Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the remaining amendments (5) and (6) on the opposition’s sheet in my name:

(5)    Schedule 2, item 32, page 61 (line 30), omit “22 July 2016”, substitute “22 November 2011”.

(6)    Schedule 2, item 33, page 62 (line 4), omit “22 January 2016”, substitute “22 June 2011”.

I do not intend to take a long time on this debate, particularly in that I made Labor’s position clear during the second reading debate. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD similarly provided a view that it is really untenable for this government to argue for a sunset provision of a duration which would put it really beyond the pale. It is a sunset provision where, even if you were in the Northern Hemisphere in Alaska or in the Southern Hemisphere in Antarctica, you would say they have endless summers but also endless winters. But this sunset clause is beyond the pale.

Three of the 113 submissions put to the committee argued that a sunset clause should be removed from the legislation. I think that that in truth belies what the government’s motive is in making a sunset provision of this length. Of course, for those who might not know who those three are or who could not guess, they include ASIO, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Federal Police. The argument which the committee concluded in recommendation No. 19 was for a sunset clause of 22 June 2011. I will give the government an opportunity once more to reconsider that. It is a matter that the opposition feels quite strongly about and that the government should in fact pick up. I know they will not, but I will give them the opportunity to test the numbers one last time before this bill is finalised.

It is not only a matter of principle. When you look at the period that they are seeking to have imposed on this, I know where the numbers are going to lie—the government will have the numbers—but it is worth ensuring that they can marshal their forces rather than let this slide, because it is important. When you look at legislation that has come before this parliament where we have, as committees, recommended provisions for them to be reviewed, to be looked at, to be sunsetted, these are matters that committees do not suggest lightly. They consider them in detail and attach them to reports for governments to pick up. I have to say that the history of this government, although I might complain about it on a range of other matters, is that it has picked up many sunset provisions or reviews that have been recommended in the past by various committees.

But in this instance they remain obstinate. They do not want to pick up a reasonable sunset provision because, in truth, their position is one where they do not want a sunset provision at all. This puts it in that frame—the frame of 2016. If you look at the extent and nature of the powers and the secret nature of their use, scrutiny of the most rigorous kind must remain in place. It must be there, sitting on their shoulder, overseeing their work so that they know at some point their work will come to be scrutinised. As the committee said at paragraph 6.46:

As they should not be permanent and should be scrutinised as thoroughly as possible, it is the Committee’s view that the sunset clause must remain.

The committee did acknowledge that a period of three years is brief, and that is why the committee made recommendation No. 19. But it looks like this government is not going to wear that; it looks like this government is going to remain and turn what could only be called an insensible ear to the really powerful arguments that were provided by the joint committee, which for those who are following this debate are in paragraph 6.23 of their report. But there are other bills to get through, so I will not delay this any further. I commend the amendments to the Senate.