Mr CREAN (Leader of the Opposition) (11:57 PM) —The Labor Party disagree with the government disagreeing with the proposals that have come back from the Senate. Labor are committed to protecting Australia from terrorism, but we do not have to turn it into a police state to achieve it. The government's legislation is flawed because it does not provide sufficient protection for our citizens. The Attorney-General indicated that what he wanted was a capacity for intelligence gathering and questioning by ASIO. Now he is turning it into a detention regime. We have been prepared to support the means by which ASIO gets that additional questioning capacity in its ability to intelligence gather. But we are not going to create an environment in which people who are being questioned are treated worse than suspects. That is what you are suggesting.

Mr Williams —No, it isn't.

Mr CREAN —Yes, you are. This is what your legislation effectively does. The bill that has come back from the Senate, following recommendations not only by Labor but also supported by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, gets the balance right. Yet the government will not accept it. Why? Because they want to play politics with this issue. That is the only reason we have, because the government have the capacity, through the bill before us now, to get the tougher regime that they argue for. Even members of their own party, the Senate committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD accept it. Members of your party accept the amendments that Labor has been promoting and the Senate has voted on. You are ignoring even members of your own party who have looked at all of this evidence and who have had the opportunity to consider the information. There have been representations from the Law Council and from eminent jurists in this country, and you ignore them. If the government were serious about protecting the nation's security, there is a simple answer: pass this bill now. It can be through tonight and the legislation can be in place as soon as possible.

This bill which has come back from the Senate gives unprecedented new powers to ASIO. It also ensures the necessary protection of our citizens. We were prepared to give our security services these new powers because of the new threat facing Australia from terrorism. But when you give an intelligence organisation like ASIO new powers you must have safeguards built in. No other similar agency in the Western world would have the powers that this bill delivers to ASIO—and the Attorney-General knows it. We have supported tough new powers to fight terrorism, but we also want protection for our citizens. It means getting the balance right.

I use the words `getting the balance right' because when the previous antiterrorism bills came before this House the government and the Prime Minister argued that our amendments were unworkable and unacceptable. We hear that language again tonight. Three months later, when the Prime Minister went before the National Press Club, he said that the antiterrorism bill had got the balance right. In other words, once the politics had moved out, he recognised and was prepared to publicly acknowledge the merit of the Labor initiatives. That is what you should be doing tonight. If you were honest with yourself, Attorney, if you were really serious about getting tougher new legislation in place expeditiously, you would be passing this bill that has come back tonight.

We have aimed to achieve four critical objectives, which the government oppose. The first is access to legal representation of choice. The second is protection of children under the age of 18. The third is a sunset clause to ensure further parliamentary scrutiny in three years time. This bill gives you three years in which to operate, and we will see how it functions. The fourth is a questioning regime, not a detention regime. (Extension of time granted)

Friday, 13 December 2002

—————

Mr CREAN —On the first area, access to legal representation, let us just understand that government members of the parliamentary joint committee and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee agreed that people brought in for questioning should have the right to legal representation from a panel of judges. That is what you are refusing to accept. That is what the recommendation says, Attorney. That was a recommendation from the Senate committee, and you reject it. Even your own members proposed and accepted that position.

The second area is protection for children under the age of 18. They also agreed. The government want to allow bringing in for questioning children as young as 14. It is inappropriate. They agreed to the three-year sunset clause, the third area, as well. In all of these areas, government backbenchers voted with us and against the Howard government's proposals. In his statement to the House, the chair of the parliamentary joint committee, David Jull, said:

That is from your own side of the parliament, yet you want to push this stuff through. You ignore members on your own side in this desperate bid to push the wedge. You are not looking for a solution; you are looking to play politics.

In the fourth area—a questioning regime, not a detention regime—the Attorney-General himself told members of the opposition, in negotiations, that his real objective was a questioning regime. On advice given to me, the Attorney-General explicitly admitted to the negotiators on our side that what he wanted for ASIO was a questioning regime, not a detention regime. What have we been prepared to acknowledge? And you have misrepresented the position here in the chamber. We have been prepared to accept a position in which people can be questioned for up to 20 hours—eight hours more than is the case under the Crimes Act, an extension of that.

What has the Crimes Act got to do with it? We are talking about circumstances in which this country has established mechanisms for questioning people. We are saying we are prepared today to go beyond that in these circumstances, and you say it is not enough.

Mr Williams —It isn't.

Mr CREAN —Do not suggest to us seriously, Attorney-General, that with up to 20 hours of questioning you cannot establish the circumstances of the individual. I do not believe it and the Australian public will not believe it. You say 20 hours of questioning—eight hours more than under the Crimes Act—is not enough, and that is what you are going to the wire on here.

Tonight, you told the media the opposite of what you were telling us in negotiations. You said you needed a detention regime. You never said that in the negotiations with us, apart from the fact that in the effort out there on the doorstop, you could not even remember what the issues were. It was a terribly inept performance, Attorney. You argued the point then and you said it again here in the chamber that what was being proposed by Labor was unconstitutional. This is a claim that has been rejected by the former Solicitor-General, Gavan Griffith QC. This is what he said in a statement issued tonight when your claim was heard. This is advice from Gavan Griffith QC. I will not read it in full. I will seek leave to table it, if that is appropriate. He says:

That is the former Solicitor-General. He then goes on to say:

So he is rejecting your argument there. (Extension of time granted) He goes on to say:

He goes on to say further:

I seek leave to table that advice.

Leave granted.

Mr CREAN —I challenge the Attorney-General to table his. You have been asserting in public that what Labor is proposing is unconstitutional. We have advice from an eminent QC, the former Solicitor-General, saying that you are wrong; that what we are proposing is constitutional. You should table your advice because I am prepared to table advice that we rely upon.

We have a situation here where the minister has been arguing a different case to us in negotiation and publicly. He can get a bill tonight. He can get a bill that gives ASIO additional powers and will in fact toughen the regime in terms of the war against terror, the fight against terror. We need circumstances in which the interests of our citizens are protected. At this moment, when the nation's security requires strong bipartisan support, the only response from the Howard government is to play politics. Labor will not stand for it and the Australian people will not stand for it.

The bill that is before us, the bill that we say the government should accept, gets the balance right between protecting our security and protecting our citizens. It gets the balance right between protecting our children and protecting the wider population who could get caught up in the misuse of unprecedented powers. We have delivered, yet again, for the government a sensible, balanced and workable piece of legislation. Members of your own party who sat in the committees to exhaustively consider the detail agree with us. But the government cannot help itself—it only wants to play politics. We need a workable solution; we have it and it can be passed tonight. The government has argued it is unworkable and unconstitutional; it is both workable and constitutional. Stop the deceit, stop the political games and pass the bill.