Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—First of all, I would like to thank everybody who has participated in the debate on the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. The government in the Senate have made a number of amendments to the bill in response to recommendations made by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. I thank the committee and the Senate for their valuable contribution to the bill.

Since 2001 a number of incidents have served to remind us that Australia is not immune from the threat of terrorism. Terrorism is a heinous crime. The consequences of a terrorist attack in Australia are likely to be severe in not only the damage and destruction, the loss of life and the maiming that would occur but what it would do to our social fabric and our tolerant multicultural community. Accordingly, Australia now has a highly developed legal framework reflecting the seriousness of terrorism related activity. This framework is and must remain a key component in Australia’s counterterrorism strategy.

This legal framework provides Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies with appropriate tools to deter, investigate, apprehend and prosecute perpetrators of terrorism and other threats to national security. Australia has moved beyond the immediate response phase to the threat of terrorism following the attacks of 11 September 2001. The government is committed to ensuring this legal framework is robust enough to be able to adapt to future events and developments, and also incorporates appropriate review mechanisms to ensure the full suite of counterterrorism and national security laws remain necessary and effective.

The bill establishes the independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The monitor will ensure that the laws underpinning Australia’s counterterrorism and national security regime are effective as the threat to Australia’s national interests evolve. Importantly, the impartiality and independence of the monitor will strike a necessary balance between the need to prevent terrorism activities from threatening Australia’s way of life and the need to protect our individual rights and liberties.

There has been considerable debate on the bill and I take this opportunity to thank all members for their general support for the bill. I note that many have made constructive comments, including the member for Lyne, who spoke immediately before me. I also take this opportunity to clarify one matter to do with the role of the monitor which a number of members have touched upon in their speeches on the bill. Some members have commented about the monitor’s ability to examine any laws, not just those that have been used, and suggested that it is ambiguous in the bill. We do not believe that is the case and my comments will clarify it.

There is nothing in the bill that precludes the monitor from looking at any of Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation, as defined in the bill. Clause 9 of the bill provides that the monitor must give particular emphasis to the provisions of the legislation that have been applied, considered or purportedly applied during that financial year or the immediately preceding financial year. While emphasis must be given to the legislation that has been used recently, this is simply a matter of efficiency and practicality. In other words, it is prioritising but not prescriptive.

The emphasis reflects the fact that it will generally be of most value for the monitor to consider legislation that has been used, as the monitor will be able to consider how the legislation has operated in practice as opposed to purely hypothetical scenarios about how the legislation might operate. It does not prevent the monitor from looking at any laws because, as the member for Kooyong has indicated, this may well be necessary in the monitor’s role of determining whether laws remain necessary.

I should indicate that the title of the bill, as I noted in the second reading speech, deliberately includes the term ‘independent’. The monitor will be accountable through the processes of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet rather than the Attorney-General’s Department because of the fact that I am responsible for the operation of the better part of the national security laws. This is just an example of one mechanism but the specific provisions of the statute obviously apply to ensure that independence.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all members again for their contributions to the bill. The bill reflects the government’s commitment to ensure that Australia has a strong counterterrorism and national security legal framework that protects the security of Australians while preserving the values and freedoms that are part of the Australian way of life. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context