Senator NETTLE (2:15 PM) —I thank the minister for clarifying the situation whereby somebody who was at Lucas Heights and put up a banner would be caught under this legislation. I agree with the minister's comments that it is sometimes difficult to make a determination that a person is in an area with the intention of being involved in criminal activities surrounding the physical security of nuclear material; or being involved in acts which may cause significant harm or damage to people; or raising genuine concerns about the nuclear industry, such as safety and the many problems with the nuclear industry. It is sometimes difficult to make such a determination. Certainly, that issue was central to the debate that occurred in this chamber a year ago on the ASIO legislation—for example, making determinations about the purpose for which the person was there.

With regard to the previous offence we were talking about, under section 26 of the legislation, the opposition proposed an amendment relating to the intention of the person delivering the information. The Labor senators, the committee and I have already argued that there are flaws in that proposal in that it does not necessarily capture all instances. My question is: if the opposition and the government believed that it was appropriate to insert into this legislation a provision relating to the intention of the person communicating information, why, in this instance of trespass at a nuclear facility, do the government and the opposition believe it is not appropriate to insert such a provision relating to intention? Perhaps the minister or the opposition could answer that question for me.