It's alright, though, they were only asking about anti-terror laws that give intelligence agencies vastly increased powers.

Yesterday the Senate passed the government’s third batch of anti-terror legislation, giving Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) broader powers to conduct operations in Iraq without approval from a government minister, and letting ASIS undertake operations against a “class of Australian persons” rather than against named individuals.

Crucially, the laws allow the Australian Federal Police to issue control orders on people suspected of “aiding or facilitating” foreign fighters like those currently in Iraq and Syria. Control orders let police detain someone without charging them, a process the Australian Human Rights Commission describes as having the potential to “impact on fundamental rights and freedoms including the rights to liberty, privacy, freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement”.

Considering the scope of powers the new laws give to intelligence officials who already wield great authority, and given even supporters of previous anti-terror laws believe they become law without sufficient scrutiny, it’s reasonable to expect lawmakers to ask questions of a bill of this magnitude so they can fully understand what they’re about to vote on.

Two nights ago Greens national security spokesperson Penny Wright attempted to do exactly that, grilling Attorney-General George Brandis on crucial aspects of the bill like what “aiding and facilitating” might be taken to mean, or who might be included in a “class of Australian persons”.

Unfortunately, Brandis decided he didn’t feel like answering questions that day. Like, at all. Instead of responding to questions about major anti-terror laws, or even giving a snarky non-answer like he often does, Brandis just sat in the Senate and ignored them like he was waiting for a bus.

On one level, this is bad because it’s just not done. Questions put to a government minister, especially one with the seniority that the Attorney-General has, should be (and almost always are) provided with some form of answer. If a person in government just decides they don’t have to answer questions in the Senate, they could just as easily decide as much about journalists or members of the public in general.

On another level, though, Brandis’ attitude is genuinely frightening. Laws that give security agencies the power to deprive people of their rights and operate overseas, even when they might be overwhelmingly necessary, deserve rigorous oversight and clarity so they aren’t abused. At the very least, people deserve to know what’s in laws like that before they come into effect. We now have anti-terror legislation on the books that Australia’s most senior lawmaker either can’t or won’t explain the purpose and effects of.

You can watch the whole exchange here (skip to about eight minutes in), or watch one of the highlights below.