Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

If there were any substance at all in what the Attorney-General just said, then you would have to reflect on the dire straits the United Kingdom is in today. You would have to reflect on the enormous burden placed on the security intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6—these people who are not able to do their job because the parliament in the United Kingdom—indeed, the government in the United Kingdom—support a sunset clause for these laws of not once every 10 years, not once every five years, not—as we did have—once every three years, but of once a year.

If there were any truth in the Attorney-General’s statement—which, amongst the good-humoured banter across this chamber, he prefaced by saying—and this was the serious point—that it impeded the security agencies; if there were a shred of credibility in that one serious point the Attorney-General sought to put before the parliament—then you would have to conclude that our cousins in the United Kingdom have really got no hope, because they are caught in the bind of forever having to divert resources from chasing terrorists to getting prepared for the next annual review. That is patently nonsense.

A cursory knowledge of the situation with anti-terrorist activity in the United Kingdom would tell you that they have amongst the most sophisticated and capable networks and organisations in the world in dealing with these matters. Are they impeded because their parliament quite rightly says that these secret intelligence agencies, exercising these powers that are not normal in a free and liberal democracy, have to return once a year to the parliament, which has to satisfy itself once a year that these powers should be extended for a further 12 months? Of course they are not. They have not suffered any setback because of that.

Is the Labor Party proposing that there should be a 12-month sunset clause? No, we are not. We are proposing that there should be a five-year sunset clause. A five-year sunset clause is very generous. It is very generous to the government and very generous to the intelligence agencies. Is the Attorney-General seriously saying that the reason the parliament should not review this matter—that these laws should stand, in the normal course of events, for 10 years—is that to ask our security and intelligence agencies to provide advice in five years time somehow stops them chasing down terrorists for the next five years? What total nonsense. I cannot believe that the Attorney-General of Australia, who has responsibility for these matters, could stand in the parliament and proffer that as the serious point to be made in this debate. Ten years is not a sunset clause.

I think the one important thing that the Attorney-General said was that it was a compromise. And he then, I think accurately, said it was a compromise between having none and having one. The government view is that there should be none and so, if you are going to have one, you should make it as absurdly long as you possibly can, and that is precisely what the government have done here. It is absurdly long. A 10-year sunset clause does not stand any test of operational requirement; nor does it stand any test of reasonableness in the public mind. Labor will persist with this amendment.

The Attorney-General commented that perhaps there were some Liberal backbenchers on the committee who supported this because they had not properly reflected on it. I imagine they have had some counsel from senior Liberal Party members as to how they might reflect on these things. In fact, they had reflected on it before. Indeed, this is the second time this committee has recommended a five-year sunset clause. The members of this committee knew full well what the government view was. They knew what it was last November and they made it clear that they disagreed with it. They said it should be a five-year sunset clause. They knew what it was then and they knew the government did not like it, but they also knew that it was a standard that was important for democratic principles.

These sorts of laws should not stand unexamined for 10 years. A five-year sunset clause is generous. The government are wrong on this and they know they are wrong on this. It is a pity that the Attorney-General seems unwilling to accept the commonsense position that the committee has put and which is included in my amendments.

See this speech in context