Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Attorney for his technical advice. As he will discover in a couple of years time, the resources available in opposition do not really allow us the benefit of some detailed legal consideration in the time frames we often confront. He will no doubt learn that once again in a year or two. However, I want to set aside the discussion about that technical point, which I now understand and accept, and go to the point at issue. The point at issue is whether the recommendation and judgment of the Joint Standing Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD in this matter are right or whether the Attorney’s view is the correct one. Labor strongly hold the view that the committee have this right. I make it clear that, if the government persist with their opposition to this committee recommendation, which we are supporting, a future Labor government will alter the legislation to accord with that recommendation and to ensure that the prescribed authority has the full details of the grounds on which the warrant was issued. The committee said:

The Committee believes that, for the prescribed authority to discharge fully their responsibilities, it is important that they have access to relevant information. The prescribed authority is not currently provided with a copy of ASIO’s statement of facts and grounds which support the issuing of the warrant. Access to this information will assist the prescribed authority exercise their supervisory role and a copy of all the relevant documentation should be provided before questioning begins.

They are right about that; they are correct in that assessment. The prescribed authority needs that information if they are going to properly determine whether the questions being asked are appropriate and whether the behaviour in the course of that questioning is reasonable, given the grounds on which the warrant was issued.

In my speech on the second reading I referred to the seriousness with which Labor have always addressed this committee and the fact that we have highly respected members of the Labor Party who have served on this committee and who do at the moment. I want to now take the opportunity to acknowledge the government members who are on that committee which made that recommendation: David Jull, a former minister, who is the chair; Stewart McArthur, one of the longest-serving members in this parliament; Senator Alan Ferguson, who has a long period of experience on Senate committees, particularly on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which he has chaired; and Senator Sandy Macdonald, who has had a longstanding involvement in defence and foreign affairs matters and is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. These are people who not just have an interest but, I think it is fair to say, have earned some degree of respect in the security community for their involvement in this field. They have quite correctly made a judgment that, for the prescribed authority to do the job they are supposed to, they need to be given the advice—that is, the full statement—of the grounds on which the warrant was issued.

I listened carefully to what the Attorney said. There was nothing in what the Attorney said to cast doubt on that judgment. The proper course for the Attorney and the government is to accept the principle of that recommendation, to accept the principle of the amendment that I have moved and to give a commitment to introduce a government amendment, if need be, or, in consultation with us, to put forward an agreed amendment to deal with the problem that the committee properly identifies.

I repeat: I believe there is only one reason the government has so far failed to do that, and that is that this government does not support genuine judicial review in this process. It did not from the start. It was not the Prime Minister’s desire. I think this is further evidence of that underlying sentiment within senior government ranks. It is not shared by many on its own backbench. It is clearly not shared by the Liberal members of that joint standing committee. Nonetheless, it is a view shared by senior members of this government. They want that unfettered power. The Attorney-General thinks he should know but a judge who is sitting in these matters should not. That is not the standard the Australian people expect. Of course the Attorney-General should know, but no Attorney-General can put themselves in the position where they deny a judicial officer acting as a prescribed authority the opportunity to at least understand the full grounds of the reasons for which these warrants are issued.

See this speech in context