Senator BARTLETT (10:07 PM) —I want to put on the record the Democrats’ strong support for these amendments. I agree with virtually all that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray have said. Perhaps the only bit on which I would differ is this. Senator Ray said that all of these very serious, very strong powers—as he rightly described them—are necessary in the current age, but of course the Democrats do not believe that these powers are necessary. That is why we did not support the initial legislation when it was passed by this Senate, although I do acknowledge the very significant improvements that were made to the historically bad, as Senator Ray described it, legislation that was initially put forward. It is a good reminder to this chamber, when considering this amendment, of the very significant value of actually looking at legislation. Even though the Democrats did not support the final product, we did support the significant improvements that were made to the initial product.

It is a reminder of what has been lost and what will continue to be lost if government senators do not think seriously about the opportunities for improvement with amendments such as these. This is a very simple but very important improvement, an improvement in the legislation itself. It is also an important mechanism to enable the government and the parliament to make necessary improvements in five or six years time rather than in 10 or 11 years time. So even though the Democrats do not support extending the existing powers, because we did not support the initial legislation—our position is consistent with regard to that—we still certainly believe that, if they are to be there, they should be reviewed sooner. Indeed I suggest that five or 5½ years is still a pretty fair distance away for such very major powers.

I imagine the committee, which Senator Ray is a member of, landed at 5½ years as some sort of middle ground—he explained the reasons in his earlier contribution. It is a reasonable position which even the most gung-ho member of the government should be able to comfortably support. It was not an ambit claim; it was not something that pushed things to the outer limit of what should be expected. It was a very moderate recommendation supported by all members of the committee. For those reasons it is particularly appalling and galling that the government rejected it for such flimsy reasons. It would be equally appalling and galling if not a single member of the coalition in the Senate acknowledged that and voted in support of this very moderate amendment.

I think it was in Senator Ludwig’s initial contribution, possibly way back in the second reading debate, where he gave examples of other sunset clauses in various types of legislation. If I remember rightly he said there is a similar sort of sunset clause in the British legislation, which is much shorter again—a year springs to mind. I hope I am not misquoting him on that.

Senator Robert Ray —One year.

Senator BARTLETT —One year. So, as I understand it, the UK legislation, which, broadly speaking, is in most respects less hardline across the board than the Australian legislation, has a sunset clause of one year. Here we have the government trying to insist on a sunset clause of 10 years. It is a pretty significant difference for what, as all Labor speakers have said—and I expect most government speakers would acknowledge—is very hardline legislation.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator BARTLETT —I take Senator Abetz’s interjection about how terrible it is that people would be ventriloquists’ dummies—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—I think there should only be one person talking, and that is the speaker on his feet.

Senator BARTLETT —I would hope that government senators themselves are able to prove they are not ventriloquists’ dummies by showing some capability for reason and individual thought in relation to this amendment. They would be following the advice of their own Liberal members on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in supporting this amendment, which is totally consistent with the extremely moderate recommendation put forward by the committee.

To reaffirm the Democrats’ support for this amendment I will make one further point. Senator Ray certainly knows—I have mentioned it a number of times—that the committee that oversees ASIO, the intelligence committee, does not have representation from the crossbenches. He has explained his view about why that is reasonable, and he has a fair point: it is in the legislation. That certainly explains why it is there but not why it is justifiably in the legislation or elsewhere. He has put forward a view, and he has a reasonable point, a defensible position, with regard to that. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to point out that it is a committee that does not have non-major-party representation.

As was pointed out, ASIO in effect cannot really be scrutinised to any great degree by any of the other committees. I have been on one or two committees where we have had ASIO before us for various matters and, really, it is not worth the bother. Basically they just sit there and say, ‘We cannot comment on that for operational reasons’. You ask 20 questions and you get that answer. It pretty much wastes everybody’s time and everyone feels frustrated and irritated. So that is the only committee that can really scrutinise ASIO in any significant way. I have to take them on faith that they do it in a significant way because we do not know as we are not on it and most of what they do when they scrutinise is behind closed doors—but I am sure they do a good job with regard to that.

