Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (6) on a sheet ZA212 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 9, page 24 (before line 3), before item 3, insert:

3A Section 3

Insert:

Assistant Commissioner means an Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.

(2) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (after line 3), at the end of section 17B, add:

Suspension decision may only be made by delegate or sub-delegate

(9) A decision under subsection 17B(1) to suspend the protection and assistance provided to a participant under the NWPP (other than such a decision made as a result of a review under section 17C) may only be made by a person to whom the power to make the decision has been delegated, or sub-delegated, under section 25.

(3) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection 17C(1) (including the note), substitute:

(1) This section applies to a decision under subsection 17B(1) to suspend the protection and assistance provided to a participant under the NWPP (a suspension decision), other than such a decision made as a result of a review under this section.

(4) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (line 15), omit "a Deputy", substitute "the".

(5) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit "the person to whom the application is made", substitute "the Commissioner".

(6) Schedule 9, item 5, page 27 (after line 33), after subsection 25(6), insert:

(7) The Commissioner's powers under section 17C:

(a) may only be delegated to a member of the Australian Federal Police who holds or occupies a designated position; and

(b) may, in relation to a particular decision under subsection 17B(1), be exercised by a delegate only if that delegate holds a rank higher than the rank held by the delegate, or sub-delegate, who made the decision under subsection 17B(1).

(8) Subject to subsection 17B(9) of this Act, sections 34AA, 34AB and 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to a sub-delegation in a corresponding way to the way in which they apply in relation to a delegation.

The bill currently provides for the inclusion of a new section 17B in the Witness Protection Act 1994, which allows the AFP commissioner to temporarily suspend the provision of protection and assistance where the participant does or intends to do something that would limit the AFP's ability to provide them with protection and assistance. The government amendments propose minor changes to the bill to ensure that internal merits review is available for all decisions relating to the suspension of protection and assistance under new subsection 17B(1). To achieve this, the government amendments would require that decisions to suspend the provision of protection and assistance under new subsection 17B(1) be made by a delegate or subdelegate of the AFP commissioner, unless the decision is being made as a result of a review under new section 17C. Ensuring these decisions are made by a delegate or subdelegate ensures that there is always a more senior officer available to review all suspension decisions under new subsection 17B(1).

The government amendments will not alter the fact that decisions to suspend protection and assistance in situations where the suspension was requested by the participant will not be reviewable. It is appropriate that merits review does not apply in these situations, as decisions made at the request of the participant are unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the rights and interests of that person. The government amendments would also insert a definition of 'assistant commissioner' into the Witness Protection Act. The definition would clarify that 'assistant commissioner' is taken to mean an assistant commissioner of the AFP. This is consistent with the definitions for 'commissioner' and 'deputy commissioner' in the Witness Protection Act. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports these amendments.

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

The Greens don't oppose these amendments and think that they have some marginal benefits. But I would ask the government, through you, Deputy President: what was the government's rationale for not adopting the Law Council of Australia's recommendations to set the threshold for suspension of witness protection around the behaviour of or concerns in relation to the person who had the benefit of protection, instead of limiting the capacity to provide protection through the AFP? Why did the government reject the higher threshold and significantly limit the ability of the AFP to provide protection, given that the removal of witness protection can literally be a life-and-death matter?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Regarding the proposal, it's appropriate for protection and assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited. This is because any limitation on the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance would present a serious risk to both the participant and the AFP, as it could have serious consequences—for example, result in death or serious injury to the participant.

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

SHOEBRIDGE () (): Surely removing witness protection could have serious consequences to the witness, including death and serious injury? I'm unable to understand why the government didn't accept the recommendation of the higher threshold before witness protection is removed. It's one thing to say that the witness's behaviour may limit the ability of the AFP to provide the protection. But surely withdrawing the protection is a far more drastic step. I can't understand, from the government's response, why that higher threshold wasn't adopted. If the witness's behaviour may have a marginal impact in limiting the ability to provide that protection, the idea that the AFP commissioner could withdraw witness protection in those circumstances and potentially see someone exposed to deathly threats seems wrong in policy.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the protection is removed only in situations when the AFP's ability is impeded.

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

I come back to the question: that could be a very marginal limitation. And the Law Council said, 'Set the threshold higher; make it a significant limitation before witness protection can be withdrawn.' I ask again why the government continues to resist that higher threshold before the protection is revoked.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I will reiterate that the protection is removed only where the AFP's ability is impeded, and it's appropriate for protection assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited.

