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

I thank the chair for his comments and I thank him for his leadership in relation to this committee. It is a committee that has quite unique responsibilities. It is regarded as one in which those who have had a degree of experience around the parliament might contribute. I notice reference is made to some changes in our committee membership. Might I just note that the former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, was a member of this committee until he left the parliament fairly recently. He of course was succeeded by Andrew Robb, who is also a very senior member of the opposition. It is a matter of note that this committee is one that does deal with very sensitive and difficult issues.

As one who has had the responsibility in a previous life of supervising the issue of warrants for security purposes, I commend the chair for taking up, first, the issue of intercept warrants. I know that proposals are not lightly advanced, nor is approval given, unless it is clearly warranted. Senator Ludlam tried to bring the interception process, which is fundamental to investigating organised crime as well as protecting the safety and the security of the Australian community, into disrepute by comparisons which bear no examination. Senator Ludlum commented that Australian citizens are vastly more likely than citizens of the United States to have their telephones tapped by various agencies. As the chair outlined, a fairly rudimentary examination of the Australian data with the way in which it is kept in the United States of America would seem to me to indicate that you are five times more likely to be the subject of an intercept in the United States of America than in Australia. And the data indicates that the American warrant system, which enables multiple intercepts off one warrant, translates into approximately 170,000 individual authorisations under the Australian system. When you look at the Australian figures, which vary between 3,000 and 3,500, you can see how the assertion that was made was quite flawed.

But the committee has been dealing with some other issues. One that was quite contentious for the committee in its consideration related to issues of parliamentary privilege. When the committee was advised by a presiding officer that documents might be sought by the Australian Federal Police in relation to inquiries that they were undertaking, there was this question as to whether or not documents of the committee should be made available for police investigations. I think people would want to know that the committee took this matter very seriously and received advice from the Clerk of the House of Representatives as well as from the Clerk of the Senate. While in the end the committee had no objection to the documents being sought being made available there was a very careful consideration of that issue.

Finally, might I say that the committee has had a very active program, and the report outlines that. I am privileged to be the deputy chair of the committee and I might say that the continuing scrutiny of these matters by people who are vitally interested in them should reassure the Australian public.

See this speech in context