Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to support the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. The bill is important and does a number of things that I think many in this place would agree are worthy. However, I do want to address some of the points made by the member for Brisbane. In his remarks he made a number of important points about this bill and the lead-up to this bill. However, he did speak about the member for Kooyong and his motives.

I am glad that he raised the member for Kooyong in relation to the development of this piece of legislation before us tonight, because for a member in this chamber to label the member for Kooyong’s proposal for bill for a national security legislation monitor as a political stunt would be doing the member for Kooyong a great disservice. He is a passionate believer in this particular bill, and in what this bill means, and I think all members of this House know that. So I think it is unfortunate for the member for Brisbane to accuse the member for Kooyong of engaging in some sort of political chicanery in something that he is passionate about.

There is no doubt that, when the member for Kooyong attempted to introduce and speak on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008, the actions of the government and the Leader of the House in gagging the member for Kooyong were extremely unfortunate. There is no doubt today, looking at the provisions of this bill we are examining tonight, that if it were not for the member for Kooyong introducing that earlier bill, and attempting to push this very important and worthy cause, we may not now be facing this worthy development in legislation in Australia today.

In examining what this bill provides for, it comes with a series of amendments which the opposition supports. The amendments make the bill resemble the member for Kooyong’s bill in almost every regard. I just want to make that clear to the member for Brisbane: the amendments almost make this bill identical to the member for Kooyong’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008. So I think to assign some sort of ill motive to the member for Kooyong in developing or speaking on this bill is poor indeed.

These amendments are important because the other point that the member for Brisbane made was that, in appointing a national security monitor, independence was one of the most important concepts. The key difference between the government’s original bill and the bill that was proposed by the coalition and the member for Kooyong was the notion of independence. It was one of the things that the member for Kooyong was particularly keen to ensure was in the final legislation. That is why we can support this bill now—independence is the hallmark of the monitor in the current bill before the House.

Having a monitor subject to the direction of any executive would lead to bad outcomes. I think having a monitor responsible to the Prime Minister or having any ad hoc inquiry subject to prime ministerial approval would be a weak outcome. Therefore, the amendments that have been proposed do give genuine independence to the monitor, and that is significant in what we are proposing.

What we are talking about in this legislation is having a monitor on laws that seek to limit the freedoms and the rights of citizens. The parliament has taken the view in recent times that, due to the dramatic security and other threats to the ongoing stability of Australia from terrorism, we should limit the rights of citizens in our country. That is something that we would only do in the most extreme circumstances, where the most extreme threats were faced. It is something that I think most of the Australian public has been willing to accept and accede to as long as parliament takes those measures appropriately and has oversight and monitoring of those powers.

There has been no experience of how these new developments in international terrorism and international antiterror laws will play out in the long term in relation to civil liberties, citizens’ rights and ongoing issues of government having too much power or authority over the individual or an individual’s life. The United Kingdom created an office of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws some time ago with that very view in mind. That was the motivation of the member for Kooyong, taking inspiration from the United Kingdom, to put forward a bill that would ensure that we have some monitoring and some safeguard against laws that may well be used aggressively in the future. So, as we progress through this period where terrorism is a major threat in world terms, we do need to constantly monitor and assess the efficacy and adequacy of and the need for laws such as security and terror laws in Australia. That is what the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010 attempts to do and establish. It is our answer to the UK legislation.

The standing function of the monitor will be to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the counterterrorism and national security legislation. The monitor will have to report findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister on an annual basis, which of course is a worthy objective. I do want to endorse what the member for Brisbane said about bipartisanship in relation to this bill. Regardless of who is in government, I think it is important that the Leader of the Opposition be consulted in relation to who the monitor is and who the appointment is. Bipartisanship in relation to these matters is something that is worthy and that is to be lauded and it is a good objective of this bill.

The bill provides for the appointment of the monitor and prescribes the functions and framework for reviewing the relevant legislation. The bill also provides the monitor with the power to compel a witness to take an oath or an affirmation that the evidence given will be true. Further, the monitor has the power to hold both public and private hearings, which I think is another important feature of this bill—that indeed there is the capacity for public hearings—and to compel the production of documents and things. This is supported by criminal offences for conduct in the nature of contempt. Again, obviously the monitor will require certain powers in this regard.

The fundamental difference between the bill as presented in its initial form and the bill as amended following the urgings of the coalition is that we were strongly of the view that, if you have a reviewer, it is important that you strongly support the apparatus of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws. I do think that if you had your so-called independent reviewer set up as a bureaucrat or in a similar vein as with other agencies, you would of course not have that independence. So it is very important that this amended legislation provides for that. I think it is worthy that they have allowed for an independent monitor to be in place.

In concluding, I do not want to speak for a long time on this bill tonight, because it is a worthy bill. I do want to say that the member for Kooyong’s motives are that he has followed this issue for some time, both in the United Kingdom and here, and he is well known as a person who has a passion for these issues. In relation to national security legislation it is important that we do have ongoing monitoring of the efficacy, the adequacy and the ongoing development of these laws and how they impact upon citizens in Australia. Having an independent monitor—I stress the word ‘independent’—as we as a coalition urged the government to do is a worthy and laudable objective. With the amendments, this is a bill that we can support.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. It is pleasing to hear from opposition speakers that this bill, in the form in which it is now before this chamber, has the support of the opposition. It is of course the case that we have had very substantial debate in this country since late 2001, when the first of a series of antiterror laws were introduced by the Howard government, and those antiterror laws are, of course, rightly regarded by all in this place as temporary measures. They are regarded as temporary measures because they make extreme changes in some respects to what has been traditionally understood to be the balance between the liberties that Australians enjoy—indeed, the liberties that Australians have fought wars for—and the need for our authorities to be armed with necessary powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism.

It is because of the extreme nature of these measures and because they are rightly regarded as temporary measures that, at the time that the antiterror laws were debated in late 2001 and in 2002 and the years following, a substantial part of the debate was devoted to considering what length of review was appropriate for them and what type of sunset provisions ought to be introduced so as to ensure that temporary measures of the nature of these antiterror laws did not remain part of Australian legislation for any longer than they needed to. I can say that—and I think there would be some agreement, with the benefit of the years since these laws were passed—the sunset provisions that we find in the legislation introduced by the Howard government were inadequate. In fact, only division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act has a clear sunset clause and it brings on a review in 2016. It was because of the absence of sunset provisions applying generally to the Howard government’s antiterror laws that there have been repeated calls for other reviewing mechanisms, and those calls have included suggestions that there ought to be an independent reviewer of the antiterror legislation who would conduct regular reviews and bring to the attention of the government and the parliament any suggestions that there was no longer a need for these antiterror laws to be continued.

It is unfortunate that two of the opposition speakers who preceded me, the member for Mitchell and the member for Stirling, have sought in a sense to rewrite history. They have sought to forget the attitude that the Howard government took to the Sheller review in 2005, and that attitude was to implement not one of the 20 recommendations of the Sheller review.

Debate interrupted.