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

That's a 'computer says no' answer. Having tried three times, I'll probably move on to my next question. One of the other proposals from the Law Society was to, instead of having a discretion for the commissioner to revoke suspension where the reasons for suspension no longer apply, make it mandatory to return the protection where the reasons for suspension no longer apply. What's the rationale for giving the AFP commissioner or their delegate a discretion to not provide the protection, to not reinstate the protection, where the reasons it was revoked have been removed? In what circumstances is the government proposing that witnesses continue to be exposed to the risk—often to their life or their health and their safety and that of their families—where the rationale for the suspension has been removed? Why would you let the AFP commissioner continue to allow witnesses to have no protection?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised it's to allow operational flexibility.

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

We've come back to the 'computer says no' response. This is almost an articulation of why we're concerned by computer assisted decision-making, which is another aspect of this bill. Is the government proposing to give the AFP commissioner flexibility to leave people without the benefit of witness protection simply for operational efficiencies when there has been a prior determination that they should have witness protection—that is, where they have been engaged in some conduct that limits capacity, that conduct is removed and the reasons are no longer there? Is the government seriously putting operational flexibility ahead of the life and safety of witnesses?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Suspensions from the National Witness Protection Program are temporary in nature, and the purpose of these measures is to ensure the rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. Again, I will just restate that it is important that the AFP have operational flexibility.

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

The computers again said no, Deputy President! The question is: why are you putting the operational flexibility of the AFP ahead of the health, and often the life, of witnesses for whom there has been a previous decision that they require witness protection? If the behaviour or the concerns that led to the suspension have been removed, why is the government going to permit the AFP to continue to withhold witness protection? Is the government at all concerned that giving the AFP commissioner that discretion may lead to a tragedy? And do you accept the potential fatal consequences of not providing witness protection?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by indicating that I don't accept your statements, Senator Shoebridge. What's important to note here—and I'm sure you already know this—is that suspensions from the Witness Protection Program are temporary in nature, and the purpose of these measures is to ensure rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary and appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

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

I'm yet to understand why you would permit the AFP commissioner, or their delegate to continue, on a discretionary basis, to suspend witness protection to a vulnerable witness, and often to their family, when the rationale for the initial suspension has been removed. It's impossible to understand from the government's responses why on earth you're allowing the AFP commissioner to leave vulnerable witnesses without that protection when the original rationale for the suspension has been removed. I could ask again, but I'll probably get another one of those non sequiturs in response. I'll just leave my disappointment on the record.

I note, for the government, that if you think this is a good decision—to leave open the discretion and not to provide witness protection in these circumstances—then you take on board the future risk to witnesses who were denied protection as a result of this decision by the government today. You take on board those risks. Remember that the only reason people are put into witness protection in the first place is because there's a significant risk to the life of them or their family and their loved ones. Not reinstating that protection when the reason for suspension has been removed seems to be bloody-mindedness—nothing short of bloody-mindedness.

Could I ask the government why they also rejected the proposal from the Law Council to have regular reviews of suspensions of protection and assistance? What possible basis is there not to require a regular review of suspension, given that we're talking about a life-and-death matter?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. To answer your last point, suspension from the Witness Protection Program is only temporary in nature. That's the reason the government have taken that position. I would also add that in practice the AFP would continue to consider the circumstances of each case to assess whether it is appropriate for the suspension to remain in force or whether it should be revoked, and the protection and assistance reinstated.

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

What's the time limit on suspension? What's the maximum period people can have their protection suspended for? [Inaudible] Is it forever?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no time limit because we need to enable the AFP to have operational flexibility.

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

SHOEBRIDGE () (): So, rest assured, they are only temporary—but they can be permanent! And don't worry about legislative protections because we want to give AFP operational flexibility! Is that the government's response?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not the government's response, Senator Shoebridge. The new subsection 17B(3) provides that the duration of the suspension must be reasonable in all circumstances, and this goes to providing operational flexibility in determining the duration of the suspension and extending or revoking as is required.

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

I've lost the will to live.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ZA212, moved by leave together by the minister, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2061 together:

(1) Schedule 6, item 2, page 17 (after line 19), after subsection 19(2), insert:

(2A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding whether to refuse consent under subsection (1), the Attorney-General must consider:

(a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and

(b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and

(c) the matters mentioned in subsection (2B).

(2B) The matters are the following:

(a) the prisoner's welfare;

(b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country;

(c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment.

(2) Schedule 6, page 18 (after line 33), after item 4, insert:

4A After subsection 20(3)

Insert:

(3A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding under subsection (3) whether to consent to the transfer of the prisoner on the terms proposed by the transfer country, the Attorney-General must consider:

(a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and

(b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and

(c) the matters mentioned in subsection (3B).

(3B) The matters are the following:

(a) the prisoner's welfare;

(b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country;

(c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country;

(f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment.

