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

I will go to what those remarks are. Your reason for the issuing of warrants remaining with judges is still not clear. Your press release of 1 August 2007 states:

The Minister for Justice and Customs Senator David Johnston sought to clarify reports of the position of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (National Investigative Powers and Witness Protection) Bill 2006: delayed notification search warrants, to be debated in the Senate next week.

“Suggestions that warrants will be issued by police officers themselves under these amendments is simply not correct,” Senator Johnston said.

I wonder where that came from. Perhaps the minister could take the opportunity of telling us where it came from, because when you look at the material it does tend to point to you, Senator Johnston, as not knowing your own legislation and not knowing that delayed notifications have oversight. That is what it points to, quite frankly, when you read the transcript. And it seems to suggest that that is why you had to put out a media release to clarify the position.

You were asked about it on the ABC by Mark Colvin:

MARK COLVIN: You said to The Sydney Morning Herald that … they say this: “the lack of judicial oversight was justified by the Minister for Justice and Customs David Johnston on the grounds that a court or judicial officer might leak news of the warrant. I don’t want to impugn anyone but the security of these operation has to be pristine.”

DAVID JOHNSTON: That is a complete fabrication of what I said.

MARK COLVIN: They lied about the quote?—

there was a pause—

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well I’m not saying that they lied. I just don’t believe that the act has been read. It is crystal clear. When people put questions to me I presume and want to understand that they have taken the time to read the legislation.

Senator Johnston, I do not believe what you have put forward, because you have said: ‘I am not saying they have lied; I do not believe that act has been read.’ It seems to me that of course the act may not have been read. It may not have been read by Senator Johnston—that is the problem. That seems to be the heart of the matter—that it may not have been read by you, Senator Johnston. In your statement, ‘I do not want to impugn anyone but the security of these operations has to be pristine,’ who in fact are you collecting into that broad sweep? Who are you saying falls under that hammer? Who would you be impugning by saying that?

Let us go back to the legislation itself. It is crystal clear that the Senate committee made recommendations. The Senate committee made those recommendations, but you did not take the opportunity, Senator Johnston, in your summing-up, to go to those recommendations—which it is usual to do—and to say, ‘We support this recommendation; we do not support that recommendation for this particular reason and that is reflected in the amendment.’ You will get an opportunity to say that, and I hope you can at least clarify that you have picked up important recommendations of the Senate committee, and you can thank the Senate committee for finding those for you.

Another part of this which seems to have escaped you is that the Labor Party say that ACLEI should have oversight. If you had done your homework, you would have gone back and looked at the Senate committee transcript of Thursday, 27 April 2006, where Commissioner Keelty said:

It is a difficult situation I find myself in because of the question. One of the reasons why I am here appearing personally before this committee is because I initiated the Fisher review. I believe firmly that integrity is the core value of the AFP. I have to say to you that it is a question that I have asked myself. Part of the core business of the AFP—our remit—is to investigate and apply the fraud control policy of the Commonwealth to other Commonwealth agencies. There is a gap here—and I do not want to name agencies—if you look at the powers, such as access to search warrants, access to the use of firearms and access to detention.

That was in the ACLEI inquiry, where there was a gap. Labor was trying to fill that gap. Your response to that has only included the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—you want to fill that gap. A gap that is required to be filled remains here, Senator Johnston. Your response is, ‘No, we will not fill that gap.’

Senator Johnston, you have the opportunity here today to fill that gap if you so wish. You could make the statement today that you intend to use the regulation-making power to expand it out. We do not agree with that; we think it should have been part of the substantive provisions within the bill. You have the ability, without bringing it here, to expand it to include those agencies that I have mentioned, and you have the opportunity to be able to clarify your press release once again, which I was not going to go to earlier today. But, Senator Johnston, it seems that you cannot stop yourself from provoking with misstatements about the opposition. We have been supportive of antiterrorism laws throughout. We have made practical and meaningful suggestions. Perhaps you have not been here during those debates—maybe you have been at Cable Beach, too!