Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I think that is a qualification. Perhaps the honourable member knew that I was going to point out that the Inspector-General has, in fact, been additionally resourced. Those resources are the subject of recommendation, given the nature of the numbers of complaints that he is receiving, and also the assessment, which would include discussions with him, as to what extent he believes it is necessary for him to undertake own motion inquiries. In the budget papers, it will be seen that the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, over a four-year period, has received an additional $3 million to enable it to address the workload associated with the increased activity of the Australian intelligence community.

The honourable member raised some issues in relation to complaints handling. I want to make the point that a person who is the subject of questioning or questioning and detention has a number of complaints mechanisms available to them. They can complain to the Ombudsman, they can complain to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and they can instruct a lawyer to pursue remedies on their behalf. So these are issues that can be effectively addressed and, in our view, we think we have the balance right in relation to those matters as well.

Another point that I want to raise, because it has become the major focus, is in relation to the 10-year sunset clause. The reason we came to the view that 10 years was appropriate was that that was the period settled in relation to other legislation dealing with security issues on which we have been in dialogue with the states. Our view is that these issues ought to be addressed at the same time. You do not need a multiplicity of inquiries and reviews. For that reason, in our opinion, the more appropriate period was that settled in relation to other legislation.

In that context I would simply say that this bill represents an important step in ensuring the continuation of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers beyond July this year and the effective operation of them. We have accepted recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I thank them for the work that they have undertaken. We have not accepted all of their recommendations, but we believe that the legislation is being improved by those that we have accepted. We appreciate the contributions that members on both sides of the political divide have made.

We think that the measures contained in the bill maintain an appropriate balance of civil liberties by enhancing safeguards and conferring more explicit rights on people who are being questioned and detained. These measures, combined with some other changes in response to the PJC and minor corrective changes, will clarify and strengthen, in our view, the effectiveness of ASIO’s questioning and detention regime. The questioning and detention regime needs to operate effectively if ASIO is to continue to have the best set of tools at its disposal for working together with other agencies to ensure the protection of the Australian community.

I conclude by saying that there have been—and reports from ASIO indicate this—a number of people questioned. That has proved very helpful to the agency in its work. The detention regime has not had to be used, but I think the very fact that it is there ensures more ready cooperation from people who might otherwise be resistant to questioning, knowing that it is possible that detention could be sought if cooperation was not forthcoming. The fact that there has not been use of the detention power should not be seen as a basis for suggesting that it is not needed as part of the overall scheme. I commend the bill to the House, and we will deal with the amendments shortly.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context