Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (12.00 p.m.) —I thank the Attorney-General for coming into the House. I will be brief in terms of my comments on this bill, which reproduces what were formerly schedules 1, 2 and 5 of the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004, which was brought into the House shortly before the last recess. The House will recall that schedule 1 dealt with foreign travel documents, schedule 2 dealt with the surrender of passports and the restriction of movement of persons in the context of ASIO issuing a questioning warrant under ASIO's powers to investigate potential terrorist situations, and schedule 5 dealt with forensic identification of victims of mass casualty incidents. I have already spoken in some detail on the provisions of these measures as contained in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) 2004 when I made my contribution to the second reading debate on the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004. As I said, my remarks will be relatively brief with respect to these measures, which not essentially although in actuality replicate what was in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004. [start page 32075]
Since the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004 was introduced into the House, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee has had an opportunity to receive submissions and hear evidence on these provisions which are now included in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3) 2004 as well. I understand that the committee is due to report tomorrow. It is worth noting that the committee received around 93 submissions, which is indicative of the high level of community interest in applying scrutiny to legislation of this kind. I commented on this previously.
It is worth noting that, while schedules 1 and 2 attracted significant comment and scrutiny in a large number of submissions, only three submissions were received in respect of schedule 5, which deals with the forensic information in the event of a catastrophe occurring in Australia. Those three submissions were brief emails and their comments were essentially bland statements such as, `Concerns about schedule 5 intruding into the privacy of citizens.'
With respect to those who made such submissions, it is appropriate that they read the background to schedule 5 and in particular its recommendation that these measures were necessary to deal with an event which none of us wants to occur on Australian shores but which was identified in the Sherman report as a matter of urgency. Indeed, concerns about intrusion into the privacy of citizens have been firmly rebutted by the former Federal Privacy Commissioner, who is active in his protection of the interests of the privacy of Australian citizens. He, in fact, joined in the urgent recommendation of the Sherman committee for the amendments in schedule 5 to be made as soon as possible.
Again, without overly gloating, the way these submissions and concerns have been relayed to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee does suggest that Labor was correct in suggesting that schedule 5 be hived off into a separate bill so that it could have been passed expeditiously in the last parliament—certainly prior to the intrusion of any election. As it has turned out, that should be achieved should this legislation proceed speedily, as we are prepared to cooperate during the course of these two weeks.
I should comment, in fairness to him, on the commentator in the Daily Telegraph who wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph—that famous or infamous political commentator, Piers Akerman. He got stuck into me as well as others about supporting the reference of these sorts of matters to the committee process. But when you are talking about concerns and the whole matrix of the need for tighter security measures and the impact that they have on civil liberties, it is just better all round if people have the opportunity to voice their concerns and those concerns are addressed by a parliamentary committee—or at least noted by a parliamentary committee—recommending, if appropriate, measures to address those concerns. If they find those concerns are without substance they note that fact but, when it comes to the balance between the need for tighter security in the community and concerns of civil liberties, you cannot go past the whole concept of participatory democracy that our committee system facilitates. Insofar as I respond to Piers Akerman and probably regret giving his name notoriety in regard to some matters raised by him, I thought I should put a countervailing argument to the one which he advanced last Sunday.
In fact, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee has been a first-rate committee of the parliament. I congratulate all members of that committee from both sides of the House. They genuinely approach complex and at times emotive issues in a very balanced and constructive way. I believe they genuinely seek to achieve an outcome that is in the national interest rather than to pursue any party political agenda. I believe it has provided tremendous service to the Australian people in how it has incorporated the appropriate balance that is often needed when we are addressing bills of this nature. [start page 32076]
Finally, I should note that when the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2004, which I have referred to, was introduced into the House the Minister for Foreign Affairs introduced the Australian Passports Bill 2004 and the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2004 at about the same time. Those bills clearly interact with the passport provisions in the current bill, particularly in schedule 1, but they raise somewhat different issues. In fact, the passports bill introduced by the foreign minister has been supported by both sides of parliament during the course of debate this morning. As a result of a mechanism in the consequential provisions, and with its passage and the passage of the Australian Passports Bill, I understand that schedule 1 will be automatically hived off into a separate piece of legislation. That mechanism seems to be effective and innovative and it is a measure that the opposition can support.
In summary, we are supporting the passage of the measures contained in the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 3). We expect, at least with respect to some aspects of schedules 1 or 2, that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee may make recommendations when it hands down its report tomorrow. Given the praise that I have bestowed on that committee, we will certainly look closely at any recommendations that it may make on areas in which the bill could potentially be improved or enhanced. We will have the opportunity to address those matters in the Senate, but I can again indicate to the Attorney-General and the parliament that the opposition will cooperate with the expeditious passage of these measures.