Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I will respond to Senator Keneally. I note it looks like she might have run from her office to get there, and I appreciate her doing that to make some comments. It is a ruse to suggest that you won't vote on an amendment to a government bill that basically includes the provisions of a private member's bill. We need to understand that a private member's bill might get voted on in the Senate, go to the House and never be seen again. The only way to give effect to change is to put amendments to government bills that the government has to deal with in the House. Senator Keneally knows that, and so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that this is an inappropriate way to do it—that a private member's bill is a much better way.

I'm disappointed that Labor is again voting on an amendment that gives effect to its own policies. I invite Senator Keneally—if you don't quite like what my amendment does—to have the Labor Party introduce a similar amendment the next time a security bill goes through the parliament. I put that on the record, and we'll see next time around how serious the Labor Party really is. We do have these sorts of bills going through on a semiregular basis, which is part of the problem: more and more powers get made without the right checks and balances. There's an opportunity here. I put the challenge to Senator Keneally, and we'll talk about this the next time an intelligence bill goes through the chamber. You are simply so weak on giving effect to change as bills go through this place. You simply stand up and talk, but you never actually do anything. That's a significant problem, and Labor ought to reflect on this. They're not serving the public well. They are, in effect, dudding their own policy. There's a way in which these things can be done and, sadly, you're not up to the task.