These amendments taken together add in a number of matters that need to be considered by the Attorney-General in making a decision on transferring a prisoner to other countries. They include explicit consideration of matters including a prisoner's welfare, family and community support, medical conditions and disability, and the ability to receive appropriate care for these education, accommodation and employment services post-release. The explicit articulation of matters to be considered was, in fact, proposed by the Law Council in their submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. It included a specific requirement for the decision-maker to have any submissions made by the prisoner put before them and considered. We could see this as a very abstract matter but, as I said in my second reading contribution, we've currently got two prisoners—Mr Duggan, here, and Mr Assange in the UK—both of whom the US government are seeking to have extradited and transferred to the US prison system and the US justice system. On any view, putting additional protections articulating the matters that the Attorney should consider before making those decisions—in a manner suggested not by some revolutionary part of our society but by the Law Council of Australia—and putting in place a set of non-exhaustive matters for the Attorney to take into account seems like sensible due process.

There's huge controversy at the moment about the transfer of those two prisoners. I know myself how many thousands and thousands of Australians are concerned that Julian Assange's health and welfare will be irreparably prejudiced. In fact, his life is at risk as a result of a potential transfer from the UK to the US. I also know Mr Duggan's family, including his kids, have said the same about his transfer. We believe, consistent with what the Law Council have said, that these matters need to be before the Attorney before there is consent to a prison transfer. We're not saying that they are determinative of the prison transfer, but we're saying to the Attorney: take them into account. Take into account the submission from the prisoner, and take into account the capacity for them to be safe in the prison system to which they're being transferred. We urge the Senate to support us in that, and I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've already indicated, we will not be supporting these amendments. I will go to the reasons why we don't believe these amendments are necessary. With regard to matters to be considered for transfer, before making a decision the Attorney-General already considers all of the circumstances of the case, including the factors in the International Transfer of Prisoners Statement of Policy, which is publicly available and a copy of which is provided to the prisoner when they are making their application. The factors outlined in the statement of policy are broad and currently include sentence enforcement; the extent to which the transfer would assist the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration; community safety; humanitarian considerations; dual citizenship; and relevant law enforcement and prosecutorial agency views.

I note that the criteria that Senator Shoebridge would insert into the act do not include sentence enforcement—that is, the amendments would not require the Attorney-General to consider the very important question of whether transfer of a prisoner to another country would result in the appropriate enforcement of that prisoner's existing sentence. That is a very significant omission, as the difference between sentencing laws in different countries can sometimes have the consequence that transfer to another country results in a prisoner's effective sentence being dramatically shortened or, indeed, lengthened.

Also, with regard to written reasons for decisions, all decisions by the Attorney-General are reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and reasons for a decision may be obtained pursuant to section 13 of the act.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I will get the opposition on record and then I will give you the call.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not support these amendments, as we consider they are not necessary. We consider that these amendments will create administrative burden and create additional avenues for legal challenges on administrative grounds. This will create considerable work in addition to what is already a complex arrangement that takes a considerable amount of time and resources of multiple agencies and departments of both federal and state governments. The International Transfer of Prisoners Statement of Policy already outlines such considerations for the Attorney-General in their approval or refusal of a transfer. This amendment is also contrary to the intent of the amendments within the main bill, which is intended to reduce procedural overheads associated with the international prisoner transfer process. It is important to note that under the act a prisoner transfer can only occur where the Australian government, the foreign government and the prisoner all agree to the transfer. In all of the circumstances, we do not support this or other changes proposed by the Greens.

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

Yes, this would provide additional legal protections for prisoners, and I've cited two high-profile cases where most of the public would think that is right. It's disappointing to see Labor joining with the coalition here to not provide those additional protections. But of all the reasons given to oppose this amendment, which articulates six specific matters that need to be considered—six additional, non-exhaustive matters that need to be considered—perhaps the most specious is that of the government: that it doesn't include the question of enforcement.

For the government's benefit, I'll read from the first line of the amendments: 'Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider'. It's a non-exhaustive list and would in no way prevent the Attorney-General from considering enforcement. It may be a debating point in the Senate—some specious debating point in the Senate—but it has absolutely no merit as a reason for opposing this articulated list of six considerations that has the support of the Law Council. I commend the amendments to the house.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2061 revised, moved together by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Shoebridge. As I indicated in my second reading speech, the government will not be supporting these amendments. I'll go through our reasoning.

In relation to your first amendment regarding the threshold, we believe that it's appropriate for protection and assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited. This is because any limitation on the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance could present a serious risk to both the participant and the AFP and could have serious consequences.

In relation to your amendment that goes to revoking a suspension, new paragraph 17B(3)(a) provides that the duration of a suspension must be reasonable in all circumstances. This provides operational flexibility in determining the duration of the suspension and extending or revoking it as required. This allows for the commissioner or their delegate to take into account specific details of a participant's circumstances—for example, where it is unclear when a participant will return to circumstances that restore the AFP's ability to provide adequate protection and assistance. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that in the circumstances it is necessary and appropriate to do so.

