Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of administration and expenditure: No. 9 (2009-2010)Australian intelligence agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's oversight of the Australian intelligence community is a key element of our national security architecture. I am therefore pleased to present the ninth review of the administration and expenditure of the AIC by the PJCIS.

This review examined a wide range of aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies, including the financial statements for each agency and their human resource management, training, recruitment and accommodation. In addition the review looked at issues of interoperability between members of the AIC. Submissions were sought from each of the six intelligence and security agencies, from the Australian National Audit Office and from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

The submissions from ANAO and the six intelligence agencies were all classified confidential, restricted or secret and were therefore not made available to the public. As has been its practice for previous reviews, ASIO provided the committee with both a classified and an unclassified submission. The unclassified version was made available on the committee's website. Each of the Defence intelligence agencies provided the committee with a classified submission. The agencies marked each paragraph with its relevant national security classification. This has enabled the committee for its 2009-10 review to directly refer in this report to unclassified information provided in the Defence agencies' submissions.

The committee also received five submissions from members of the public or public organisations, which included: the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; the Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project; Refugees, Survivors and Ex-Detainees, or RISE; and the Refugee Council of Australia. These submissions all dealt with ASIO security assessments of refugees. On 25 March 2011 the committee held a private hearing at which ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIGO, ONA and DIO appeared. On 16 June the committee held a public hearing—its first since July 2006—and heard from representatives of the Refugee Council of Australia, RISE, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and ASIO in relation to visa security assessments. The committee thanks all attendees, particularly those from organisations providing support to refugees, for the time and effort they took to put their views to the committee. Given the public interest and importance of the topic of visa security assessments in this report it is this issue that I intend to speak to at great length.

The committee notes the request from some advocacy groups for ASIO to declare its non-statutory criteria for making visa security assessments. The committee believes that making non-statutory criteria publicly available could compromise national security because applications from potentially hostile individuals could be tailored to meet these criteria. The committee therefore does not support this suggestion, and notes that since its previous administration and expenditure inquiry ASIO's visa security assessment workload has increased significantly. Processes for undertaking visa security assessments have been placed under considerable strain and, in some cases, assessments have taken longer than is desirable.

The committee takes very seriously the concerns put before it by various refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups, but it also recognises that the job ASIO has is a very difficult one. Therefore, the committee welcomes the efforts introduced by ASIO in March 2011 to streamline the process of security assessments in an attempt to clear the backlog and to process future assessments in less time. The committee is satisfied that the current regime for visa security assessments is the correct one. The committee notes that IGIS has stated that ASIO is doing its job in a 'proper and legal manner'. Overall, on the basis of information provided, the committee is satisfied that the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies is sound.

However, I note that concerns raised on the efficiency dividend's impact on agencies during the committee's Review of administration and expenditure: No. 8 (2008-2009)—Australian intelligence organisations were specifically raised in the evidence the committee took for the current review. This is extremely concerning to the committee. The committee will continue to monitor the impact of the efficiency dividend on the Australian intelligence community.

The committee was pleased with the level of information given to it on interoperability and will continue to monitor this area to ensure that interoperability management and budgetary structures are in place across the AIC. The committee thanks the heads of the AIC agencies and all those who contributed to this review. I want to thank the secretariat staff: Dr Margot Kerley and Dr John Carter who are no longer with us, Jerome Brown, Robert Little, Cathryn Olive, Jessica Butler and Gillian Drew. I commend the report to the House.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

See this speech in context