David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I just want to place on record, once again, the objections of the Australian Democrats on a number of grounds in relation to this legislation—whether it be a defective definition in the bill; the so-called constitutionality arguments; or the fact there are no real grounds for academic analysis of the kinds of materials to which we referred in the latter amendment we were just debating. I think that the Democrats put forward some constructive proposals to alleviate some of the questionable aspects of this legislation and I am sorry that they were not considered by the government. I think the government will have to face some interesting debates ahead not only through SCAG but also through the Classification Review Board itself. I think there will be some interesting difficulties in dealing with the interpretation of the legislation. Once again, I put on record that there is a very strong argument—and it has been put forward by a number organisations and key groups, particularly legal groups—to suggest that some of the current definitions under the act are adequate to deal with the threats the government say are posed by the current security environment. I am disappointed that some of the ideas put forward by other organisations and the issues raised through the Senate committee process and through various submissions have been given little consideration.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.