Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I first thank the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the observations he made about colleagues and the secretariat. Can I also add to his comments about the former chair, David Jull. I did not serve on the committee with David, but I have served with him as a minister and I know him very favourably as a colleague and friend. The circumstances in which he saw fit to retire are obviously of concern to us all and, like my colleague, I continue to wish him good health.

I was not there as a member of the committee when Robert Ray served, but I have shadowed him as a minister in a previous life. I have to say he was always a very formidable minister and parliamentarian; one whom I can now say—as he has left—I greatly admired and, I would have to say, with no offence to others who may have served as immigration minister, one of the most significant contributors in that area of public policy. But I understand that in relation to the work of this committee he also fulfilled a very important role in sage counsel and advice, and ensuring that a committee that undertakes work that is very much in the national interest was able to do it in a positive and constructive way. I very much regret that I am not able to continue to serve with him on this committee. May I also say I lament that one of my colleagues on this side of the House who has contributed very positively in public life, the former foreign minister Alexander Downer, is no longer with us. But he is a rather mercurial character who will be playing a fairly significant part in other parts of the world in endeavouring to resolve issues.

In relation to the annual report of the committee’s activities, half of which I have seen, I wish to simply comment on the nature of the committee’s work. It is a committee that has a fairly limited role. Legislation specifically charges that it will review the administration and the expenditure of all six intelligence agencies—ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIGO, DIO and ONA—and other matters that are referred by the responsible minister or by resolution of each house of parliament. It is in that context that I think people need to understand the sensitivity of the work that is being undertaken. It does mean that people who bring a good deal of experience are charged with the responsibility of looking at these issues but are limited in what they are able to do and of course what they are able to say.

Part of the work of the committee has involved reviewing amendments made to security legislation, particularly terrorism enactments, and that included border security legislation amendments, Criminal Code suppression of terrorist bombings legislation and the suppression of terrorist financing legislation. It also meant that it could review division 3 of part 3 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and other amendments made to the Criminal Code.

But there are specific limits on the committee’s activities and it is appropriate that members are aware of that. That includes: the reviewing of intelligence gathering powers of the agencies; reviewing the sources of information and other operational assistance and methods; reviewing particular operations past, present or proposed; reviewing sources of information provided by a foreign government or agency; reviewing an aspect of activities of agencies that does not affect an Australian person; reviewing rules with the act relating to the privacy of Australian citizens and conducting inquiries into individual complaints. It is important that colleagues are aware of these limitations. Nevertheless, as we saw with the report just tabled, the work that is being undertaken can give the Australian community greater confidence in the efforts of our agencies and in that sense the committee plays a very important part in reassuring the Australian community.

See this speech in context