Chair, I think it's quite obvious, as the Minister members of the other parties said, that the need for this legislation was obvious. What was there was totally inappropriate. Not only that, but the assessment that we have a real threat of foreign intelligence operatives and also of criminal elements, is something that we all recognise. So, in that respect, there is nobody really who is serious about the need for this legislation who would counter it.
But, one important thing that we need to say is that the process was not very well-managed. As a result, we have a lot of these outstanding issues, because, had there been more time, the last remaining things could actually have been worked out. One good thing that I do have to say, and it's a testimony to the officials, the chair and members of the committee, is that, despite the very difficult nature of the Bill, in the end a very solid working relationship was developed. That is why, for me, it is a pity that we can't clear the last hurdle.
There has been so much "toenadering" [Making overtures towards]. Theirs is 99% consensus on this ill and for a country such as ours with our history to have achieved that kind of consensus is really something of considerable importance. We need to try, in these last few hours, to see whether or not there is something we can do.
I say all these things knowing full well that Cope and myself, as an alternate member were truants from the committee. We were often absent from school and so, we are not seeking to take any of the accolades for the work done.
I must thank the members of all the parties because they briefed us and kept us up to speed, so we were able to participate. But, that does of course limit the way in which we can take the stick out and beat you. Fortunately it means I'm going to be very temped in what I say.
However, on that issue of the public interest defence and the clause, it does seem to me that there's a philosophical problem that we face as a country because, on the one hand we've got in our Constitution that we have these freedoms of speech, media, as well as the right to information, and on the other hand we've got to protect government and the state and its interests.
I think the problem is that the Bill, as it's crafted, doesn't create the right balance between those two interests. It's not about giving people carte blanche to leak information; that's not what I think the public interest defence is supposed to do. What it's supposed to do is allow that there is a final safeguard when the state goes rotten. By saying that we are not saying this state and this government; we may have our differences on policy, but you may not always be there. I might become the President one day ... [Laughter.] ... and then you are going to have problems, because knowing me and my personality and willingness to fight, you can see how this legislation would come in handy for a person of my temperament.
Unfortunately, the opinion polls don't facilitate that at the moment, so you are safe. I think we have to go back and look to see if we can't find that balance because I really think we could find each other.
The second thing that I have spoken to the chair about is that, even though this Bill doesn't address that issue, we need to find a way because you've raised it yourself, Minister. One of the most serious problems is the people in the government itself peddling information. When that happens there's a breakdown of trust in the relationship between the citizens and the state. Again, it's not a question of your negligence, Minister, or any other Minister's negligence.
When a person is infiltrated into the government, and there are spies, there must be. We would have to be nave to think that there aren't spies in government.