Dunne Peter: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):In the time that is available to me I want to make four points about this bill. Firstly I am prepared to vote for it to go to the select committee for wider consideration. Second the bill has three parts to it that attract my attention. Part 1 of the bill deals with changes to the Passports Act and as the responsible Minister at the moment I can say that in my view I think these changes go some way towards addressing what is an unsatisfactory situation at present. At present a passport can be withdrawn for a period of only 12 months. It can be further cancelled subject to the determination of a High Court judge. That has never happened and the fact is no one is entirely clear about what the process would be for actually following that through. So the provision to have the 3-year period with the capacity for an annual review by the Minister is I think an appropriate one in the circumstances. In most cases I suspect it will mean that at the end of 12 months the cancellation will lapse. So I think that is a good and a practical and positive step forward.Part 2 of the bill makes a number of changes to our intelligence laws. I have real problems with a number of those areas. I think the 48-hour rule which has been clearly the subject of a lot of debate in the House this afternoon is Draconian. It does go too far and I do not believe that it is justified despite the additional safeguards that have been built into the legislation since the first draft of the bill was being circulated. I think that is something the select committee does need to pay a lot of attention to.Last year this House debated changes to the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation and also some consequential changes for the SIS. One of those changes which I promoted was that there be 5-yearly reviews of both those services commencing no later than 30 June 2015. In that context I find the 2018 sunset clause to be too far. I think what should happen is that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be empowered to review the operation of this legislation by 1 April 2016 alongside its review of the activities of those two services to see whether the provisions in this bill are still necessary at that point. If they are then it would bring separate legislation before the House. If not then they would be allowed to lapse. I think that would deal with a lot of concern that people have about the nature of the proposals being advanced and also give some sense that they are interim measures pending the outcome of a wider review. It is one thing to have accountable security services but if you have that you have to ensure that you allow that legislation to operate effectively.My real concern about this bill—although I acknowledge the circumstances that led to its introduction—is that it effectively cuts across a regime of supervision that this House put in place just over a year ago and that has not yet played out its first iteration. So it would be entirely appropriate in my mind for the review that commences by 30 June next year to be brought forward a little bit if timing is a concern and then for any changes that flow out of that review to be incorporated in a fresh statute which could be introduced during the term of this Parliament if the issue that we are concerned about is still as prevalent and as prominent as at the moment.Finally can I be allowed to quibble on one point. I find the title of this bill overly emotive. This is an amendment to various aspects of security legislation. I think the title is hyperbolic and overly emotive and I urge the select committee to give some consideration to reworking that as well during its consideration.