Mr BYRNE (1:23 PM) —I rise also to speak on the report that has been tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD into division 3 part III of the ASIO Act 1979 which, obviously, governs ASIO’s questioning and detention powers. In rising to speak on the tabling of this report, I would like to acknowledge and welcome the return of the committee chair, the Hon. David Jull, and to also acknowledge the excellent work that his predecessor and acting chair, Senator Alan Ferguson, put into the committee. It was a relatively difficult inquiry, and the manner in which Senator Ferguson chaired that committee—in a very bipartisan and a very fair way—was a great credit to him and also to the spirit of the committee. I would also like to thank the staff of the secretariat of the committee, particularly its secretary, Mrs Margaret Swieringa, Dr Cathryn Ollif, and the executive assistant, Donna Quintus-Bosz, for their assistance, without which we would not be tabling this particular report.

As a member of that committee, examining something which is regarded as a relatively controversial piece of legislation, I was particularly grateful for the cooperation that was exhibited by the members of ASIO and particularly its former director, Dennis Richardson. It enabled us as committee members to have a detailed understanding of the operation and the execution of a law which had generated much debate within a particular community. It enabled us to see how it worked and some of its potential shortcomings as well. Getting that frankness out of ASIO and watching the workings and the operations of this law gave us a very detailed insight into its execution, particularly in light of the current debate about existing legislation.

A lot of the committee’s deliberations on these matters—whether or not the actual legislation needed further strengthening, shall we say—were shaped on the first day of the hearing in evidence that was put forward by the former director of ASIO, Dennis Richardson. He was questioned by Senator Ray, putting aside the question of the sunset clause, as to whether or not there should be increased powers in this legislation. The answer to that was no. In fact, a member of the Attorney-General’s Department said:

The director-general was asked, again by Senator Ray:

The answer by the director-general was yes. In effect, the committee was not arguing for an increase of the powers in this particular piece of legislation to combat the threat of terrorism but, in the words of the Attorney-General’s office, ‘improving the safeguards of the powers and clarifying the rights of the individual’.

In reflecting as an individual committee member on this piece of legislation, when I looked at the debate in June 2003 I found that, in his concluding remarks, the Attorney-General said about these particular powers:

We have heard from the chair that the use of those powers has been appropriate by the agency and it has been appropriately independently monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I would say in this place that it emphasises that, when you bring legislation of this nature to the Australian parliament, it should be subjected to an independent and bipartisan committee process. There should be some independent supervision and some accountability to this place.

I would certainly welcome the insertion of the sunset clause. This is a very important mechanism to keep agencies accountable—not because we believe that they will not exercise their powers prudently, as has been the case in the execution of the 14 questioning warrants, but because we need to provide the legislative security protection for them to be exercising their powers. That was one of the key recommendations arising from this report.

I would also argue this: in terms of the execution of this particular legislation and its passage through the various committees, which has strengthened the legislation—in fact, we have 19 recommendations which, in my view, strengthen the effectiveness of the legislation—that, in future, when governments bring forward legislation like this, they should refer it to this committee: a bipartisan committee. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?