Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

That, in fact, was one of the questions I was going to ask of Senator Bartlett: in terms of the current position that the government seems to have moved to, does your amendment go to that or to some additional required matter that you have seized on, which is within the committee recommendations? The committee made a range of recommendations, but particularly in respect of stateless persons—and invariably I am looking at the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee at 3.50, which deals with stateless people. The committee’s view was highlighted at 3.58, which states:

The Committee notes that the proposed Bill does change the law in two important ways. Further, while the Committee appreciates that legal opinion may differ, there is a legitimate question as to whether proposed paragraph 21(8)(c)—

and I will not go into the detail there—

is sufficient to meet the objectives of the Convention. Australia may have adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of its obligations in this regard.

But recommendations 10 and 11 go to those issues, in addition to recommendations having been made more generally. I do not know whether that, in fact, answers the amendment that you suggest. On the basis that, as I understand it, we have come to the position where the government has now conceded there were issues surrounding the original drafting of the bill dealing with this matter, Labor is not in a position to support your amendment without more being put. We do see that the government has moved to address the issue to ensure that, as far as was raised by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, it is remedied. If that is not the case, Senator Bartlett, I would like to hear more.