Mr WILLIAMS (Attorney-General) (5:51 PM) —I move:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 is designed to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism capabilities by enhancing ASIO's investigative powers.

The horrific and tragic events of September 11 marked a fundamental shift in the international security environment.

That day showed us that no country is safe from the devastation that can be inflicted by terrorism.

Since that day, the Howard government has taken strong and decisive steps to ensure that Australia is well placed to respond to the new security environment in terms of our operation capabilities, infrastructure and legislative framework. The Howard government has been vigorously pursuing important measures to ensure that Australia is in the strongest possible position to protect the Australian people and Australian interests.

On the legislative front we have introduced a package of counter-terrorism legislation designed to ensure that we are in the best possible position to protect Australians against the evils of terrorism. I am pleased to note that one of the elements of the package, the anti-hoax legislation, successfully passed through the Senate today.

Importantly, we have introduced a range of new terrorism offences.

In order to ensure that any perpetrators of these serious offences are discovered and prosecuted, preferably before they perpetrate their crimes, it is necessary to enhance the powers of ASIO to investigate terrorism offences.

The amendments contained in this bill empower ASIO to seek a warrant which allows the detention and questioning of persons who may have information that may assist in preventing terrorist attacks or in prosecuting those who have committed terrorism offences.

The government recognises the need to maintain the balance between the security of the community and individual rights and to avoid the potential for abuse. These warrants are a measure of last resort. And they are subject to a number of strict safeguards.

In order for ASIO to detain and question a person, the Director-General of Security will have to obtain the consent of the Attorney-General before seeking a warrant from a `prescribed authority'.

A `prescribed authority' will be either a federal magistrate or a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with legal qualifications.

The Attorney-General must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that issuing the warrant will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence.

The Attorney-General must also be satisfied that reliance by ASIO on other methods of collecting the intelligence would be ineffective.

If the warrant being sought requires a person to be taken into custody immediately and detained, the Attorney-General must be satisfied of a number of conditions. Importantly, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the person may alert another person involved in a terrorism offence of the investigation, or the person may fail to appear before the prescribed authority, or the person may alter or destroy a record or thing that they may be requested to produce.

Without this provision, terrorists could be warned before they are caught, planned acts of terrorism known to ASIO could be rescheduled rather than prevented, and valuable evidence could be destroyed.

Further, if the warrant being sought requires a person to be taken into custody immediately and detained, such warrants must specify all persons whom the person is permitted to contact while in custody or detention under the warrant. Such persons may include a legal adviser. Or, depending on the circumstances, such warrants may provide for custody and detention incommunicado. However, at a minimum, such warrants must provide that the person has a right to communicate with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Ombudsman.

If a person is to be taken into custody immediately and detained, this will be the responsibility of police, normally the Australian Federal Police.

A person may be detained for a period of up to 48 hours.

In the extraordinary circumstances in which a further warrant is sought in relation to a person who has already been detained under two consecutive warrants, the Director-General must seek the warrant from a deputy president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The bill contains a number of safeguards to ensure that a person is treated fairly whilst in custody or detention.

Questioning of a person under a warrant will always take place before a prescribed authority.

When a person first appears before a prescribed authority, that authority must explain what the warrant authorises ASIO to do, the period the warrant is to be in force and the possibility of criminal sanctions if the person does not cooperate.

If the person does not speak English, an interpreter will be arranged.

The prescribed authority must also explain that the person has a right to complain to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in relation to the conduct of ASIO, and to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to the Australian Federal Police.

The person must be given the facilities for making these complaints.

The bill also provides that any person taken into custody or detained must be treated with humanity and with respect for human dignity, and must not be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

A video recording must be made of any appearance before a prescribed authority. These recordings must be provided to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, along with a copy of any warrant issued and a statement containing details of any detention that has taken place.

ASIO is also required to report to the Attorney-General on all warrants issued under the new provisions.

In some situations, a person with highly relevant information may refuse to volunteer it.

For example, a terrorist sympathiser who may know of a planned bombing of a busy building but who will not actually take part in the bombing may decline to help authorities thwart the attack.

In order for the new powers to be effective, it is necessary that penalties apply in relation to the failure to answer questions accurately or produce documents or other requested things.

The maximum penalty for the offences will be five years imprisonment.

A person will not be able to decline to give information or produce a document or thing on the ground that to do so would tend to incriminate them.

Evidence obtained as a result of the questioning will be available for use in subsequent criminal proceedings for terrorism offences or offences related to noncompliance with a warrant issued under the bill.

Finally, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, the Australian Security Intelligence Service and the Defence Signals Directorate will be asked to review the new powers and provide a report on their operation 12 months after their commencement.

These measures are extraordinary, but so too is the evil at which they are directed. The measures are transparent and subject to considerable safeguards. I am confident that the limits placed on these new powers will ensure that they are appropriately used.

It is important that, six months after the events of September 11, Australia does not forget the catastrophic results that terrorism can produce.

We must be fully prepared to be able to prevent such attacks. We must direct all available resources, including the might of the law, at protecting our community and ensuring that those responsible for threatening our security are brought to justice.

This bill is part of the Howard government's package of counter-terrorism legislation that delivers on the Howard government's commitment to ensure we are in the best possible position to protect Australians against the evils of terrorism.

I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.