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

My gosh, Senator McGauran is here! It is possible to support the work of those agencies and to support the granting of powers—and sometimes additional and extraordinary powers, particularly when dealing with burgeoning and new offences as we find in this new era of terrorism. But, by the same token, we are entitled to have a debate—that perennial debate, regardless of the era to which you belong—about the balance between human rights, personal liberty and freedom and the public interest and, of course, national security. I notice that Senator Nettle invoked The Castle earlier—so it is about the ‘vibe’ of the Constitution too.

Seriously, though, as part of this debate—through you, Madam Temporary Chairman Moore, to the minister—I am not doubting a natural order here or questioning instinctively the powers of the police per se, but I am looking at this issue. We are dealing not just with the specifics of the collection of evidence, whether or not you can challenge it and test its admissibility, but also with broadening warrants in relation to the agencies and the offences to which they apply. We are dealing with a broad range of federal agencies that are scooped up as part of these new proposals. We are dealing with, arguably, the potential for indefinite warrants—when you look at the renewal provisions of these warrants. So we are dealing with broad-ranging powers in the legislation before us. Hence the amendment before us, the one in my name—and I note Senator Nettle’s amendment—that opposes this particular section in relation to delayed notification search warrants.

I acknowledge that the minister has put forward an example or an argument as to why this would be beneficial, but I want to clarify whether the government is in a position to put before the chamber anecdotal evidence or quantify the circumstances in which the current powers have been insufficient so that this change is necessary. In my second reading debate remarks, I made the point that I did not feel the explanatory memorandum justified these new, broad-ranging powers. Have the existing powers in relation to the searching or monitoring of individuals come up short? Is this an argument that the government can sustain with examples, anecdotes or information from the agencies?