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: 26463

Senator LUDWIG (10:55 AM) —I only want to reiterate the position I put earlier. We will deal with the legislation as put forward by the government today. The Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) 2004 has been on the red. It is worth stating, as I think I iterated earlier, that it was part of the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004, which had five schedules—the first dealing with passports, the second with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, the third with division 102 of the Criminal Code Act, the fourth with the Transfer of Prisoners Act and the fifth with the Crimes Act 1914. We adopted the position that schedule 5 was not an onerous provision. Schedule 5 contained amendments for the forensic procedure provisions in the Crimes Act to facilitate effective disaster victim identification. That is an important issue, and it should be proceeded with. I would not imagine anyone in this chamber would be opposed to it, especially given the nature of the issue contained within it.

The Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) was then split. Schedules 1, 2 and 5 of the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) were put into the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) and the remainder were left in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2). The Senate had an opportunity to look at the whole of the issue in the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004. The report also dealt with the issues that are now contained in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3). So it is not the mashing together—in terms that Senator Bartlett might use—of disparate measures. This was in fact one bill, the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2), and all these matters that are now contained in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) were in that. I will not go through the provisions. I will simply indicate that we do not oppose the cognating of these two bills, for the very reason that this in fact was originally one bill. All of those schedules, schedules 1 to 5, can be dealt with today.

Question agreed to.