Senator LUDWIG (4:29 PM) —The opposition has carefully scrutinised the detail of the ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 and notes it is designed to improve the machinery of the questioning regime put in place by the parliament earlier this year. We also note that the bill does not change the framework of ASIO's new questioning regime. Nevertheless, given the controversy surrounding the earlier ASIO bill and the numerous expressions of envy by the new Attorney-General about the powers possessed by French authorities to detain people without charge for up to three years, it is perhaps inevitable that there will be a high degree of public interest and comment on the amendment bill which is the subject of this motion.

However, on careful examination, we do not believe these amendments are of such significance as to warrant a full Senate committee inquiry, which could delay their implementation until some months into next year. They do not alter the maximum period of detention, they do not limit access to legal advice or otherwise change the strong safeguards insisted on in earlier debate. When a person is being questioned, they will still have their lawyer present, questioning will be supervised by a senior judge and it will be videotaped. Nothing in the amendments alters a person's right to seek a remedy in court, so the person being questioned still retains important legal rights. But what will be curtailed is the ability of people to talk to anyone about what they were questioned about or to blab, as the case may be. Clearly that is sensible. ASIO and the police cannot operate to protect Australia if their investigations are in the media every day. The bill will close loopholes in ASIO's existing questioning regime which, thanks to Labor's insistence, gave ASIO robust powers balanced by strong safeguards.

To reiterate, we do not believe these amendments are of such significance as to warrant a full Senate committee inquiry, which could delay their implementation until some time in the new year, at least by a number of months. Given the nature of the amendments and the risk of delay, we do not support a reference of this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. As the Senate knows, this bill is mandated to be reviewed and there will be a detailed process of review in a little over two years. The Senate also knows that there were two extensive Senate committee inquiries into the bill. We do not refer every bill to a Senate committee; it is a matter of judgment as to the nature and content of the particular bill. In this instance, we have exercised that judgment not to send it to a committee.