Senator KEMP (Minister for the Arts and Sport) (4:47 PM) —The government, as I flagged in the second reading debate, do not support the amendments proposed by the Democrats. We believe an amendment in these terms is unnecessary. In our view, the bill as currently drafted would ensure that a direction may only be given where the issue of a licence or the supply of a service would be prejudicial to security. In addition, I point out that the bill includes a range of measures through which security considerations may be addressed during the licensing process. The issue of a direction will therefore only arise in cases where those measures have been unsuccessful in resolving security issues. I point out that the Attorney-General would also be required to consult with both the Prime Minister and the minister administering the Telecommunications Act before directing the ACA to refuse to grant a licence or directing a carrier or carriage service provider not to use or supply, or to cease using or supplying, a carriage service or carriage services.

Senator Greig raised the issue of the meaning of the term `prejudicial to security'. The bill adopts the definition of security in section 4 of the ASIO Act, which includes the protection of Australia and its people from espionage, politically motivated violence and other dangerous activities. It is not appropriate, however, to develop a specific set of criteria that could be used by the Attorney-General to determine what is prejudicial to security. An inflexible set of criteria would limit the government in responding to specific and generalised security issues that may arise from time to time. We will not be supporting these amendments moved by the Democrats.

Question agreed to.