Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (5.24 p.m.)—The opposition supports the amendment to the National Security Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I think it is fair to say, without claiming credit, it has its genesis in a proposal that we put to the government in a cooperative sense—but, again, having regard to recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. It is almost like clockwork that when we do refer a bill to a committee—and, in particular, quite complex national security legislation—the current Attorney-General will say that it is a demonstration that we are prevaricating or weak on national security. That is invariably proved to be a hollow accusation, because invariably the committee comes back with sensible proposals. Some people may say it is wishful thinking on my part and others may say it is arrogance in predicting dangers for the government, but if the government assume that with a Senate majority from 1 July they will be the exclusive holders of wisdom in framing legislation then they will leave themselves open, at the very least, to a charge of arrogance and, at a more severe level, to a fall by way of an error or in not being connected with public opinion.

Our Senate committee system has been particularly effective because of a reasonable balance of membership, but I think the parliamentary committee system as a whole is really an unsung asset of the federal parliament. I know that some of my most fruitful years in the parliament have been spent participating in the committee system. Contrary to popular media, there is a lot of talent in the federal parliament both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Contrary to public opinion and the popular media there is a lot of goodwill and determination to try to achieve legislation that is in the national interest, as opposed to simply party-political interests. While there was a clear indication from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing that the Attorney-General has been somewhat annoyed when these references to committees have occurred, where we can we have tried to expedite the committee process so that reports could be handed down without unduly delaying the legislative process. But people should not underestimate or devalue the contribution made by the committees.

In particular, in briefly addressing the issues in this case, the primary national security information legislation applying to criminal proceedings was in some ways more significant—whether or not someone went to jail—but in other ways it was easier to deal with because ultimately we kept the discretion of the actual trial court to govern the outcome of the proceedings and, in particular, to determine the restriction on the admissibility or form in which national security-sensitive information was to be admitted. Both sides of parliament preserved the full powers of the court, including the ability of the court to stay those proceedings.

As a number of experts who have been referred to in the Senate mentioned in their evidence to the committee—again, in the committee process—that logic is not always convenient or practical in a civil proceeding because you may in fact be staying a proceeding by a citizen against a government and actually depriving a citizen of their rights. This amendment essentially gives some guidance to the court that, before they stay a proceeding, for instance, they should have regard to both the costs incurred by the litigant up to that stage and whether their order would deprive the litigant—and I am not using the precise words—of a likely or potential remedy. And there is a catch-all in the amendment of ‘any other matter the court considers relevant’. The process was not lacking in merit. A reasonable outcome occurred, and we believe the legislation is better for having gone to the committee. A sensible proposal, ultimately refined with the expertise of the government, has been put forward which we are happy to accept and agree to as members of the opposition.

Question agreed to.