Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Canning, in his role as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for those remarks on the tabling of this report.

The first important and significant matter arising from this report is that the concern that was expressed to the committee and the government by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has been heeded. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an important government agency. It's at the heart of assuring the Australian people that there is adequate oversight of our intelligence community. It is one of the integrity agencies. As a former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Margaret Stone has spent many, many years in public service, and that public service continues in her role as Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The concern that she had expressed was with the way the bill as drafted might be seen by some members of the public, including—and she made this point in her evidence to the committee—those members of the public who are perhaps not as informed about the way in which our intelligence services operate or about the way in which the legislation operates. Her concern was that their confidence might in some way be lessened if a particular power of not merely request but direction were to be given to the Attorney-General. That power is already held by the Prime Minister. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security accepts that that power is appropriately held by the Prime Minister, but her concern was that the power not be given, in addition, to the Attorney-General as part of this rearrangement for our intelligence services and the rearrangements in relation to national security that the Department of Home Affairs represents. So I'm very pleased that members of the committee have agreed with this, I'd have to say, very unusual concern being expressed by a senior intelligence or integrity officer, and that report will now go forward to government. It's a touchstone of the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does that, when we legislate or amend existing legislation, it be done in a way which builds public confidence in our intelligence agencies and builds public confidence in ensuring that there is integrity, that there is oversight and that the extraordinary powers that are exercised by our intelligence agencies will be exercised according to law.

The second point raised by this report goes to the fact that the government has made it a centrepiece of its introduction of this new home affairs department, and the rearrangements, that the Attorney-General will continue to exercise the warrants power in relation to warrants that are sought by ASIO in the exercise of ASIO's powers. Because it is such a centrepiece of the government's reforms, it perhaps could have been expected that this particular preservation of the Attorney-General's power over warrants would be found in the first bill being presented by the government to the parliament in relation to the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs. It has turned out that that is not the case. This particular bill, although it is entitled 'home affairs', only deals with some four of what it is now clear are the 37 acts of parliament that will need to be amended in order to establish the Department of Home Affairs in the way in which the government wishes to do it. It is for that reason that the committee, noting the importance of the preservation of the Attorney-General's warrants power, said that the bill in which that will occur, namely the bill to amend the ASIO act, ought to come forward for the examination of the parliament before this particular home affairs bill proceeds. That is certainly a sensible approach and, again, I hope that the government accedes to that recommendation of the committee.

Finally, I want to note that this process of setting up the Department of Home Affairs is proving to be a somewhat larger exercise and a larger undertaking than the government's statements about it to date might have indicated. The revelation that there are some 37 acts of parliament potentially affected, and that only four are being dealt with in the bill that is currently before the parliament and that is the subject of this report, suggests that it is a much more substantial exercise. We'll wait and see what amendments are needed to these 33 further acts. I hope that that legislation to make those amendments can be brought before the parliament expeditiously, so that the legislation can be looked at equally expeditiously by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I commend this report to the House.

See this speech in context