In relation to your amendment regarding reviews, suspensions from the witness protection program are temporary in nature. The purpose of these measures is to ensure the rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. In practice, the AFP would continue to consider the circumstances of each case to assess whether it is appropriate for the suspension to remain in force or whether it should be revoked and the protection and assistance reinstated. The proposal to provide a regular review of suspension misunderstands the temporary nature of suspensions. Under new subsection 17C(2) a participant who has had their protection and assistance suspended under new subsection 17B(1) is able to apply for a review of that decision if desired. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that in the circumstances it is necessary and appropriate to do so.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not support these amendments. We consider that these amendments go directly counter to the purpose of the legislation, which is to allow flexibility to suspend protection in appropriate circumstances. The arbitrary imposition of a requirement that the participant's actions would significantly limit the ability to provide protection, as opposed to just limiting the ability to provide protection, undermines the clarity of the provision and is unlikely to be effective. The proposed requirement to undertake regular reviews is also unnecessary. The intent of new section 17B, as made clear in the explanatory memorandum, is to allow suspension of protection only on a temporary basis.

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

I note that the government's responses at this stage of the committee repeated the same unmeritorious non sequiturs that they gave when we presented them earlier, and just simply repeating the same unmeritorious arguments doesn't improve them. Failing to understand that so-called 'temporary suspensions' can be permanent and pretending that that isn't the case doesn't make them any less permanent. Suggesting that the often vulnerable witness can seek a review doesn't remove the kind of policy basis for the AFP itself to review the suspension. Suggesting that operational flexibility should trump the protection of witnesses doesn't make that a meritorious argument. Simply saying that you want to give the AFP the flexibility to not provide witness protection because it's operationally beneficial to the AFP doesn't make it a good argument. Saying it three times doesn't improve it. When it comes to the question of raising the threshold permitting the AFP to remove witness protections when there's been a marginal limitation on the ability of the AFP to provide the protection, simply saying that you opposed that three times doesn't make it good policy. We continue to press for those amendments.

I note that Senator Thorpe is not present, and I note that my office has been asked to raise on her behalf that she was seeking some further amendments to provide for additional expressed considerations to consider a prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, community safety and humanitarian concerns. They seem to be matters that would be entirely appropriate to include. I'm not in a position to move those amendments, because I don't have in a form to put before the committee, but I will just indicate for the record that they seem entirely appropriate additional matters to include in the bill, and they in large part would have been picked up by the amendments that we put in sheet 2061.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I am in possession of that amendment at the moment, so that's good. If there are no further questions, the question is that Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2039, moved together by leave by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I'm now in receipt of the amendment proposed by Senator Thorpe. Although I think we've moved beyond that, with your indulgence, I will just move it, to put it on the record. At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move amendment (1) on sheet 2095:

(1) Schedule 6, page 20 (after line 11), after item 10, insert:

10A Section 52

Repeal the section, substitute:

52 Prisoner and prisoner's representative to be kept informed

(1) The Attorney-General must arrange for a prisoner or prisoner's representative to be kept informed of the progress of:

(a) any application made under section 16; or

(b) any request made under section 24 or 33;

for the transfer of prisoner.

(2) If an adverse decision is made in respect of an application made under section 16 or a request made under section 24 or 33, the Attorney-General must provide the prisoner or prisoner's representative with a written statement of reasons:

(a) setting out the factors taken into account by the decision-maker; and

(b) informing the prisoner of their right to a review of the decision.

I note that this amendment would do two key things when it comes to international prisoner transfer. The first is to require the Attorney-General to keep the prisoner or the prisoner's representative informed of the progress of an application made for international transfer, and that seems entirely appropriate. The manner in which that could be done obviously would be open to the Attorney, but having that process to keep the prisoner informed seems a meritorious amendment.

The second is that, where an adverse decision is made in respect of an application, the Attorney-General would be required to provide the prisoner or their representative with a statement of reasons setting out the factors taken into account by the decision-maker and then informing the prisoner of the review of the decision. Again, providing that requirement to issue a written statement articulating the factors taken into account and advising of review rights seems a meritorious amendment. On behalf of the Greens, and noting that they were drafted and put before the house by Senator Thorpe, I move and support the amendment.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The government will be opposing the amendment put forward. Section 52 provides a general obligation to keep the prisoner updated about the progress of his or her application, and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act already provides for reasons to be provided if a prisoner requests it.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not support the amendments as proposed by Senator Thorpe on sheet 2095. The coalition considers that these amendments would add burdensome administrative overheads to the international transfer of prisoners process and expand the avenues for legal challenge.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.