Senator GREIG (9:21 PM) —The Australian Democrats have some serious concerns about the process through which this bill has arisen and what we see as the inadequacy of the minister to satisfy the core question that lies at the heart of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 . We are also very uncomfortable with the fact that it is being rushed through both houses of parliament on the very last sitting day of this session on what is the very last session for the year.

The question we ask is: why? Why is the government rushing through the bill at this time? Indeed, I have asked that question and the response has been curious. The govern ment alleges that, because of a hypothetical proposition put to an inquiry by the Queensland police, this bill is necessary. Again I ask: why? Senators with longer experience than I have in this place will know that the government does not list bills that are merely to deal with hypotheticals. Actually I would have thought the government never engaged in this sort of exercise without strong reason.

But the only reason that has been offered to the Australian Democrats is that there is a hypothetical problem with the National Crime Authority Act. This is all very curious. Bad legislation is most often legislation that is created in haste without the proper mechanism for scrutiny, and my fear is that in this instance bad legislation may be the result. Only a proper inquiry can reveal that, but it is an inquiry that will not occur for this bill. The Democrats have strong reservations about that.

The purpose of the bill is largely intended to bring about what is perceived to be the original intention of the legislation. Our key point of contention, as I have outlined, is the comprehensive retrospectivity of the bill. If applied, the retrospective imposition of this bill will go back to 1984, a 15-year period. I think it is quite extraordinary that there should be such strong and anxious agitation from the government that this retrospective action must be taken urgently on what amounts to a totally hypothetical case. In this regard the bill is highly precipitous, and to the best of my knowledge there has not been any research into the actions and prosecutions of the NCA for the last 15 years in order to see if any citizen or corporation may be adversely affected by the extraordinarily retrospective nature of this proposition.

I sincerely hope that the real reason for this legislation is not revealed in the coming months. There is a legitimate suspicion on the part of the Democrats, because in my six months time spent in the Senate, I have never been lobbied so strongly by the government or its operatives as I have been in this case. At its heart, the essence of this bill is really about the rights of citizens and their ability to comply with the law. This bill relates directly to criminal law, and I submit that criminal law ought not be dealt with in this rushed and haphazard way. It deserves greater scrutiny and greater attention to the detail of the rights, as well as the obligations, of citizens whom this bill may affect.

This bill is being presented on the hypothetical notion that the current operations might—and I stress `might'—be challenged by someone who has been wrongly convicted under previous actions of the NCA. It is worth noting that within the concluding comments of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on this legislation, the committee stated:

. . . there is no explanation of why the operation of the amendments needs to be backdated to 1984. The Explanatory Memorandum merely comments that the amendments `clarify the nature of the State and Commonwealth legislative framework that supports the National Crime Authority'. While ambiguities in section 55A of the Principal Act may be corrected by the amendments, those amendments also expand the scope of the NCA's powers. They do so both prospectively and retrospectively.

This retrospective operation appears to have the potential to validate NCA activities as far back as 1984 which were undertaken under a State mandate that had no equivalent provision in the NCA's own legislation—as required by the Principal Act. A question arises about the number and nature of such NCA activities.

In reference to these concerns, the committee asked the minister to provide greater detail on the effect of the bill, particularly as it relates to the effect of the proposed changes, why the changes are necessary and why the changes are needed retrospectively. In answer to the third and perhaps most pressing question, the minister responded with just four lines:

Without retrospective operation, NCA actions since 1984 authorised under state law could be challenged. This would jeopardise a range of matters where the evidence was obtained by reliance on state powers such as the confiscation of drugs and the prosecution and subsequent conviction of persons involved in organised crime.

In other words, people may have been wrongly convicted because the NCA had acted outside its powers. I make the point that anybody at any time can challenge the validity of legislation. Ultimately, all legislation stands or falls on the say-so of the courts. There is nothing new in this regard. I still fail to see the need for the rush on this amend ment bill. Are we really to believe that the nation stands to become overrun with drug barons and corporate fraudsters who might be released in their dozens at a moment's notice? There is no evidence that this will happen, and my inquiries reveal that there are no cases before the NCA or the minister to that effect. On the face of it, it could reasonably be argued that these amendments may not be necessary. They seek to clarify and reinforce the status quo rather than alter and/or expand it.

I am unaware of any court case that may have prompted the alleged pressing need to refine these powers, and I note that nothing in the NCA Act prevents the conferral of powers, functions or duties on the NCA or the Federal Court by law of a state. As the High Court determined in February 1998 in Gould v. Brown:

Many statutes have been enacted providing for federal office holders to receive additional powers and functions as conferred by the laws of another legislature within the federation. Such legislation is permissible.

I understand that the government and opposition have agreed on a position to support this bill, with proposed amendments from the opposition. On that basis, this bill will pass the chamber tonight. It is the very real hope of the Democrats that the passage of this bill does not come back to haunt the parliament in future. We defer to the minister, Senator Vanstone, who to date has indicated to the Democrats that this bill is not in response to any real-life case of litigation against the NCA that may be on the horizon. We must take those assurances on face value.

Given the joint support for this bill, the Democrats are not proposing to bring it to a division but take this opportunity to record our strong reservations about it, particularly with the wholesale retrospective nature of it. We are not opposed to retrospective legislation per se, but as a party we have historically argued that retrospective legislation is best dealt with on a case by case basis and in accordance with clear need. This legislation is wholesale, not case by case, and is not founded on any clear need. Our serious concerns with it remain unchanged.