Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The trouble with this is—Senator O'Sullivan, I will take the interjection again: history repeats. As Senator Paterson and Senator Cash have very clearly pointed out, this bill could bear with some improvement. This bill could use, again, the Labor Party taking the position of the opposition, like they did in the response to the NZYQ case. Mr Dutton presented them with six amendments to their unchangeably good bill that, surprisingly, they just rolled over and accepted, because clearly they agreed those amendments did actually improve their bill. If they didn't agree with them then they shouldn't have accepted them, so clearly they agreed those amendments improved their unimprovable bill.

Now we have a situation here where the Labor Party is basically saying that they have it all right, that they know how to do this when it is pretty demonstrable that in this area they don't get it right and they don't know how to deal with these complex legislative issues where we are dealing with the presence in Australia of people of a character that is unacceptable. Nobody on this side doubts that these are difficult areas to navigate. These are problematic legal decisions that have to be made and it is a complex area of law that has to be navigated correctly. But the fact is, when you do them, the first port of call in our own minds must always be the safety, security and cohesion of the Australian community. Where you have a situation like this, where you are putting legislation in front of parliament of the nature of this bill, and where you are dealing with, again, a High Court deciding a particular way, it is incumbent upon the government to actually do the best they can to put through the best legislation they can for the Australian people. Sadly, as has been demonstrated in the NZYQ case, as has been demonstrated with this particular bill, this Labor government has shown itself incapable of being able to do that.

My understanding is we will be moving significant amendments to this bill, as Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler have talked about. Those will make a real difference in strengthening the framework that is put through in this bill. Sadly, we have a government that has been mired in action, like a rabbit in the spotlight, unable to make a decision. When it decides it does have to act, it acts in a hasty ill-considered fashion that doesn't take into account all the possible decisiveness that could be put into the system. Again, contrast Prime Minister Albanese in this area—a Prime Minister who leaves Australia at a time when these important decisions were still before the parliament on the NZYQ case and at a time when very important issues of national security were being debated in this place, particularly in the other place, obviously, where the Prime Minister sits—with the decisiveness, the strength, the clarity of Peter Dutton as Leader of the Opposition. Remember, we were only given that NZYQ response legislation at 7.15 am and, within a very short period of time, the coalition team led by Peter Dutton presented the government with half a dozen amendments that strengthened their bill, that strengthened the apparently unchangeable toughest bill ever—a bill that didn't need amendment, that didn't need any further consideration.

Now we have a situation where we are back there again. I urge those opposite, those in government, to listen to those on the side who have a valuable contribution to make towards making this piece of legislation the best it can be. Sadly, the adults aren't in charge at the moment but listen to the adults in the room and please—