Mr FILING(11.42 a.m.) —The reason for the concern is the onerous requirement that, when requesting assistance, a nation that is in the process of prosecuting someone is required to provide a guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied. In other words, Australia is asking that nation to adjust its criminal justice system to suit us.

The irony is somewhat rich. We actually helped train the troops from a neighbouring country that has recently been responsible for killing innocent citizens of its own nation. Yet here, in the case of, say, a drug trafficker who is responsible for drug trafficking, we would impose a requirement that that nation provide a guarantee that the death penalty would not be applied in that particular case. In my view, that requirement is too onerous and it is an impediment to better cooperation in our region. And let's face it, on both sides of the political process both the previous government and the current government have obviously expounded on the greater relationship with our Asian neighbours.

All I am saying is that this provision has in it an implication that we are asserting that in the case of, say, Malaysia or Singapore, aspects of their criminal justice system are so abhorrent to us that we would not cooperate in the investigation of a very serious offence. We are talking about offences ranging from murder to war crimes, and all the way through to, in some instances, very serious drug trafficking offences. My view is that at the end of the day, that would be seen to be a stumbling block in the way of better cooperative efforts at a time when we need cooperation. We do not want to put impediments in the way; we should be removing them.

At the end of the day, the Attorney-General still has a discretion available in the amendments that I propose to move. We are not taking away that discretion. It is not a very onerous requirement to make a guarantee in relation to the prosecution of a person who has been arrested and charged with an offence in that particular category. That is all.

As far as the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Ruddock) raising subsection 8(1B), I have no problem with it at all. It is just this particular section that I believe would attract a fair amount of interest and opposition from around the country from those who believe, as I do, that any of these sorts of impediments ought to be removed and that, at the end of the day, a blanket ban is not in our best interests.