SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Question No. 83

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In relation to the surveillance of ethnic communities:

a) can you provide details of funds allocated to investigations into the activities of Australians abroad (eg the investigations that have taken place into the activities of Australians in Somalia) for the last financial year

b) can you identify how spending priorities are established for these sorts of investigations, given their potential cost

c) how are expenditure priorities determined in relation to investigations into particular Australian communities (e.g. Tamil Australians, Somali Australians, Kurdish Australians), and

d) can you outline the public benefits of such investigations?

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Output 1.7
Question No. 61

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In the course of the introduction and amendment of more than 40 pieces of legislation relating to terrorism and terror-related offences, the AFP, State Police, ASIO and other related agencies received additional funds to enforce the legislation and prosecute various cases.

a) Is the Department aware of the additional burdens placed on community legal services and centres as a consequence of the application of these laws?

b) Does the Department have any estimates of the degree to which the application of the terrorism-related laws have placed additional burdens on community legal centres, and

c) Has legal aid funding been similarly resourced to meet the increased need of ensuring people's right to representation in these and other cases? Is such resourcing under consideration by the Department?

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Output 1.7
Question No. 63

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In relation to community legal centres:

a) regarding the makeup of State and Federal funding for community legal centres, has there been a declining Federal contribution as compared to the States, at the same time there has been an increased demand on these services

b) regarding the arbitrary distinctions created when the Commonwealth will only pay for commonwealth law matters, and States pick up costs for State matters, will there be a review of this Federal State break down, and

c) are you aware of the comparison between Australia and the rest of the OECD regarding spending per capita on the provision of legal aid? Can you provide a comparison?

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Output 1.7
Question No. 62

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In response to the April 2008 Review of the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Programme, it is understood that new funding models are under consideration.

a) Can you identify whether this review will look at funding models which:

i. increase the minimum base line funding;

ii. ensure that new funding goes to highest needs areas, and;

iii. evaluate ways to address areas with little or no services.

b) When is it anticipated that this assessment will be complete?

c) On what basis is a needs assessment being done?

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
AUSTRAC
Question No. 103
Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In relation to the new Anti-Money Laundering laws:

a) what effect have the new laws had on small operators who provide remittance services to particular sectors of the Australian community (eg remittance to Somalia, to Pakistan) and whose activities are therefore likely to come under scrutiny, and

b) have resources been allocated to educating/supporting these operators?

QUESTION TO ASIO

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Question No. 100

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In addition to the use of its formal powers of questioning under the Act in order to gain
intelligence relating to terrorist offences, ASIO undertakes many informal interviews.

a) How are these budgeted for and on what basis are priorities set in this area?

b) How does ASIO determine that a person is "of interest" in relation to anti-terrorism intelligence?

c) What steps are taken to make sure that activity in this area respects the rights that individuals would have in the formal process, especially in the post ul-Haque environment?

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Output 2.3
Question No. 66

Senator Ludlam asked the following question at the hearing on 20 October 2008:

In September 2007 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that "the Attorney-General's Department develop a communication strategy that is responsive to the specific information needs of ethnic and religious communities":

a) has the Department begun implementing this recommendation

b) what sorts of resources have been allocated to this end? How have priorities been determined? Which communities/agencies/outside bodies have been involved in setting those priorities, and

c) the same report "recommends that the Attorney-General's Department be responsible for the publication of comprehensive data on the application of terrorism laws." Has anything been done in response to this recommendation?