Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to join my friend and colleague the member for Swan, who gave such an eloquent address to the chamber. I also rise to speak today on a matter of great importance. We have all heard the phrase 'the world is getting smaller'. Often this is applied to the positive aspects of a more connected humanity, such as better trade links, the sharing of information or the ability to travel freely. Yet this world made smaller by technologies of both transit and information has also enhanced the ability of threats to be imported into our once impregnable heartland.

Right now, Australian citizens are fighting in both Iraq and Syria, yet they fight for organisations which execute a policy of torture, rape and murder to achieve their ends. They fight with those that plan and prepare to bring their particular form of virulent extremism inside our national borders. Our intelligence agencies report that there are currently at least 60 Australians fighting in Iraq or Syria and up to an additional 100 people involved in some form of support for offshore conflicts through financing terrorists or recruiting terrorists. These people represent a clear and present danger to our safety. We know that ISIL's leadership has called for its acts of terror to be enacted in the Western nations that oppose its appalling, immoral means of domination.

In a world such as this, we cannot afford to be complacent. We certainly cannot afford to live with a legal infrastructure which is dated to the extent that it limits the capacities of our intelligence services to protect us—for this was the essential finding of a bipartisan review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It has always been the case that there are people who stand in direct opposition to all that is humane and decent. Yet today, in our rapidly shrinking world, such dark creatures have the capacity to threaten us by means of so-called home-grown terrorism, which is in fact not home grown but transnational. It is a form of imported extremism enabled by our shrinking world.

Fifteen years ago there was no such device as a smartphone, and now we can barely live without one. Every day, new social networks are spawned capable of spreading both love and hate. Right now, today, such technologies enable men to execute the most heinous of crimes against humanity and distribute disturbing images of these acts on a global scale. They intend that such disturbing forms of promotion inspire similar acts and terrify their opponents.

Yet the agencies that have been charged with our protection have been operating in a framework which has not been prepared for this ever-evolving environment. This is not to denigrate the great work of our security intelligence agencies. They do tremendous work on our behalf. But we must acknowledge that our environment has changed. We now have an opportunity to modernise our laws to remove the unintended binds on our defenders' ability to act, whilst at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms for which we stand. I wholeheartedly believe that now is the time to act and that the measures proposed in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1), which was enacted this week, are balanced and effective and contain safeguards which protect our cherished liberties.

On 12 September, the then director of ASIO, David Irvine, raised the Australian terror alert to high. Further evidence of the need to act was witnessed in the terror raids carried out in September in New South Wales and Queensland and earlier this week in Melbourne. Further evidence, also, was the stabbing attack on two policemen by a teenager who had the ISIL flag on his person.

Australia's largest anti-terrorism offensive in our history provides some indication of the speed at which our security situation is changing. To respond to these very real threats, the government has announced new anti-terrorism laws in three stages. The national security legislation amendment legislation which, as I mentioned, was passed this week enhances our ability to gather relevant intelligence, enables greater interagency cooperation and empowers our agents with the right skills and protections. I would like to draw the House's attention to some of the elements of this act which I believe are worthy of note.

Firstly, the act will remove unnecessary bureaucracy, which only retards our ability to respond to threats. Before the changes contained in the act, ASIO was required to obtain a separate warrant to conduct separate elements of an investigation. This included separate warrants for tracking, listening devices and internet monitoring. Under the changes in the act, it is eminently possible to accelerate our ability to respond to threats by seeking one warrant, whilst maintaining the minimum statutory thresholds for individual warrants. In this way we can speed up our response without sacrificing our safeguards. As well as high thresholds in the statutory criteria for the issuing of warrants and requirements for ministerial level, the issue of warrants will continue to be subject to independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Secondly, ASIO officers must, from time to time, engage in covert activity. In order to be genuinely effective, they may need to take some action that could be considered illegal. After all, an undercover operative would not look terribly credible if they only appeared willing to engage in strictly legal activities. Yet our ASIO officers were not given the same level of civil and criminal immunity from prosecution as other agencies enjoyed. So this act has addressed this imbalance and empowers our covert operations against domestic threats. But, once again, it is important to note the inherent protections in this act. It demands pre-authorisation in order to receive legal protection. It excludes entrapment activities and serious offences against person and property, or civil wrongs involving the causation of death or serious injury. Notably, there is no protection in the act for the practice of torture, for such activities are unacceptable to the Australian public and to the government.

Thirdly, before this act there were absurd practical limitations on ASIO's ability to share information with other organisations and enterprises. It now seems foolish to shackle ourselves with such restrictions, so this act outlines changes that clarify and improve the statutory framework for ASIO's cooperative and information-sharing activities. ASIO is now able to work more closely with its foreign intelligence counterparts, ASIS, enabling both organisations to better protect us.

Fourthly, the theme of information sharing is extended with the provision to be inserted that confirms that ASIO may cooperate voluntarily with the private sector to perform its statutory functions. Furthermore, the act will remove limitations on ASIO's ability to refer certain criminal acts to other agencies, including those that threaten the lives of agents in the field, such as revealing their identities. Leaving such gaps would only enhance the risks to the agents who already risk their lives to ensure that we are safe. Such a situation is no longer tolerable. In order to further enhance the safety of our officers, the act has further pragmatic elements to allow ASIS to provide training in self-defence and other forms of protective security training to ASIO officers and to those who are cooperating with it.

The package of measures which I have outlined strikes an intelligent and practical balance between enhancing our security, protecting our agents and maintaining safeguards to our liberty. Further measures are also included in the act to address the changing technology environment. In today's world, leaked information can be globally transmitted at the touch of a button. The leaking of secret information is a serious threat to the security of our citizens, for it lets those who wish to do us harm know our plans to protect Australia and thus act to counteract them. To address such risks, the act addresses the legislative gap on penalising those who disseminate covert information by implementing a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for those who deal with intelligence related records, including copying, transcription, removal and retention. This information in the wrong hands could have dire consequences for our nation. Currently no offences such as these exist.

Furthermore, there are now greater penalties imposed on intelligence officers who leak secret information, with a maximum jail term of 10 years. Before this act, the maximum jail term sat at just two years, which is minimal given the significance of the crime. I would like to congratulate our security intelligence agencies for the job that they do to protect our citizens. The legislation has been brought before the parliament to enhance that capacity. The suite of measures in this bill and in other bills to be brought before the parliament will do just that.

We need to make sure that we enhance the ability of our security services to protect us in a world that is shrinking both physically through transport and ideologically through digital communications. The laws, changes and acts that we have announced strike the right balance between enhancing our effectiveness, protecting our agents and maintaining safeguards to our liberty—liberty that we all cherish in a free and democratic country, Australia.

See this speech in context