Senator CHAMARETTE(11.17 a.m.) —I wish to put the Greens' position on the record. Sunset clauses do not work, or at least they do not work to achieve the purpose that I am sure Senator Spindler would wish they did—that is, to alert people; to stand as a signal that this is a bad bill, that bad powers are being put in place and that we should watch it and in two years do something about it. Sunset clauses simply allow unpalatable bills to be proceeded with and lull objectors into silence. Then the sunset clause provisions slip off unobtrusively, leaving the powers well and truly entrenched.

I would prefer to see this bill go through in the full position being put so that people can be aware of what a dangerous bill it is. A sunset clause merely says, `It's not quite that dangerous, because it has a sunset clause.' I remember the state government of Western Australia doing the same thing on the juvenile justice repeat offenders legislation which was an international disgrace and made mandatory provisions. Members of the government excused themselves by saying that there was a sunset clause provision. At the end of that sunset clause provision the mandatory powers were maintained and the legislation was made even worse by the next government that came into power.

So I could not speak more strongly against the use of sunset clauses. I do not think they work for the intention that they are designed and desired by people who have concerns about bills. The amendments Senator Spindler was moving were very good amendments. The concerns raised about them constitutio nally and in this chamber on both sides of the chamber are illustrations of the provisions of the bill and the unconstitutionality of what we are presently doing by passing this legislation.

In relation to the Health Insurance Commission's special powers, we saw how effective that sunset clause was. Senator Panizza, if you would like to wind me up, you will wind me up. The Health Insurance Commission powers that were given had a sunset clause provision—

Senator Panizza —I raise a point of order, Madam Chairman. I would like to explain to the Committee that I was making signals to Senator McKiernan. I am very little interested in what Senator Chamarette has to say.

The CHAIRMAN —That is not a point of order.

Senator CHAMARETTE —I am delighted to hear Senator Panizza's explanation and I am delighted that he is listening so attentively to what I have to say. The Health Insurance Commission's special powers had sunset clause provisions which we were being asked in this place to remove without even giving them the scrutiny that the audit office provided at a later stage. That report, fortunately, was able to be received before we passed the bill, removing the sunset clauses. But the kind of scrutiny we gave was very limited.

I would be delighted if any senator in this place could give me an illustration of where sunset clauses have succeeded in taking back powers that had been given and about which people had expressed concerns, because I would be willing to review my position on sunset clauses in the light of such evidence. In the absence of such evidence, we indicate that we would much rather have supported Senator Spindler's amendments, with the questions about them notwithstanding, because we felt that they honoured and tried to put some kinds of controls over the mechanisms being bestowed by this bill upon the police to actually engage in illegal activities. I think I have made my position clear and I thank Senator Panizza in particular for his attention.