Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee on the National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I have some very brief comments. The coalition was very keen, obviously, to see this bill introduced, as it had its initial gestation in a coalition bill that was introduced by Senator Troeth into this place. We make a conditional acceptance and recommendation of the passage of the bill, subject to the concerns of the committee being addressed. The first concern that we had in our additional comments was with the location of the monitor within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The coalition remains concerned that the monitor should not actually be an instrument of the government of the day and it should not at any stage be perceived to be this by members of the public. Locating the monitor within a government department could result in such a perception, whether it be real or otherwise. Accordingly, we recommend that the monitor should be an independent monitor much like the Auditor-General.

The coalition senators also did not agree with the recommendation that the monitor be required to assess whether legislation is consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations. This is not because we do not accept that Australia has international human rights obligations or human rights obligations per se, but because introducing a wide range of international instruments adds a great deal of needless complexity to the monitor’s task without demonstrably adding to the effectiveness of the process. Those with a legal mind will recognise that there are many international instruments to which Australia is a signatory, some of which have been ratified into domestic law and some which have not. The legislation which the monitor will be asked to oversee is actually domestic legislation, not international legislation, and the existing domestic legal safeguards are the appropriate standard by which to judge it.

We believe that the recommendation regarding proportionality addresses the appropriate test and accordingly, whilst we support the legislation and passage of the bill subject to the committee’s recommendations, we do want on the record—and we have noted these comments in the report—that there are some reservations. It would be our preference, obviously, that the government address them. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.