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

I think Senator Patterson just made the key point for me; that is that enshrining the Lockhart recommendations in a legislative format was about putting them in holus-bolus—apart from those that required no legislative change or could be dealt with in a different way—and then leaving it up to the parliament to decide. Senator Webber and I had the exact same intention: leave it to the democratic process. Duly elected representatives would decide what was right, what was wrong, what they sat comfortably with and what reflected human values. I think this bill does reflect community values and I recognise that there are some areas within this legislation that are perhaps more strongly supported by members of community than others.

I acknowledge the comments my Democrat colleague has made and his observations throughout this debate. When I look at this particular amendment and the lines to which it refers—that is, 20(1)(g), an area that has been the subject of much debate—I find it agreeable. I find it an amendment that can be supported but I will wait and see what the will of the parliament is. I am happy to support it. I think it is a reasonable compromise in terms of determining community values and expectations in the context of this legislation. Once again, it gives elected representatives the opportunity to decide which recommendations from Lockhart they support and which they do not. I am happy to support the amendment before us.