Senate debates

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Committees

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Report

5:44 pm

Photo of Nick McKimNick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

My apologies for interrupting Senator Lines's contribution. I'll make a more lengthy contribution on both the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 when we get to my motion shortly. That motion seeks to refer both those pieces of legislation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. But I do want to just respond quickly to the comments made by Senator Bushby.

This legislation is being steamrolled through the parliament and the Senate in an unholy rush. As exhibit A to support that statement, I want to place on record that the Senate is being asked to examine, consider and vote on 270 amendments to these two bills having only seen those two amendments for the first time this afternoon—270 amendments on bills that have the potential to create the risk of fundamentally changing the way our democracy works and fundamentally impacting on the work of groups that make up civil society in this country. Civil society groups, non-government organisations, fight hard to defend our environment, to defend human rights and to hold government to account. They are absolutely essential in a thriving and vibrant democracy. For the Senate to be asked to consider 270 amendments having just seen them for the first time this afternoon is unconscionable and unreasonable, particularly when these bills deal with such serious issues.

Of course we need to guard against foreign interference in our democracy. We have seen the result of foreign interference in the United States election which elected Donald Trump as President. We have seen foreign interference in the Brexit vote in the UK. Of course we need to guard against similar things happening in Australia, but the risk and the danger here is that, in trying to achieve that aim in such a rushed and ad hoc way, we will see significant consequences—to civil society, to non-government organisations and to things like peaceful protests, which could be criminalised by the provisions in this legislation.

I want that firmly on the record and I will make a more lengthy and detailed contribution about the risks that these bills pose to fundamental rights and freedoms in our country when I move to have them referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee shortly.

Question agreed to.

Comments

No comments