Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister Ellison, in the closing of the second reading debate, indicated that it was not mandatory for a government to accept the unanimous report of a committee that contained its own members. I must say I agree with that. But on this particular occasion we made 19 recommendations, some of which the government has rejected and we have accepted their reasons for rejecting them. But I do not think any member of the joint intelligence committee has found the reasons for rejecting our 5½-year sunset clause at all convincing. We did not just say, ‘Oh well, we’ll put this recommendation in because it’ll juice up the report or something.’ We gave this considerable attention. We considered it in detail before we recommended 5½ years. I noticed that the 10 years, if we follow the normal three-year election cycle, will mean that this bill expires around the time of the federal election in 10 years time. Someone has not thought that through too well. We thought it through. We had the bill expiring halfway through a term.

Minister Ellison earlier on gave two reasons for the government rejecting this, without backing up either reason. The first is that he says it is resource intensive to have these reviews and sunset clause. How resource intensive is it? I would like that quantified. I would like to know. What expense are we going to go to to have this very, very strict and robust legislation reviewed every 5½ years? At what cost? Just remember: ASIO is growing in size from 600 to 1,800 in a three- or four-year period—a massive increase in funding. By the way, ASIO can find $320 million to build a new building in the next two years—but it cannot find $50,000 or $100,000 to devote to a review of this crucial legislation. This ‘resource intensive’ argument is absolute, arrant nonsense. It is as if they cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.

It is a responsibility of a great institution like ASIO to be able to come forth to parliamentary committees and be scrutinised and to justify their actions. Most people know that we do not cross-examine ASIO in any depth at estimates committees, that the joint intelligence committee, on behalf of the parliament, carries out these duties, usually behind closed doors. They are offered these privileges, but one of their responsibilities should be to justify themselves in front of this parliament when necessary. Every 5½ years is hardly onerous. So, when we get the ‘resource intensive’ argument run, we know it is just bilge and garbage.

Sure, triple the size of ASIO! How much is that costing? I am not opposing it. But, over a three- or four-year period, it is costing a motser. We get approval to extend the ASIO building and then suddenly, in the last budget, we scrap it: ‘Oh no, we won’t extend it. We’ll build a purpose-built $320 million building.’ Again, I can see some sense in that. But, when the resource-intensive argument is used, it is absolute nonsense.

Then there is the second reason: ‘This interferes with operational priorities.’ Well, when and where has it interfered with operational priorities? Is this meant to imply that, because the parliament scrutinises ASIO, ASIO cannot fully do its job? And, therefore, if there is a terrorist incident, oh no, guess who is guilty? We are, for reviewing their legislation every 5½ years and distracting them from their job! It is patent, absolute nonsense.

Now, it is the case that not every piece of legislation should attract a sunset clause and, at times, a sunset clause has been used as a device to get people off the hook. This is not one of those pieces of legislation. This is legislation that says citizens of this country not suspected of a crime forfeit their right to silence. Modern times demand that this power be ascribed to ASIO and the Federal Police at the moment; we do not object to that. This legislation says that you could face a five-year jail term if in fact you refuse to answer questions. It says that you could be detained for seven days and questioned for 24 hours—far more than anything that is reflected in the Criminal Code. You can do all that, but don’t be scrutinised!

Of course, a sunset clause has a salutary effect on the behaviour of the organisation it applies to. ASIO will know to continue its so-far exemplary performance in the execution of this legislation when it knows that at some stage not too far into the future—5½ years away—this legislation will cease to exist unless the parliament restores it. A 10-year sunset clause is basically nonsense. It is not unique: it is applied to other legislation and it is equally objectionable there.

The real problem here is not just that the unanimous and considered decision of a parliamentary committee has been rejected but also that the reasons for doing so are so inept, so unconvincing. If there were solid and reasonable grounds, we would at least consider them, as we always have in this regard—but not the reasons you came up with. Firstly, you say it is resource-intensive for poor old ASIO—sloshing with money, massively increasing its staff, getting a shiny new building worth $320 million. I do not find that at all convincing. Secondly, you say it may interfere with operational priorities. What does that mean? I do not expect the minister at the table to come out and say, ‘We’ve got this or that operation going and it may interfere with that.’ What it really says is that ASIO must be a very fragile organisation if it cannot respond to one committee inquiry every 5½ years.