All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2019-10-15#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-10-18 15:45:11
|
Title
Bills — Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019; Consideration of Senate Message- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 - Consideration of Senate Message - Disagree with amendment
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendment (1) be disagreed to, and that amendment (2) be agreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendment (1) and when that amendment has been disposed of to consider amendment (2).</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>- The majority voted in favour of a motion "*that Senate amendment (1) be disagreed to*", which means the amendment will not be agreed to.
- ### Text of Senate amendment (1)
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 8), before section 3UL, insert:*
- >
- > *3ULA Expiration of this Division*
- >
- > *This Division is repealed at the start of the day after the end of the period of 4 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.*
<p>The opposition is happy to give leave for them to be considered in that order.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That Senate amendment (1) be disagreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>This amendment made in the Senate would place a sunset clause in this legislation. I rise in support of this amendment. It was moved in the Senate by Senator Patrick. It needs to be said that sunset clauses are not unusual, especially when they're inserted in respect of legislation that would introduce new coercive powers, and are often complemented by a statutory review provision, as is the case here. What has occurred in the Senate is that—as we have seen in, I would have to say, countless national security laws, particularly ones that insert new powers—we've got a pair of provisions. One is inserting a sunset for four years and the second is a review to enable parliament to consider whether or not the coercive power should be continued.</p><p>Senator Patrick's proposal is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be required to preview the provisions that are introduced by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 in three years time. The purpose of the sunset provision is to, in effect, require the parliament to take the outcome of the review seriously. That's because after four years, the parliament will be presented with a choice in the light of the outcome of the statutory review: does it reindorse the measures introduced by the bill, does it amend them or does it allow them to sunset and thereby cease to have effect? We shouldn't be afraid of sunset clauses, they're not unusual and they exist in many pieces of legislation—particularly in national security legislation. I commend Senator Patrick for moving this amendment. Labor supports it.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that Senate amendment (1) be disagreed to.</p>
|