Senator LUDWIG (3:46 PM) —In preceding the debate with my comments, I was not sure whether the minister was going to go to some of the detail of the amendments. I thank the minister for going to the detail of this issue and for joining the opposition in the unusual step, at least for the government, of voting against their own amendment. It is one of those areas which do require certainty. With this session coming to a close, I am sure that by the May sitting the government will have had sufficient time to provide certainty and ensure that the AFP have the tools available to undertake the range of tasks that they do. We appreciate the government's cooperation and the minister taking on board the comments made in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report.

I think it is worth while saying that the legislation committee, which have been criticised by both sides sometimes, have in this instance demonstrated the worth of a legislation committee to look at legislation, to have a hearing, to be able to call witnesses and to examine clauses. I am sure Senator Greig recalls the Monday night when we had witnesses from the AFP and the Attorney-General's Department before us. I think it did provide a worthwhile forum to examine the bill in more detail and to provide a clear picture as to what was intended by the legislation. We are waiting for the government to clarify whether the words of the amendment actually reflect the government's intention. Clearly the position is that now there will be sufficient time for that to happen. As to the other parts of the bill, the government has taken a particularly good approach in splitting those amendments to allow the other areas to proceed because, I am told, they are required by the AFP in this environment. The opposition accepts these amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2004.