Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

We have a number of views on this range of amendments that have been moved together. There are those that Labor certainly commends, like amendment (10), which goes directly to implementing a recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. There are a number of others where we are still a little bit perplexed about the changes that are being moved. For example, we moved an amendment to the first bill which made sure that the Australian Protective Service was not going to be included in the remit of the first bill and the work that the new commission will be able to do. Now we are moving amendments in this bill to make sure that the Australian Protective Service is going to be covered by the new professional standards that are in place. It seems to me that there is some inconsistency between these pieces of legislation, and moving these amendments at the last minute does not really give the opposition much opportunity to see if these are fitting appropriately together or not. But no doubt that attention will be given in another place.

I might ask the Attorney if he is able to confirm, given the significant extent of the changes that are being proposed in this bill, whether he or his officers have taken the opportunity to talk to the Australian Federal Police Association about these amendments and whether there has been any consultation. I can see some nodding from the advisers box, which is a good sign. Obviously they are a key stakeholder and among the people who will be affected by this new regime, so it is worth while for us to get that information.

I am also concerned about whether the Attorney is able to tell us about another amendment which I think he referred to—the last item—which means that some of the provisions will not commence until a later date, I think, given their interaction with the ASIO Act. I am not sure why those provisions have not been given any attention. They were not part of the Senate committee’s review of this bill. The Attorney might be able to confirm whether the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security has been involved at all and how it is that the timing will work with those delayed provisions.

That might be something that can be cleared up, but we obviously have some reservations about the fact that we have not had the opportunity to fully understand where these amendments from the government are coming from. If the Attorney can clarify for us, that would be useful. We will not stand in the way of them being moved in this House, obviously, but, in consideration of wanting to be able to get a substantially agreed position between the parties smoothly through both here and the Senate, it would be useful, if the Attorney cannot answer those questions now, to make sure that there are discussions between our offices before the debate in another place.

See this speech in context