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

First, I thank the member for Brisbane for his leadership of this committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I do so in the context of the report’s recommendations I will shortly discuss. I commend his observations on the work of our secretariat. I primarily intend to discuss recommendation 1 of the report but I do note recommendations 6 and 8. Recommendation 6 deals with the effects of the efficiency dividend and a concern that I have that growing security engagement, particularly in relation to visa scrutiny, has put a number of organisations, ASIO in particular, under very considerable pressure. Efficiency dividends fit uncomfortably with the view that the role of an organisation should be expanded, because resources are ripped out. Recommendation 8 is about the increased activities of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I draw those recommendations to the attention of the House.

As I said, I want to speak specifically about recommendation 1, which is:

The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP counter-terrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.

I draw members’ attention to the discussion in the report. It contains some matters that perhaps my colleague the member for Brisbane would not want to draw attention to but I think I safely can—that is, an obvious reconsideration of this matter by the government. As noted in the report:

1.

15 The Attorney-General wrote to the Committee on three separate occasions on this matter. The first letter, dated 23 December 2008, advised of the Government’s decision to enable the PJCIS to extend inquiries to include the AFP in appropriate cases with the Attorney-General’s consent.

1.

16 The second … outlined the Attorney-General’s reasons for requiring the Attorney-General’s consent, those being that such an arrangement provided the most flexible and appropriate means of identifying whether a matter involving the AFP has a relevant link with security and intelligence issues.

1.

17 The third … advised that the Government was not pursuing the proposal to extend the mandate of the PJCIS …

It is obvious that there was some reconsideration of that matter. I do not know what that reconsideration was, but, if it was to ensure that an element of our security and intelligence functions should not be reviewed by the relevant committee of this parliament, I would see that as very serious indeed.

There have been a number of inquiries over time that pointed to the need for security agencies to be under government scrutiny. It seems to me, as one who has seen both the executive function and the parliamentary function, that the idea is that there are a number of agencies that are subject to review. The committee report points out the extensive nature of that review, in that it applies to bodies like our internal security organisation, our external security organisation, our defence organisations and the Office of National Assessments. But the AFP is excluded, even though the National Counter-Terrorism Plan states:

ASIO, other Australian Government intelligence agencies and the AFP maintain overseas liaison channels to gather intelligence and to pursue investigations.

It is clear the AFP has an intelligence function; the committee report points out the nature of that intelligence function; and yet, despite being part of those arrangements, that one agency seems to be excluded.

I do not think there is any evidence that any other committee will be reviewing the intelligence role of the AFP. If that function is not given to the intelligence and security committee—the committee that deals with the review of intelligence functions—it seems to me that that role of the AFP will be exempt from scrutiny while other agencies will be subjected to it. There is no logic, it is totally inappropriate, and I would urge the government to look very carefully at this report and to reconsider its approach. If it does not, I believe it is being derelict in its responsibilities.

See this speech in context