Senator GREIG (4:45 PM) —by leave—I move Democrat amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 4212:

(a) the Attorney-General has consulted with the Prime Minister and the Minister administering this Act;

(b) there are demonstrated grounds to show that this is necessary to protect national security; and

(c) the Attorney-General believes on reasonable grounds that the risk to national security cannot be managed effectively through other mechanisms.

(b) the Attorney-General has consulted with the Prime Minister and the Minister administering this Act; and

(c) there are demonstrated grounds to show that the proposed use or supply involves, or would involve, a risk to national security; and

(d) the Attorney-General believes on reasonable grounds that the risk to national security cannot be managed effectively through other mechanisms;

As I said in my speech on the second reading a little earlier, we Democrats are concerned about the significant and intrusive nature of the Attorney-General's powers under this section. We feel that the grounds for their exercise need to be much more clearly defined. The Attorney is only required to consider that the proposed use or supply would be prejudicial to security; there is no requirement that the Attorney-General's view be based on reasonable grounds or demonstrated grounds.

Secondly, we feel that the phrase `prejudicial to security' is ambiguous. We believe that this phrase should be replaced with an alternative form of words which implies a more specific threshold. For example, the requirement could be that the Attorney believes on reasonable grounds that the proposed use or supply would seriously threaten Australia's security.

Democrat amendment (2) redrafts proposed provision 58A(1) to ensure that the Attorney-General's decision is based on demonstrated grounds—ideally that would be an ASIO security assessment—and that the Attorney-General believes on reasonable grounds that the proposed use or supply would seriously threaten Australia's security.