Extract from The Guardian
Deputy chair of Australia’s intelligence oversight committee says group doesn’t have capacity to examine ‘intrusive powers’
The deputy chair of Australia’s intelligence oversight committee
says the group doesn’t have the capacity to effectively review
“intrusive powers” to detain people without charge, which are being
proposed by the federal government.
The parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security has been given a narrow period of time to review a series of broad changes announced as part of the second tranche of national security legislation.
This tranche seeks to introduce laws for foreign fighters but also attempts to extend controversial Howard-era laws to detain people without charge and impose control orders.
These laws were to be reviewed before they expired in 2015 and 2016 but the government has sought to extend them by 10 more years.
Appearing before the inquiry, the Attorney-General’s Department suggested the current hearings would be an opportunity to review the regime.
But the deputy chair and Labor MP Anthony Byrne has slammed the apparent justification for extending the powers for 10 more years without proper review.
“I’m sorry if that’s your rationale for why you put in a 10-year sunset clause, that is completely inadequate,” he said. “We do not have the capacity, we’re doing this under duress as it is with the goodwill on both sides of politics, to get a timeframe.
“The key thing here it is we do not have the capacity to adequately review those intrusive powers. I just want to make that very, very clear.”
Two other Labor MPs – Tanya Plibersek and John Faulkner – also voiced concern about the extension of control orders and preventative detention orders without a proper review.
“What I’ve been grappling with for some time … I still don’t understand why,” Faulkner said “Why wouldn’t we do precisely what witnesses are suggesting, give ourselves time to look at this carefully in a considered way.
“I’m concerned … by adopting this approach its going to actually diminish community confidence because the advantages, the efficacy of a sunset regime is seriously diminished by the proposals in this bill.”
The only preventative detention orders issued were made under the similar New South Wales regime several weeks ago as part of a big counter-terrorism police operation in the state.
The constitutional law expert George Williams said he was “quite shocked” to see the proposals in the bill, and the government had failed to justify why the recommendation of the national security monitor to abolish the regime should not be followed.
“It was clear that the sunset clause was put in for review as a moment of reflection,” he said. “Unfortunately what we’re seeing at this stage is the removal of an opportunity for that review.
“To this point the government has not put information on the table which suggests the committee should not follow the recommendations of the monitor.”
He said Australia now stood alone as the only country in the world with the types of control order and preventative detention order the government wanted to keep, after Britain substantially amended its regime.
The parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security has been given a narrow period of time to review a series of broad changes announced as part of the second tranche of national security legislation.
This tranche seeks to introduce laws for foreign fighters but also attempts to extend controversial Howard-era laws to detain people without charge and impose control orders.
These laws were to be reviewed before they expired in 2015 and 2016 but the government has sought to extend them by 10 more years.
Appearing before the inquiry, the Attorney-General’s Department suggested the current hearings would be an opportunity to review the regime.
But the deputy chair and Labor MP Anthony Byrne has slammed the apparent justification for extending the powers for 10 more years without proper review.
“I’m sorry if that’s your rationale for why you put in a 10-year sunset clause, that is completely inadequate,” he said. “We do not have the capacity, we’re doing this under duress as it is with the goodwill on both sides of politics, to get a timeframe.
“The key thing here it is we do not have the capacity to adequately review those intrusive powers. I just want to make that very, very clear.”
Two other Labor MPs – Tanya Plibersek and John Faulkner – also voiced concern about the extension of control orders and preventative detention orders without a proper review.
“What I’ve been grappling with for some time … I still don’t understand why,” Faulkner said “Why wouldn’t we do precisely what witnesses are suggesting, give ourselves time to look at this carefully in a considered way.
“I’m concerned … by adopting this approach its going to actually diminish community confidence because the advantages, the efficacy of a sunset regime is seriously diminished by the proposals in this bill.”
The only preventative detention orders issued were made under the similar New South Wales regime several weeks ago as part of a big counter-terrorism police operation in the state.
The constitutional law expert George Williams said he was “quite shocked” to see the proposals in the bill, and the government had failed to justify why the recommendation of the national security monitor to abolish the regime should not be followed.
“It was clear that the sunset clause was put in for review as a moment of reflection,” he said. “Unfortunately what we’re seeing at this stage is the removal of an opportunity for that review.
“To this point the government has not put information on the table which suggests the committee should not follow the recommendations of the monitor.”
He said Australia now stood alone as the only country in the world with the types of control order and preventative detention order the government wanted to keep, after Britain substantially amended its regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment