Senate debates

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014; In Committee

5:57 pm

Photo of Jacinta CollinsJacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, you 'Green' Chair, Senator Whish-Wilson! No, Chair, I should be more respectful. I will take this opportunity to address in some detail the various amendments by the government. I think it might help Senator Wright, particularly on her first question where she was asking for advice from the Attorney in relation to the position on control orders. Perhaps I will address Labor's position, as reflected in these amendments, issue by issue. If the committee will bear with me, I will probably be dealing with some matters that are in what I expect will be in the second tranche of amendments that we will deal with with the next question—that certain items of schedule 1 stand as printed. But they go across issues, if the committee can bear with that.

Government amendments (1), (3) and (14) relate to requesting interim control orders. These, as with, I think, all of the amendments, are the implementation of recommendations of the intelligence committee. Labor accepts that the purpose of this bill is to improve the operation of the control order regime. We support the bill's intention to reduce unnecessary duplication of decision making by the Attorney-General and then the issuing court. However, the Attorney-General's consent is required for an application for a control order for a reason. The Attorney-General's involvement is necessary to provide an appropriate level of oversight and accountability at the highest level of executive government for the exercise of what is an extraordinary power. The intelligence committee's recommendation that the AFP provide the Attorney-General with a statement of reasons related to why a control order should be made and, also, any facts of why the order should not be made is, therefore, a very sensible suggestion. These amendments strike the right balance between the operational effectiveness and appropriate oversight. For this reason, we are supporting them.

I will move now down to amendments (4) and (7) and (15) to (18) regarding details of limitations. Again, these follow the recommendations of the intelligence committee. The committee recommended retention of the requirement under the current law for the AFP to explain to an issuing court each condition in a draft control order The bill as introduced would only require the AFP to justify the control order as a whole. Again, while Labor accept that the purpose of this bill is to improve the operation of the control order regime, we would not support removal of proper testing by an issuing court of the appropriateness and necessity of proposed control orders. Control orders allow for the imposition on a person of conditions, obligations and prohibitions which deprive that person of their usual rights. It is appropriate, therefore, that each and every one of those stipulations is assessed to see whether it is necessary to Australia's national security. Labor believe that extraordinary measures like control orders must always be rigorously justified, and we support these amendments which make sure that this will be the case.

Regarding amendments (8), (10), (12) and (13) around obtaining the Attorney-General's consent, this was another recommendation of the intelligence committee. The government's bill as introduced extended the time which the AFP would have to obtain the Attorney-General's consent to an urgent interim control order from four to 12 hours. As the intelligence committee noted, it is difficult to imagine circumstances where the Attorney-General would be unable to be contacted for a period of 12 hours and that eight hours should be sufficient for any reasonable contingency. Labor agrees, and we will support the government's amendments to implement this recommendation.

We understand amendment (9) to be a technical correction. Amendment (19), regarding references to ministers, implements a recommendation from the intelligence committee. It clarifies a drafting issue the committee raised and it ensures that references to ministers in the Intelligence Services Act are taken to refer only to the most senior responsible ministers. Again, this amendment is consistent with Labor's focus on oversight and accountability. The powers granted in the act should be exercised by senior ministers with the requisite experience and departmental support. The powers granted in the act should be subject to the oversight of the most senior levels of government.

Regarding amendments (20) to (29), this is a further intelligence committee recommendation. The amendments provide that where an agency head gives an authorisation when a minister is unavailable, the minister must be notified within eight hours. Although the bill as introduced imposed an obligation for agency heads to notify ministers as soon as practicable, the bill provides for this time period to not exceed 48 hours at the outside. There can be no justification for such a long delay. Labor supports these amendments, which will ensure that ministers are promptly notified when decisions are taken by agency heads in their absence. This will ensure the oversight and accountability that Labor insists on when powers are exercised under the Intelligence Services Act.

Finally, regarding amendment (30) and the inquiry, this amendment implements the previous intelligence committee's recommendation that new provisions of national security legislation be reviewed by the intelligence committee ahead of sunset periods, now set two years after the next federal election. Labor supports this amendment. There should be proper, sober consideration of new national security measures, and we welcome the guarantee provided by a statutory and timely review.

Comments

No comments