Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) on running sheet 4945:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 23), at the end of section 34D, add:

Statement of facts and grounds to be provided

        (7)    If the Director-General gives an issuing authority a request under subsection (6), the Director-General must give the prescribed authority a copy of the statement given to the Minister under paragraph (3)(b).

(2)   Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 29), after “subsection 34D(6)”, insert “and provided a statement in accordance with subsection 34D(7)”.

(3)   Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 7), at the end of section 34F, add:

Statement of facts and grounds to be provided

        (8)    If the Director-General gives an issuing authority a request under subsection (7), the Director-General must give the prescribed authority a copy of the statement given to the Minister under paragraph (3)(b).

(4)   Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 13), after “subsection 34F(7)”, insert “and provided a statement in accordance with subsection 34F(8)”.

The government has looked at ASIO’s questioning and detention powers and has obviously taken the time to look at the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, but it has failed to seriously consider all of the recommendations that were put forward. When you examine the report, you will notice that it goes to a significant issue which the government has not agreed with. Having picked up a number of recommendations out of the parliamentary joint committee report, the government has not picked up and put into this bill the issue of the statement of facts and grounds to be provided.

The opposition thinks the committee’s recommendation on this issue is sound. It was an all-party committee that came to accept these recommendations and put them before parliament. Judging by the size of the report, the committee took significant time to look at and consider all of those matters in some significant detail. It is worth taking the opportunity to go into detail in considering recommendation 10, which states:

The Committee recommends that:

- the supervisory role of the prescribed authority be clearly expressed; and

- ASIO be required to provide a copy of the statement of facts and grounds on which the warrant was issued to the prescribed authority before questioning commences.

I encourage those who are able to to look at page 59 of the report in more detail—in particular, paragraph 3.59, which states:

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.

It would seem not only sensible but also a course of action that can be followed.

There might be an argument from the government that the information would be secret or should not be provided but I think that, when you look at the seriousness of the issues involved, when you look at the overall regime that is being put in place and when you look at the parliamentary joint committee’s recommendations, you will see that the government has not adequately dealt with this particular issue. Although the process and the regime have not been used significantly, this is an area that the government should get right. It seems to be one of those basic rights that you should be able to have access to relevant information. Without that access, you are faced with the position of the prescribed authority not having and not being able to fulfil their proper supervisory role. They certainly will not have all the copies of relevant documentation, which they should have before questioning begins.

The government has chosen not to adopt this particular recommendation. It will be interesting to hear the government’s defence of that decision. If the defence is about secrecy, I do not think it washes in this regime. The defence can only be about not ensuring that there is the ability for the supervisory authority to have documentation relevant to the issues before them. But I will wait for the government to outline its position, and we can make up our minds from there.