Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a point of order. I seek the standing orders you are referring to on those two aspects of that ruling: the first is not being able to ask two questions in a row and the second is why the time limit of 15 minutes. Where does that come from?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: My understanding is it is standing order 189(3) in relation to two questions in a row. In relation to the time allocated, 15 minutes is standard. It was my advice to you to put a number of your questions in that 15 minutes if you want to get them all on the record because under standing order 189(3) you will not be able to ask two questions in a row.

Mr Temporary Chairman, I am seeking clarification again. So the 15 minutes only pertains if I try to speak twice in a row?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright, you have a full 15 minutes and you would be allowed to speak for another 15 minutes but after that you would have to have another senator ask a question in between. Is that clear?

Yes, thank you, Chair. That is clear. That was the clarification that I was seeking.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright.

I want to following on the same theme in relation to the class of persons I was asking about—and I did not receive an answer so we are none the wiser as to the government's understanding of how that would be applied in context, what it means, how it is defined and then how it might actually be applied in practice. I take the Attorney to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report. It is the 16th report of this parliament. It was tabled today. There were issues raised about the expansion of the ASIS powers in relation to class of persons in that report. Paragraph 1.73 of that report states the expansion of powers will:

… enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give an authorisation to ASIS to undertake activities for a purpose which includes producing intelligence on a … class of Australian persons or to undertake activities that will … effect … a … class of Australian persons.

This is a significant shift away from where it would be in relation to an identified individual person. This is where ASIS is providing support for the Australian Defence Force.

So my first question—and these are questions that are raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—is: why is this necessary? The statement of compatibility that accompanied the legislation we are considering today, which is a requirement from the legislation that established the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, provided by the Attorney-General's Department does not actually identify this particular expansion of powers as engaging human rights and certainly does not explain why it is necessary. The frame through which human rights issues are considered is whether they are necessary. When human rights are engaged they may be limited on the basis that it is established that it is reasonable to do it, necessary for a legitimate objective and proportionate to achieving that objective. We have a situation where we have ASIS being able to provide support to the Australian defence forces, to obtain intelligence or to undertake activities which may affect a class of Australians in a foreign country—and the statement of compatibility did not acknowledge that that was engaging human rights, and has not explained why it is necessary. My question to the Attorney-General is: it may well be necessary, but there is not information on the public record as to why this significant step is necessary—so why is it necessary to have that expansion of powers?