Division
David Leyonhjelm I move Liberal Democratic Party amendment (8) on sheet 7661: (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 31), after section 187N, insert: 187NA Sunset provision This Part (other than section 187N) ceases to be in force at the end of the third anniversary of the implementation phase for this Part. The rationale for this amendment is to provide the opportunity for more widespread and more public debate and review, particularly in light of the fact that the PJCIS includes no members of the crossbench or Greens. To that end, this amendment carves out from the sunset the bill's review of operation provision section 187(9) by the PJCIS but ensures that if the bill sunsets and comes to be re-enacted, it will be debated by all of us in this place. It is also Liberal Democratic Party policy that, if draconian laws are to be enacted, they be sunsetted. It is part of the liberal tradition that fewer, better-drafted laws be enacted. Forcing parliaments to revisit earlier bad law goes some way towards achieving this, if only by reminding parliament not to produce rubbish laws in the first place. George Brandis The government opposes this amendment. Proposed section 187N provides for quite a detailed scheme for the review of the operation of the relevant part of the act. The review was to be conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The period by which the review must commence and by which it must be concluded, which are both in the near future, are specified. It is routinely the role of the PJCIS to review the operation of legislation of a national security character, which is what this legislation is. It would be unusual—I am not sure if it would be unprecedented, but it would certainly be unusual—for the review of legislation of this kind to be conducted by any other organ of the parliament other than the PJCIS. Its reports, of course, are public and will be able to be debated in this chamber at the appropriate time. The gove
Senate, 2015-03-25. negative: ayes 15, noes 32.
Question
David Leyonhjelm I move Liberal Democratic Party amendment (8) on sheet 7661: (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 31), after section 187N, insert: 187NA Sunset provision This Part (other than section 187N) ceases to be in force at the end of the third anniversary of the implementation phase for this Part. The rationale for this amendment is to provide the opportunity for more widespread and more public debate and review, particularly in light of the fact that the PJCIS includes no members of the crossbench or Greens. To that end, this amendment carves out from the sunset the bill's review of operation provision section 187(9) by the PJCIS but ensures that if the bill sunsets and comes to be re-enacted, it will be debated by all of us in this place. It is also Liberal Democratic Party policy that, if draconian laws are to be enacted, they be sunsetted. It is part of the liberal tradition that fewer, better-drafted laws be enacted. Forcing parliaments to revisit earlier bad law goes some way towards achieving this, if only by reminding parliament not to produce rubbish laws in the first place. George Brandis The government opposes this amendment. Proposed section 187N provides for quite a detailed scheme for the review of the operation of the relevant part of the act. The review was to be conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The period by which the review must commence and by which it must be concluded, which are both in the near future, are specified. It is routinely the role of the PJCIS to review the operation of legislation of a national security character, which is what this legislation is. It would be unusual—I am not sure if it would be unprecedented, but it would certainly be unusual—for the review of legislation of this kind to be conducted by any other organ of the parliament other than the PJCIS. Its reports, of course, are public and will be able to be debated in this chamber at the appropriate time. The gove
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.