Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(a)

the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, and for related purposes [Australian Crime Commission Amendment Bill 2007]; and

(b)

the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly to this motion, particularly part (b). I am obviously not objecting to the Manager of Government Business introducing a bill; he can introduce whatever bill he likes, but part (b) is to exempt the legislation from the cut-off order so that it can be considered during this period of sittings, which, as we have just been debating, means considering it during this week. It is amongst the list of 30 bills that was covered by the previous motion. I want to speak to it as a single motion just to reinforce the point that I was making previously.

I am not passing comment on whether the legislation is a good bill or a bad bill, not least because I have not seen it yet; it has not been introduced. I have just been given a 30-second run-down by my colleague Senator Stott Despoja about what may or may not be in the legislation and some of the issues that may or may not be raised. Obviously, being the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Bill 2007, it deals with criminal law. Some important issues of due process could be involved. However completely sure the government are that they are doing the right thing—that it is fabulous stuff and that it is completely necessary to introduce a bill and exempt it from the cut-off forthwith so that it has to be debated in the space of a couple of days—this legislation contains issues that could well require some degree of more careful consideration, if only to ensure that the stated policy intent is actually what will occur and that there are no unintended consequences.

That is the aspect of pushing things through this chamber that is often not given the focus it deserves. It is not just about those of us in the opposition parties saying, ‘We don’t like this bill being rushed through because we don’t like this bill or the policy behind it.’ Sure, that happens from time to time. Often we fully agree with the stated intent, but we are not sure whether what is being put forward will achieve those ends. Even more frequently, we are concerned that, alongside achieving those ends, there may be some other unintended consequences because it has not been thought through enough, we have not had enough time to examine it and we particularly have not had enough time to hear from people in the community with expertise. All knowledge and wisdom does not reside in this Senate chamber, although we all may talk like it does from time to time. There are many people in the community who have expertise in a range of areas, including those covered by this legislation. To not allow ourselves the opportunity to properly hear from those people in order to ensure that the public—the people who we are meant to be doing all this for—are not inadvertently negatively affected by what we are putting through is a dangerous process to follow for good public policy. I raise that concern on behalf of the Democrats.

The cut-off itself is a creation of the Democrats and of my predecessor from Queensland, Senator Michael Macklin, back in the 1980s. It was agreed to back then by the Liberal opposition as a good idea and as a bit of a safeguard against this sort of thing happening unless good enough reasons are put forward as to why it is desirable. Oftentimes good enough reasons are put forward. Maybe there are good reasons on this occasion and the minister thought they were so overpoweringly obvious that he did not need to outline them, but I think it would be beneficial for those reasons to be outlined before the Senate gives that open-ended tick, even though I accept that, in effect, we already have with the previous motion being passed.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to endorse the comments of the Democrats Whip, Senator Bartlett, in relation to this debate. There are a couple of key issues here. It is not only the alacrity with which we are dealing with this important, arguably urgent—certainly from the government’s perspective—legislation. This morning the office of the Attorney-General kindly organised and offered my office a briefing. That is still relatively short notice, because we are dealing with a piece of legislation that is being introduced and exempted from the cut-off and that will probably be debated today. The first that my office was aware of this legislation was this morning. The office of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Allison, was aware at around eight o’clock last night. I believe that a statement of reasons was tabled in this place yesterday, and I acknowledge that, but, regardless of this timeframe, I think the chamber can agree that this is a very fast process.

Now, that would be okay on perhaps two grounds: (1) if urgency is put forward and accepted or (2) if the complex or other nature of a piece of legislation is considered. With the benefit only now of a briefing, a cursory look suggests that this bill is quite controversial and has huge legal implications—and not just for cases that may or may not be underway. It also deals with a fundamentally controversial and debatable principle in this place, certainly from the perspective of the Australian Democrats: the issue of retrospectivity generally and retrospectivity specifically in relation to criminal law. We have put on record many times in this place our concerns with and, in fact, our down-right objection to retrospectivity in legislation. We have often considered it also a fundamental human right to not be subject to retrospective criminal sanctions. That is what, on my understanding, this legislation is about.

When we are talking about these broad ranging, fundamental and complex concepts, there is a very strong argument that the parliament take some time to analyse and scrutinise this legislation. For me, that means not being informed yesterday, or indeed this morning, and then only now having a debate about exempting a bill from the cut-off provision—I say ‘debate’, but so far there have been two speakers in this debate concerning the exemption, and they are myself and Senator Bartlett. I am not sure what the official position is of the opposition but I think, like us, they are still getting their heads around what is quite a controversial piece of legislation. But when I look on the Notice Paper it is the third bill. Essentially, we will be debating this legislation today. I know that it has been put forward in the debate that that has occurred previously through the minister—certainly through Senator Abetz—and more generally and publicly by the government, that there is the principle of the Senate mandate, the dominance of this place, that the numbers are being used wisely and that it is about putting forward a policy agenda. This is not putting forward a policy agenda. This is ramming through legislation. We are back in sausage factory mode and it is unacceptable. It may be that we are all wrapping up because we have an election that is about to take place—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take any interjection from Minister Abetz because I do not know if he has read the bill. It may be a seven-page bill but it has huge ramifications. It removes safeguards which are not only procedural but also form a substantial part of the process for an examiner to be satisfied that a summons or notice to produce ought to be issued. They are fundamental legal concepts, people. Mutter, mutter, mutter! The minister may mock and belittle me if he likes, but I care passionately about the role of this place.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then stop interjecting.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not! The first conversation was with the government whip—

