Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, in relation to the point that the Attorney-General made about the fact that the government's amendments now—very late in the piece, and only recently circulated—propose an amendment to allow the Director-General of Security to be the person to whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs may delegate his or her passport suspension power, in its first iteration of the bill, which is what we had notice of until late today, it was to any person. That obviously caused great concern. Because it would have allowed the Minister for Foreign Affairs to delegate the power to an officer of ASIO, ASIO could be a law unto itself. In fact, that could still be the case.

I think it has been misleading all along for the government to suggest in its explanatory memorandum, and to continue to suggest, that this provision of the bill actually implements the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Even if the timeframes that the monitor initially proposed were, as asserted, somewhat arbitrary, the concern that the Australian Greens have now is that this proposal means that there could be multiple suspensions. There is no real limit on how many times the suspension period can be repeated, and there are insufficient safeguards to prevent that from occurring.

Overall, the Australian Greens say that while some additional powers are needed there is great concern that this new power could be misused, overused or subject to inadequate oversight. That will essentially leave the Australian community at risk of having their legitimate, and possibly urgent, overseas travel unnecessarily or disproportionately disrupted. While the Attorney-General seeks to reassure me, as is the case in relation to quite a few of the provisions in this bill, that they will only be exercised rarely and seriously, there is a large amount of discretion. That is not reassuring. That does not provide the certainty that people need.

What I took from the Attorney-General's response to my first question was that there will be no provision for any compensation made where, even if the decisions are made rarely and seriously, there is a mistake made. Sometimes, we know, mistakes can be made and if a person's life or travel is disrupted to their detriment there will be no compensation. Unless the Attorney-General suggests that that is not the case, then clearly that is the position that will come about if this amendment is passed.