Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

The ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 is an important step towards balancing protection measures with appropriate safeguards. As previous senators have outlined, it is in response to a review of the ASIO Act by what is now called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I can say that the work done by that committee was extensive, and I acknowledge the work done by members of that committee. I also want to acknowledge the comments of Senator Ray, who pointed to some of the positive aspects of this bill, albeit that there were recommendations of the committee that the government is not accepting. Senator Faulkner outlined accurately the recommendations which have been agreed to, those which have been partially agreed to and those which have not been agreed to, and the government has tabled its response outlining the reasons for accepting or not accepting some of those recommendations.

I would like to address some points in relation to the debate. The first one relates to the sunset provision, particularly the length of the provision. The government accepts the parliamentary joint committee’s recommendation for ongoing review and a further sunset period for ASIO’s questioning and detention powers. The length of time, however, is a matter of issue. The government is saying that the period of 5½ years recommended by the parliamentary joint committee is insufficient. The government believes that a 10-year sunset period is more appropriate. A 10-year sunset period is consistent with the sunset period applying to the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 and agreed to by state and territory premiers. The experience of recent statutory reviews has shown that such reviews are resource-intensive and impact on operational priorities. I think that is an important aspect to bear in mind when dealing with an agency such as ASIO.

Given these considerations, and the fact that the government is continuously reviewing the effectiveness of legislation, an earlier review or sunset period is not warranted. The longer period is also consistent with the period the government assesses there is likely to be a need for this legislation. As the Attorney-General has said in the other place, it is important that we do not get lulled into a false sense of security that no terrorist attack will happen in Australia. Just recently we saw the head of ASIO at Senate estimates once again outline, in an opening statement to the committee, the current threat to Australia in relation to terrorist activity. It is important that we ensure, therefore, that powers which have been found to be effective by the parliamentary joint committee continue for a period of time in which it is assessed that they are likely to be required.

The opposition expressed concern about the government’s decision in relation to recommendations 10 and 19, which relate to the provision of information to prescribed authorities and the sunset clause. I notice that the opposition has circulated amendments on these topics and I will deal with those during the committee stage when they arise. Suffice to say the government will not be supporting these amendments, for reasons previously set out by the Attorney-General. I particularly note that the bill imposes not just a sunset clause but a requirement for a detailed review by the parliamentary joint committee. That is an important point to note in this debate. One aspect of the sunset clause which the government rejects is the notion that a shorter period would mean that ASIO is less likely to abuse its powers. In the affluxion of time that has taken place, the review has found that the measures provided by the legislation have worked reasonably well. I think that, having regard to that, one can safely assume that they will continue to do so. We are not saying that the legislation should continue without a review; however, a 10-year period is a much more appropriate period to adopt.

The bill has many positive aspects which are very important for the security of Australia. I have acknowledged the work done by the parliamentary joint committee. It is the case with legislation, when it is reviewed by a committee, that the government of the day does not necessarily accept all the recommendations made by that committee. That does not necessarily mean that the committee did not carry out extensive work or that the work was not thoroughly done; it is a question of policy and accepting what is relevant and appropriate for the needs of the day. I think that the government has approached this in a rational manner in determining which of those recommendations should be agreed to. I therefore commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.