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the other one was with one of the advisers. What is happening is that, unfortunately, the record is going to be misleading.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to accept that and indeed withdraw the allegation against the minister if, as he said, he was indeed in deep conversation with the whip. But maybe he could stop interjecting or talking while other members of the Senate are speaking. There are some learned legal minds on that front bench—I can see one standing up right now, and that is meant as a compliment. I notice that he took it, too! There are minds on that front bench, as indeed there are on the other side, who will recognise that we are dealing with some complex issues that have wide-ranging obligations.

I understand that the government will put forward a case of urgency in relation to this bill. Then let us have some time to debate it—not just on the floor of this chamber during this cut-off debate and not just in the committee stage of the bill. Give us some time to consult with the legal brains out there, which my office has been doing hurriedly and specifically in dealing with the case that has brought about this so-called ‘necessary’ and ‘urgent’ change of law. I would like to know what other organisations, like the Law Council, and other learned and community minds think about this legislation. Anyone in this place who has dealt with Crime Commission law or the act that precedes it or who has been on committees like the NCA committee—I was for a period—will understand that even the basis of those acts have some fairly vexed and controversial principles in them, and this deals with one of those very sections, which is quite concerning. I appeal to the Senate, and I am happy to move an amendment to have the bill considered later this week:

At the end of the motion, add:

; and (c)   the bill not be further considered until Thursday, 20 September 2007.

I am happy to move that on behalf of the Australian Democrats. We are not seeking to delay this process unnecessarily. We are not seeking to prevent the legislation being debated. I understand that we need to deal with the cut-off provision motion, but I appeal to senators on all sides, in the interests of scrutiny and fair debate and to ensure that this legislation is looked at properly, that we be given the opportunity to consult with relevant authorities, community groups and legal avenues. Will you consider that this legislation be delayed to a later hour of not this day but another day, because it is third on the Notice Paper for today, third on the red. That is unacceptable given that we have just had briefings and were informed less than 24 hours ago of this piece of legislation? I appeal to my colleagues and I am happy to take your advice.

The Acting Deputy President:

Neither the chair nor the whips have a copy of your amendment and that is necessary for us to proceed.

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

I want to speak on the exemption from the cut-off. Labor has been dealing with the legislative program as ordinary pieces of legislation. It is not unusual for the government to ask for an exemption to the cut-off in relation to a bill that they can justify as urgent. I understand that the government has been able to make a case that this is an urgent bill that should be put on the legislative program for this week. I am not going to cavil with that. The exemption from the cut-off is to ensure that the program is not unduly loaded up at the end of the session and it allows, in this instance, bills to be dealt with in the ordinary way. If I take that broad view, then what the government is asking for is that this bill be exempt from the cut-off so that it can be dealt with in that way—therefore, it is not an unusual process.

The more unusual process is that of the motion that we just lost a little while ago, but I will  not go there in any substantial way other than to remind the Senate that this adds one more bill to the program which the government sees a need to finalise this week, it appears. Labor has indicated that it will continue to deal with the bills in the usual way and address them on their merits as they arise. I will not go to the merits of the ACC bill itself. That is a matter that will come up in due course and we can then address the substantive issues that are associated with the bill. There is no need in this debate to raise those matters. It is broadly a bill that deals with, as I understand it, an amendment to ensure that that the Australian Crime Commission can deal with their usual summons processes. The EM explains that adequately, it appears, and the government will obviously support their position and demonstrate the need for the urgency of this bill. On that basis, Labor will not oppose exemption from the cut-off.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Stott Despoja, having discussed your amendment with the clerks, do you still wish to proceed?

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that my verbal amendment is not going to go very far, so I withdraw it, only because I do not think there is a form of words that would satisfy the Senate. Perhaps I could suggest that the onus is now on the government to see if they could accommodate my very reasonable request; otherwise, it may be possible for a fellow colleague to perhaps move to adjourn this debate, but I would rather see an outcome that relies on discussion and negotiation. I am not sure that the minister has something that he could offer us.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a brief statement by leave. I understand that, having moved the motion, I am not necessarily entitled to speak further.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I indicate to Senator Stott Despoja that, as Senator Ludwig indicated, this is a matter of some urgency. I understand that some hundreds of summonses could be impacted by the potential difficulty that is being confronted, as well as a lot of investigations et cetera. That is why it is urgent. There is an urgency in relation to it being introduced here—going to the House of Representatives and then back here. Having said all that, what I will undertake to do is to seek how we can change it within the legislative timetable to give some more time to the senators who want more time. Without making any promises, I undertake to approach the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs to see what can be done.

The Acting Deputy President:

So, effectively, you are closing the debate, Senator Abetz?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.