Mr CIOBO (6:42 PM) —The member for Dickson, who spoke earlier in this debate, made reference to the fact that times have changed. It has almost become cliched now to say that the world environment has changed since September 11. But the point is that it has. The fundamental fact that can never be escaped is that old notions of the threat and risk paradigm have been forever changed. The new paradigm is a combination of the traditional nation-state enemy of old—the threat that was posed by the armies of old—in comparison to the threat of new; that is, the threat of the individual. What September 11, and then October 12 in Bali, demonstrate is that nation-states and people today are at risk of life and limb at the hands of terrorist cells that can, as has been shown, be as few as one, two or three people. In order to combat this threat effectively, it is important that government takes a good long, hard look at the legislation that we have in place to provide the powers for our intelligence-gathering agencies to circumvent any threat that may expose itself.

I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. It is an important bill because it goes to the very core of the way in which this government is responding to the new threat that befalls us as a result of increased terrorist activity throughout the world. This is a new threat that we must face up to in an environment in which individuals may potentially have access to weapons of mass destruction—weapons such as dirty nuclear bombs. Heaven forbid it should ever be the case that a small group of terrorists have the opportunity and the means to detonate a weapon such as this in any city around the world. This is not fearmongering. This is not trying to put the people of the community on edge. It is clear fact. To describe it as wedge politics does a disservice to the actual threat that befalls modern-day society.

The simple fact is that this legislation is important legislation because it addresses the fact that we have a new threat and risk paradigm. This legislation is not the process-focused legislation that the ALP is continuously relying upon. As is the case with their position on Iraq, we see that the ALP and the Greens are completely unable to ever step outside of a process-centric focus. For the ALP and the Greens, the morality of the current war on Iraq is predicated on whether or not it is passed by the Security Council. If 14 members of the Security Council were to say that they believed action in Iraq is appropriate but one country were to veto, according to the Greens and the opposition that would make the war immoral. That is a completely arbitrary framework to use.

I have a different point of view, and I know other members of the government do too. My point of view is that, with regard to Iraq, after 12 years the time has come for the Iraqi people to be liberated—and that is what we are doing. At the same time, we will remove the risk that is presented by a barbaric regime that is focused, as it has confessed, on developing weapons of mass destruction. Why are we doing it? Because groups like al-Qaeda—the types of organisations and people that the core of this legislation deals with—have expressed a desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction. They will obtain those weapons of mass destruction from rogue states such as Iraq and possibly from North Korea. If we cannot deal with Iraq after 12 years, how can we possibly hope to deal with a country like North Korea? After 12 years, we are still saying: `We need more time. What is a few additional months?' How can a United Nations that has no military and no real clout—other than containment—ever hope to be able to deal with a country like North Korea? But I digress. I will come back to the core issue that is before us today: this piece of legislation.

The opposition had this House sit nonstop for 27½ hours prior to Christmas. For 27½ hours we debated myriad legislation, but the central piece of legislation that kept the debate going was this. It is the opposition's position that they would much rather the Australian people go forward with a piece of legislation that is completely unworkable. It is completely unworkable because it tries to balance civil liberties, apparently, with the need for groups such as ASIO to be able to undertake the task that is required of them. The fact is that this legislation, as it is presented before the House today, is workable. This legislation strikes an appropriate balance between civil liberties and the need for organisations like ASIO to be able to obtain intelligence.

I will highlight a number of important issues that are contained in the provisions of this legislation. A provision in the bill includes, as one of a number of general powers, the ability to seek a warrant to question people for a period of up to 48 hours before they have access to a security cleared lawyer for the purposes of investigating terrorism offences. The regime for obtaining a warrant remains the same as it was when we discussed it prior to Christmas. In order to obtain a warrant for questioning, the Director-General of Security must obtain the consent of the Attorney-General. In order for the Attorney-General to provide his consent, he must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the warrant will substantially assist in the collection of intelligence and that other methods would be ineffective. That is the test. I would contend, and I know it is the position of the members of this government, that this is a very reasonable, very measured, very appropriate test.

Under the provisions of the bill, if a person is required to be taken immediately into custody, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the person may alert another person involved in a terrorism offence or that the person may fail to appear or may try to destroy evidence. That is a very reasonable threshold test when you consider that we are concerned with terrorism offences—perhaps on the scale of September 11, perhaps on the scale of the Bali bombings. The simple fact is that this legislation is reasonable, it is appropriate and it is balanced. It is in stark contrast to the unworkable legislation that the opposition has tried to ram through.

An example of the way in which the opposition's position is very unreasonable is that one of the sticking points with the legislation prior to Christmas was the fact that the opposition wanted to exempt people aged below 18. Apparently 17-year-olds cannot commission terrorism offences. World history makes it very clear that that is not the case. The fact is that in the Middle East today there are many people below the age of 18 who either are caught trying to be or unfortunately are successful as suicide bombers in countries such as Israel. The fact is that under the Criminal Code as it exists now the age of majority is 14, but apparently there should be a different rule for this legislation. That was one of the sticking points. The opposition are happy for the age of majority to be 14 under the Criminal Code and for 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds to be treated in the same way, but they say that we must keep it separate when it comes to someone below the age of 18. It is illogical and it is inconsistent. The opposition remain process focused, and they cannot escape the fact that this legislation as it exists now is balanced and reasonable and provides organisations like ASIO with the tools that are necessary.

The government have responded in a very reasonable way to a number of the opposition's requests. The opposition has put forward points that we have been willing to incorporate into the legislation in the interests of the people of Australia. We have done that because we would like to get the legislation through. We recognise that, unfortunately, we do not have the mandate in the Senate and that minor parties too frequently block the mandate that comes from the House of Representatives. So we tried to incorporate a number of the changes that were put forward. An example is the sunset clause. We have incorporated the sunset clause in the legislation now because we consider it to be reasonable. We do not agree with it, but the opposition has said that it will not pass the legislation otherwise. So, because we are concerned primarily with the welfare of Australians, we have incorporated a sunset clause. Likewise, we have made some minor changes to include, for example, procedures for frisk searches and for strip searches. We have incorporated provisions which state that members of the opposite sex cannot be present and cannot view a strip search except in extremely exceptional circumstances. There are also provisions pertaining to the right to have an interpreter and these types of things.

There are a number of areas in which the opposition's requests are completely unreasonable. The most glaring omission of all from the opposition is the fact that, when New South Wales passed its legislation, we did not hear a peep from the opposition. There are a number of ways in which the New South Wales legislation goes further than this ASIO bill—and the opposition did not say a word. Their crocodile tears now—crying that this legislation is too harsh—are nothing but a falsity. This legislation is important. It protects the community and it is an appropriate balance between civil liberties and the right of the community to ask its government to provide the framework necessary for agencies such as ASIO to provide safeguards for the community. Intelligence gathering is hard. Intelligence gathering is difficult. This legislation provides the tools for groups like ASIO to undertake that intelligence gathering. I commend the bill to the House and urge members to support it.