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

It is interesting. I have observed in life how people suspect other people of doing things that they are capable of themselves. Earlier on I was actually asked by a member of the opposition how long I thought this debate would go on for; they had a particular interest in other legislation not coming on. I said to them: I have absolutely no intention of filibustering. I have a series of legitimate and reasonable questions to ask, and once I have asked those I will sit down. I have absolutely no intention of filibustering. I am interested in asking these questions, and I feel in some ways that I am performing the role of asking questions that the committee of which I am a proud member, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, has asked the Attorney, and is in the process of asking the Attorney, in terms of not being able to finalise their consideration of this legislation because those questions are still unanswered. As I said, questions pertaining to the previous national security legislation—which has now been passed, is on the books and will be affecting the lives of everyday Australians from now on—still remain unanswered. But this is an opportunity for me to at least ask those same questions in this chamber and to try and get some clarity for the people in Australia who actually care about these issues. So I am not filibustering, and I take exception to that suggestion. I think it will be very interesting, Attorney-General. I am quite pleased to think that you will be answering these questions—and I hope you are writing them down, because there are quite a few here and I hope that we will be able to see that we have responses to the various questions that I have asked.

As a result of you refusing to answer them as we go, if I am not clear on what you are saying or I need some further explanation, then obviously that puts me at a disadvantage because that will not necessarily be possible. When you have given your answer, maybe I will be able to come back and ask some more questions about those.

For people who may be listening to this debate and who may think: 'Maybe she is filibustering,' I will go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report and go to the paragraph which I think really encapsulates why this particular issue of having powers expanded to allow ASIS in overseas countries to support the Australian defence forces in relation to a class of persons—not individual identified persons about whom there may be serious concerns because of their behaviour or their likely behaviour, but indeed a class of persons—is an issue. I will go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report to explain why that might be an issue. I am referring to paragraph 1.75 of that report:

As a result of these proposed amendments, ASIS would be able to collect intelligence on an Australian person, including using surveillance techniques on that person, simply because that person belongs to a specified class. The committee is concerned that in the absence of detailed legislative criteria for the determination of a class of persons, a class of persons may include, for example, all Australian persons:

That sounds horribly reminiscent to me of the way, throughout history, classes of people have been categorised according to things like their religious beliefs, political or ideological beliefs, or ethnic backgrounds. We are making laws today that will have an effect into the future. We do not know who will be making these decisions in the future. We are putting these laws on the books. These are unprecedented laws, and I am asking questions to clarify why it is necessary to go this far and how this may potentially affect people who are living today and in the future—until these laws, if passed, are revoked. Section 1.76 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report says:

While the committee acknowledges that there are a number of safeguards in the ISA, the committee considers that a class authorisation power has the potential to apply intrusive interrogation powers to a group, which do not apply to the broader community and as such could be indirectly discriminatory because, although neutral on its face, it disproportionately affects people with a particular personal attribute such as religious or political belief, or ethnic background.

It is on that basis that the committee has sought the advice of the Attorney-General:

… as to whether the amendments in Schedule 2 are compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination, and in particular whether the limits imposed on human rights by the amendments are in pursuit of a legitimate objective, and are proportionate to achieving that objective.

That is why I am asking this question and that is the question I am asking the Attorney-General now.