Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. We just heard from various speakers, including speakers leading the charge from the opposition, that this is complex legislation and that the amendments that are being debated here came out of significant and lengthy examination by some people in this parliament of what is already a complex piece of legislation. Presumably the amendments are similarly complex. Despite that, we are being asked to vote on dozens of amendments on complex legislation, having seen them all for a matter of minutes and without the opportunity to even read them. You could not have even read through this sheet of amendments in the time since it was circulated let alone digested the amendments or formed a view about whether they adequately reflect the concerns coming out of PJCIS.

If this is something that, as the minister says, has been canvassed over several weeks on topics out there in the public realm that could have been discussed then these amendments could have been too. These amendments could likewise have been circulated with sufficient time in advance if that is how long they have been on the table and known. Why have they been kept under wraps until now? The minister and the opposition are essentially saying to us: 'Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten have done a handshake deal. Just trust us that these amendments do what we say they do.' On an issue as serious as giving security agencies additional rights and powers over people's smartphones and internet records, they are saying, 'Just trust us, because we did a deal last night. Even though we have been talking about this for weeks and even though the report has been out for weeks, we would not deign to circulate these amendments to you so that you could form a view on them. Just trust us.'

That is not the way a parliament should be run at any time. It is especially not the way a parliament should be run of when it comes to serious questions like these that everyone has admitted are serious. But it seems that the government and the opposition want to shotgun this through this place without any opportunity to consider these amendments. Our objection to that is strongly noted. If they want to do that, it says a lot about what they consider is the role of this place and what they think of the public, because the public have not had a chance to digest these amendments but their representatives are being asked to vote on them after a handful of minutes to consider them—not even enough time to read them.

Perhaps I can ask the minister for some detail about something that we do know about. Something that has been raised during the course of the debate is the question of civil suits. That was raised by the PJCIS as well. It has been said by some that this new regime will not give any information that will allow someone to be prosecuted for downloading Game of Thrones. Let's assume that that is right. Given the limited time to go through all of this, who knows whether that is true. You have Tony Abbott saying, 'Trust me.' Given as Labor reminds us continuously that you cannot trust the Prime Minister to say one thing before an election and then mean it afterwards and you cannot trust the Prime Minister's budget, why on earth would anyone trust him on this? Labor is prepared to, but we are not.

Let's just focus on this question of someone who downloads Game of Thrones. The minister tells us that such a person will not be prosecuted. What if a media company or someone else wants to sue that person? What if they want to sue someone for downloading something? Or what if they want to sue them about something completely different? What if it is not related to that? What if it is a suit between a company and an individual or a company and another company? Given that there will now be a massive honey pot of information that is going to be kept, can the minister tell us whether in these amendments or in the legislation there is rock-solid, shieldlike protection against anyone ever having this data disclosed in the process of a civil suit?

See this speech in context