Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

The issue of whether or not there's a committee inquiry is a matter for the chamber. The government won't be supporting your amendment. We think all of these issues can be examined through existing processes—for example, estimates. There is nothing to stop someone coming in and saying, 'How many times has this power been used?' and examining that question or the concerns that you and others have raised. I'm not aware of who's been pointing the finger. I certainly have not been accusing anyone who is opposing this bill of those—

An honourable senator: The minister has.

Well, I have not been, and I think the debate in here has been very civilised. I have been trying to assure those with the concerns that the government has an answer for them, and I have been very clear about the intent and use of this particular power.

Senator Pocock raises the concerns about being able to track somebody by the use of ATMs. This has been informed by AFP, of course. We take their advice in this. They are the ones who undertake and would be undertaking this, through having an outstanding warrant and looking for the people. We are taking their advice with this, and we are taking the advice of other agencies that it has been a gap identified in the social security legislation that needed to be addressed. It is an extremely rare set of circumstances that would find this power being used, because it has taken until this point for this problem to be identified. That can give you an indication that, in the history of the relevant social security legislation, it has only been identified this year that this issue needed to be addressed by legislation.

I have sought to address the majority of the concerns that have been raised here through the committee process. I accept that there are others, including the crossbench and organisations, that have concerns about it, but this is something that would be used in the most exceptional circumstances, for the reasons I have read into the Hansard: where people have been charged with violent and/or sexual offences for which, if found guilty, they would serve an imprisonment period of seven years or more. I've gone through the list of offences that would qualify for that. I accept that people are trying to make it about something it isn't, but I'm standing here today to tell you about exactly the set of circumstances in which this would apply. They are exceptional and rare, and we are acting on the advice of all of the agencies that brief us. Yes, we are listening to the concerns that are raised, which is why we have sought the involvement of those organisations in helping shape some of the guidance around the particular use of this power, as a genuine sign of goodwill that we want to work with those and address the concerns that they have raised.