Alex White (Labour)

I agree with Senators Cummins and Ormonde on this issue. The phrase "contrary to the common good" is not unknown to the law. It is used by the legal authority to which the Minister of State referred. The term is capable of extraordinarily wide interpretation. The phrase "contrary to the common good" is used in section 12 which sets out the circumstances in which the Minister, to quote the Bill, "shall refuse to issue a passport to a person". Section 12(1)(c) provides that a passport may be refused to someone if:

[T]he person would be likely in the opinion of the Minister, after consultation, where appropriate, with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister for Defence or both, to engage in conduct that—

(i) might prejudice national security or the security of another state,

(ii) might endanger public safety or order,

(iii) would be contrary to the common good, or

(iv) might endanger that person or others.

I have quoted that section to draw the attention of the House to the other categories which, correctly, are quite specific. One can understand why section 12(1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iv), which are quite clear, have been included in the Bill. Section 12, which sets out the Minister's important role in refusing a passport, provides for three specific sets of circumstances in which a passport "shall", to quote the Bill, be refused. The fourth set of circumstances in which a passport "shall", to quote the Bill, be refused, namely, conduct that is, to quote the Bill, "contrary to the common good", is set out in section 12(1)(c)(iii). Senator Cummins rightly argued that this provision is quite wide.

I do not suggest the Minister of State or his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would use this wide net for any nefarious or improper purposes. However, we make laws not just for the current Minister but for the future of the State. This is an important Bill because it represents the first time we have codified passport law into legislation. This Bill might be regarded as a safety net. Each of the other three provisions in this section, section 12(1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iv), is covered by using the term "contrary to the common good".

I am tempted to conclude that section 12(1)(c)(iii) has been included in the legislation because officials are concerned that something which is not envisaged at this point might arise in future. Perhaps it has been decided that a broad provision of this nature needs to be included to allow us to act in circumstances which are not contemplated at present.

Another possible explanation of this measure is that the Minister of State has a view of what the phrase "contrary to the common good" means in the context of passport policy. If that is the case, he should inform the House. Can the Minister of State indicate what the phrase "contrary to the common good" might mean in the context of the issuing of passports? We can have a general discussion about what the term "the common good" means, but I would like an explanation of how the issuing of a passport can be, to quote the Bill, "contrary to the common good". Can the Minister of State give some examples of what he has in mind? Can he tell the House the circumstances in which the issuing of a passport would be, to quote the Bill, "contrary to the common good"? The serious issue that has been raised deserves to be addressed.