Senator Faulkner —But you can read their committee reports, can’t you?

Senator BARTLETT —Yes, we can read the reports. They are usually quite well-argued reports, I might say. In fact, every one I have read has been fairly well argued, even when I have disagreed with it. Nonetheless, that does not substitute for being on the committee itself. I simply wanted to emphasise that point. I did not want to divert to having a big whinge about it but I wanted to indicate that the mechanisms for scrutiny of ASIO that are there do have significant limitations. Again, as all senators would know from any committee they have been on, when you take evidence in camera, that in itself immediately puts a very problematic limitation on what you can do with that evidence.

This parliament has basically given ASIO that privileged position for many years. I am not suggesting that should be changed, but it is an extra reason why giving them carte blanche for a decade in relation to powers which are very extreme and without review is simply extraordinary. In my view, it is unjustified but, obviously, it is justified in the view of the majority of this place. Again, I ask government senators to recognise that even their own members on that committee recognised that and put forward a very moderate—and I think too moderate—recommendation for a shortened sunset clause of 5½ years. To reject even that shows that, once again, this government has no commitment to accountability, no commitment to transparency and no commitment to some of those fundamental building blocks of what used to be called liberalism. It is still called liberalism except in Australia, where you cannot use the word because people think you support legislation like this if you call yourself a liberal. I read from time to time that there are meant to be one or two liberals still left in the Liberal Party. This is an opportunity for them to demonstrate that.

Senator Abetz —More than there are democrats in the Democrats.

Senator BARTLETT —If there are more than four liberals in the Liberal Party, I look forward to seeing five of them or more crossing the floor and voting for this moderate amendment. It is a very serious issue. In all seriousness, these are incredibly strong and enormous powers that apply to everybody in Australia. It is a circumstance that anybody in this country can inadvertently find themselves caught up in for all sorts of unexpected reasons. It is very easy to think, ‘It is not going to apply to me because I do not get involved in dodgy activities with terrorists,’ but any of us who have bothered to look at the legislation even in the smallest degree know that any sort of association with somebody else who might have information that ASIO might want to get—even if it is just attending the same function as them—could be a trigger for somebody to be caught up by this sort of legislation, because it applies to everybody, including people who are not suspects. That sort of situation is something that needs to be scrutinised with the greatest degree of precision, and the overall examination of how those powers are used as a whole needs to be undertaken very frequently and the system must be continually assessed to see whether it is operating appropriately. I think it is a gross dereliction of duty by this government to simply put any sort of review or sunset clause out into the never-never.

I think it is a fair bet that, because of the length of time senators serve in the Senate these days, probably close to half the senators currently serving here in the Senate will not be here in 10 years time. To expect the Senate of that day, which will have very little institutional memory left of the rationale behind the putting in place of this legislation in the first place, to be considering a review is really devaluing the whole purpose of having sunset clauses, because the continuity of the people who were involved in it at the time will be lost. I doubt very much whether most of those participating in this debate will be here in 10 years time. I do not expect I will be, although I am looking forward to the people of Queensland showing good sense and giving me another term at the next election, along with Senator Moore, whom I noticed got preselected at the weekend, so there will be a few of us there.

Senator Faulkner —Do you want to put money on it?

Senator Robert Ray —Three to one and we will give you our preferences!

Senator BARTLETT —It would be an inside bet, and we cannot have that. Even if I did get re-elected, I do not think I would go for another shot and be back here in 10 years time. It is an incredibly long period of time in a political context and in a legislative context. I do not know if it is a record for a sunset clause, but I think it probably is. I do not know if anyone has mentioned that. I could not think of many other examples where there has been a sunset clause of more than 10 years. Why would you bother? That is another fairly damning indictment of this—that is, to have what is probably the longest sunset clause ever on a piece of legislation that is probably one of the most serious ever in the restrictions it places on the freedoms of Australians. It is a very poor match in terms of historically draconian legislation and a historically long sunset clause. It is a poor situation. I urge once again that at least one coalition senator, if not more, recognise that situation and support the amendment.