I have the guts of 20 years' service as a national public representative, but this is the most mental Bill I have ever dealt with in here. It is crazy. There is lots of really good stuff in it but, as regards the structure of a Bill, it is beyond comprehension. It gives "miscellaneous" a new meaning. It is so diverse. It is not good practice; it is the worst kind of practice. I can nearly guarantee the Minister that there will be issues arising out of this legislation because it has not been scrutinised to the level required. I respect that time is of the essence with some of these provisions. I know there is pressure, particularly from the Opposition, in relation to a range of issues, for instance, the disregards being brought in today, which we 100% support, but this is no way to do it. The list of stuff going through this Bill is like an A-to-Z of everything in the Department. It is crazy stuff.
Sentiment score: -0.05
And other Departments, including the Department of Defence. It is a Who's Who. We are doing the ICC Act and the disregard of convictions for homosexuality-related offences today, and there are provisions relating to arrest warrants, prisons, the Minister's capacity to ask for Defence Forces' help, counselling notes, sex for rent, DNA, pepper spray, community service orders, face coverings - there is so much-----
Sentiment score: -0.11
Yes, but if the Minister were sitting here a few years ago, there is no doubt he would be saying what I am saying. I recall quite clearly his criticism of the previous Minister for justice, whom he now sits beside, in relation to lots of legislation. I have to be honest about this. This is no way to do legislation. For instance, the disregard is such an important topic on its own. The issues in relation to the ICC Act and the Rome Statute are critical. They have potential domino impacts on the triple lock discussion, which I will point out in a second. In addition, from the point of view of the administration of democracy, it is borderline impossible for us to do our jobs here because of the manner in which this is constructed with the cross-references, from a legislative point of view, the drafting, the manner in which we have to approach it and the volume of legislation covered.. Even versioning is a problem in relation to this Bill. In relation to the disregard of convictions for historical offences for people in same-sex relationships, I acknowledge all the work that has been done by many different people down through the years. I have named them in the House previously. I am delighted that the Minister is dealing with this issue and that he has honoured that commitment. I also acknowledge over a decade's work by my colleague Deputy Ged Nash who has been in the Minister's ear about this since he was appointed. It is very rare you get to say it about the person sitting beside you, but, as a colleague whom I have known for many years, Deputy Nash has continuously been on about this for well over a decade. I acknowledge that while he is present. The second issue is relates to the ICC Act and the Rome Statute. I want to reference part of this and, particularly, the issue of the four components in relation to the act of aggression. Where there is an act of aggression by a state, the crime requires that the act "by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations". Not every unlawful use of force will give rise to a manifest charter violation. However, since the ICC has not previously prosecuted in this regard, there is a possibility here, basically, of unintended consequences if the Government gets rid of the triple lock, and that is what I am trying to warn the Minister about.
Sentiment score: -0.06
That is for sure.
Sentiment score: 0.32
Been there, done that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Fair point.
Sentiment score: 0.32