Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5162:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 7 to 11), omit the definition of Royal Commission record, substitute:

Royal Commission record means a record that:

             (a)    was produced by, given to or obtained by the Commission known as A Commission of Inquiry into certain Australian Companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme; and

             (b)    is no longer required for the purposes of the Commission mentioned in paragraph (a);

Royal Commission record means a record that:

These amendments have been somewhat hastily thrown together for the Royal Commissions Amendment (Records) Bill 2006, a bill which has been hastily introduced. They are designed to quarantine this bill, which amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902, to the Cole commission. Without any sense of disrespect, I do not accept the assurance from the minister with respect to past royal commissions, because independent law enforcement agencies, as far as I can establish, would indeed be able to use this amending bill to open up the records of past royal commissions. I cannot see how a ministerial assurance would prevent the application of the law. And, if the minister in charge of this particular area of the law were to attempt to interfere with a law enforcement agency on that basis, I can see circumstances where the law enforcement agency could approach the courts to have any such decision overturned. That needs to be clarified, so what we have attempted to do is to ensure that the matter is quarantined.

I think the opposition is being unwise in this case. As I said earlier, in my second reading debate remarks, Senator Ludwig has, as the shadow minister, a reputation of being very particular and careful on legislative matters. I think we would have been better off quarantining this bill to the Cole commission and making it prospective rather than retrospective. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are right, Senator Murray: it would have been preferable to quarantine it to the Cole commission and then make it in futuro. We will support your amendments. One of the early matters we considered was limiting the ambit of the bill to the Cole commission; it was one of the options that we looked at. I think we did in fact urge the government to take that path. In the end, the government were not persuaded to adopt that path. They have the fortunate position of having the numbers in this place. If they did not have the numbers in this place then we may have perhaps been able to effect a more particular outcome.

In the end, we took note of the particular numbers in this place and were—perhaps content is not the word—at least provided with some assurance that the government would take a particular course in respect of the bill by adopting a process of limiting both the purposes and custodians of the bill to law enforcement agencies. Although not an ideal outcome, in the circumstances I think it at least narrows the stretch of the application of the bill.

Theoretically, though, we believe that what you have proposed would have been a better approach. It is an approach that originally we also urged as being one manner of addressing the issue. But, ultimately, we were faced with a very short time frame to come to a decision. We are satisfied with the government’s position but, in the spirit of still having a try, we are happy to support your amendments.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course the government does not support these amendments. The bill intentionally applies to not only the Cole inquiry’s records but also the records of all commissions under the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

The government considers that it is sensible to provide, as this bill does, a framework in which a transfer of relevant records can occur much more quickly by virtue of regulations, rather than needing a bill each time it is required. The government amended this bill in the other place to limit the persons to whom the records may be given and the purposes for which they might be used and accessed—essentially for law enforcement purposes. It may be that, at some future time, transfer may be required urgently at a time when parliament is in recess, and this bill enables that. Regulations to facilitate early access to relevant records by law enforcement bodies would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the usual disallowance provisions. I can only reiterate the assurance that I gave previously, but the government remains opposed to the Democrat amendments.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.