

- Title
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) BILL 2004
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2004
In Committee
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
01-12-2004
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
41
- Electorate
Queensland
- Interjector
CHAIRMAN, The
- Page
27
- Party
ALP
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Stage
In Committee
- Type
- Context
Bills
- System Id
chamber/hansards/2004-12-01/0070
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- BUSINESS
-
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) BILL 2004
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2004-
In Committee
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Watson, Sen John
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Division
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Greig, Sen Brian
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Division
- Procedural Text
- Third Reading
-
In Committee
- AVIATION SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2004 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2004
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Regional Services: Program Funding
(O'Brien, Sen Kerry, Campbell, Sen Ian) -
Workplace Relations: Union Officials
(Scullion, Sen Nigel, Abetz, Sen Eric) -
Regional Services: Program Funding
(Carr, Sen Kim, Campbell, Sen Ian) -
Drugs: Strategies
(Ferris, Sen Jeannie, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Defence: Financial Statements
(Evans, Sen Chris, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Iraq
(Bartlett, Sen Andrew, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Defence: Financial Statements
(Bishop, Sen Mark, Minchin, Sen Nick) -
Communications: Child Pornography
(Harradine, Sen Brian, Coonan, Sen Helen) -
Telstra: Chief Executive Officer
(Conroy, Sen Stephen, Coonan, Sen Helen) -
Indigenous Affairs: Services
(Humphries, Sen Gary, Vanstone, Sen Amanda) -
Economy: Household and Personal Debt
(Sherry, Sen Nick, Minchin, Sen Nick)
-
Regional Services: Program Funding
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- LEAVE OF ABSENCE
- NOTICES
- BUSINESS
- ENVIRONMENT: NAVAL SONAR
- WORLD AIDS DAY
- INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS: PALM ISLAND
- COMMITTEES
- NUCLEAR ENERGY: LUCAS HEIGHTS
- WORLD AIDS DAY
- MATTERS OF URGENCY
- COMMITTEES
- BUDGET
- DELEGATION REPORTS
- COMMITTEES
- HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (100% MEDICARE REBATE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2004
- VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2004 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2004
- COMMITTEES
- DOCUMENTS
- ADJOURNMENT
- Adjournment
- DOCUMENTS
Page: 27
Senator LUDWIG (11:30 AM)
—In all fairness, it leaves it with the court because in that closed hearing the court can determine whether or not it accepts. It seems to be that the court has the discretion whether to accept the security cleared lawyer or the lawyer, as the case may be. It is not the politicians in this instance. The court has that discretion. The court can say yea or nay in this instance, and whatever happens from thereon happens. That seems pretty clear to me: it is not the politicians determining in this instance; it is the court. I think that was also reflected in the position that was adopted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee when it looked into this legislation. I think it is clear that in this instance your provision does not add anything, because the discretion already exists.