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

In speaking on the proposed opposition amendments to the ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, let me first outline the reason for the decision for choosing 10 years. Ten years was chosen as a compromise—a compromise between a recommended sunset clause that we think would impede operational priorities and no sunset clause. The view of the agencies, which the honourable member has said we should take some cognisance of, was that there should be no sunset clause. The view of Dennis Richardson, who has been quoted with approval in this House today, was that there should be no sunset clause.

I do know—having oversight of security agencies, and this is a very serious comment—that, when you have inquiries that are a substantial review of all of your operations, they are resource intensive and they impact significantly on operational priorities. Quite frankly, I do not think that it serves our interests to be taking the key people in organisations like ASIO away from identifying the real terrorist threats and requiring them to go before a parliamentary committee, or another form of review, every three years, justifying why those powers are necessary. In the circumstances that we presently face—which nobody can tell us are going to abate—I do not think that is thought to be desirable. I make this point very strongly, and I am prepared to go to any forum, any place, at any time, with the honourable member and argue it. I think Australians would understand why, in those circumstances—the circumstances we face—you would choose the longer rather than the shorter period. That is the reason.

I can go to the debating points. You found a few Liberal members who, when they had not focused on these arguments clearly, were prepared to say, ‘We will compromise with you in a parliamentary committee.’ We found a few Labor premiers who said in the COAG process that 10 years was appropriate. Our premiers outweigh your backbenchers. Is that the debating point we want to make? The view of those in government who have to deal with these very serious issues was that 10 years was an appropriate time for the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 to exist before the sunset clause comes into effect. Our view is that, as it is sunsetting then, this legislation should sunset at the same time. I find the arguments very compelling.

See this speech in context