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

SHOEBRIDGE () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2039 together:

(1) Schedule 9, item 4, page 25 (line 28), omit "limits, or would limit", substitute "significantly limits, or would significantly limit".

(2) Schedule 9, item 4, page 26 (line 9), omit "may", substitute "must".

(3) Schedule 9, item 4, page 26 (after line 10), after subsection 17B(3), insert:

Regular reviews of suspension

(3A) The Commissioner must regularly review a suspension that is in effect under this section for the purposes of determining whether the Commissioner is satisfied that paragraph (1)(a) or (b) no longer applies.

These are matters that I sought to address in questions to the government earlier in the committee stage. These amendments do three important things to ensure that witness protection is afforded to vulnerable witnesses and not permanently or inappropriately suspended by a decision of the AFP commissioner or their delegate.

The first amendment is about the threshold for suspension of protection and assistance. It's an amendment that was recommended by the Law Council of Australia, and it's one that had support in the Senate committee process. This amendment seeks to increase the threshold for the removal of witness protection to actions that 'significantly limit' rather than just 'limit' the commissioner's ability to provide protection and assistance. For the reasons that were articulated earlier in the committee process, we commend that. I also note that the report of the human rights committee inquiry into the bill directly proposes that as a potential amendment to be considered by the Senate.

The second proposed amendment changes the situation in which a suspension is revoked. It's kind of a double negative—revoking the suspension means returning the protection to the witness. It changes the situation so that it's not that the commissioner 'may' revoke the suspension when the reasons for suspension no longer apply. Instead, it requires the commissioner to revoke the suspension. Again we articulated the reasons for that earlier in the committee process and we had rather unhelpful responses from the government about operational flexibility, notwithstanding that a witness's life and the life of their loved ones may be put at risk.

The third amendment requires regular review of suspensions from witness protections to ensure that they remain appropriate. Again I note that the human rights committee and the Law Council encouraged the Senate to consider this as an amendment to ensure that witnesses are not on some effectively permanent suspension. While the government says, 'These are only suspensions,' the bill allows suspensions to be forever. Not requiring regular review of the suspensions, given it's often a life-and-death matter for the person under witness protection, we see as unprincipled. I commend the amendments to the house.