Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 12 August 2004
Page: 26455

Senator LUDWIG (10:14 AM) —This is a matter we will not oppose in terms of the suspension motion. We will not oppose the suspension motion so that we can get on with the cognate debate in respect of the motion put. In fact, the cognate debate on the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004 and the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) 2004 is not that unusual in the sense that we can deal with them cognately; that is clear. They were originally one and the same bill. They were actually split and dealt with separately. In fact, on 23 June 2004 the Senate referred the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, for inquiry and report. On 5 August 2004 we agreed to a bit of an extension to finalise that report; nevertheless, that report has been finalised and is available. Since that time, parts of the No. 2 bill have been referred to the committee for further consideration, but it did not need to actually go to another committee. But all that aside, ostensibly the five schedules deal with the one matter, so we are in a position to be able to deal with that today. If the program is to proceed, then we will—and we stand ready to—deal with Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) and Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) cognately. They were originally the one bill. The No. 3 bill was split off. The committee inquired into the No. 2 bill but it also dealt with all the matters contained in the No. 3 bill, so we are in a position to be able to proceed with these today.