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

Chair, you have heard me outline the Democrat view on this amendment and draw the Senate’s attention to our concerns with (2)(a), which has since been withdrawn. I just want to emphasise the issue of legal professional privilege. Senator Brown’s course of action is to deal with the issue of exception or exemption, something with which the major parties obviously have a problem. Based on the evidence presented to the inquiry, specifically by Professor Williams, I am inclined to think that an exception approach is one way of dealing with the issue of legal professional privilege. I am not sure about the other professional privileges that we have talked about and that were dealt with during the committee hearings.

I suspect the other way, and this is what I have sought to do with my amendments, is, as the minister has mentioned, to deal with the issue of admissibility and obviously ensure in the first place that the issuing authority considers the issue of legal professional privilege. Colleagues in the chamber will see, looking at (3), (5) and (10) of my amendments, that we deal with issue of admissibility and also with the issue of punitive sanctions as a consequence of failing to acknowledge the importance of legal professional privilege.

There may be some issues with the amendment before us. Senator Brown describes it as a blunt instrument. But I do want to emphasise that, while I have had concerns about how this amendment is drafted, I do support the intent behind it. I do have difficulties with the notion that somehow we are above the law, whether we are state or federal members of parliament or indeed judges, but I do think the reference to those particular professions is intended to jog everyone’s memories. I can hear a baby crying. That is okay; it is not mine. That is all good. We are reminding people that this is serious legislation in terms of what conversations or communications can be intercepted, stored and used for other, shall we say, crime-fighting purposes—that is, what evidence can be collected for other purposes. I think that it is important that people recognise that those professional privileges and specifically legal professional privilege, I believe, should be protected more than the current act provides. In that respect I am supportive of that notion and have sought to do it in a different way.

I have made my comments on the international treaties. I would say, though, to Senator Brown that I think that there are probably varying views on a bill of rights or a human rights act in this place. But I remind him that, I believe, Gareth Evans and Lionel Bowen drafted a human rights act or a bill of rights. I am looking to Labor here for some guidance. It passed the lower house in 1985 and I think it was withdrawn in 1986. The Labor Party has an interesting history when it comes to a human rights act or a bill of rights. I will not take away from Lionel Murphy’s efforts in his 1973 bill of rights. The Labor Party does have a history in that regard.