assistance? What possible basis is there not to require a regular review of suspension, given that we're talking about a life-and-death matter?