Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I get up to speak on this important legislation, the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and the Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. I understand that a lot of people look at this legislation and say it's anodyne in its attempt, and it's largely administrative for a lot of the operations of different government agencies. But the reason I want to talk about it is its critical role, particularly around parliamentary oversight. As you know, there is an amendment that makes it possible for greater oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Parliamentary oversight is one of the most fundamental principles that sits at the heart of our democracy. The truth is that it is within the wisdom of the crowds of people who sit in this place—and I accept wholeheartedly that that wisdom is challenging at the moment—and of parliamentary oversight and transparency that our democracy works. When you have bodies that operate with a high degree of secrecy and a high degree of absent transparency—and, I might stress, for legitimate reasons, because of the seriousness of the issues that are being affected, like the Office of National Assessments—it's incredibly important that there is proper parliamentary oversight of their procedures, of their practices and of their activities. That's what parliamentary committees do.

As you know, I'm the chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics, which has parliamentary oversight of a lot of the independent regulators. I appeared before the Senate as a former commissioner or parliamentary officer, as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner. Appearing before the Senate was a critical part of my role of making sure that those who are commissioned or charged with incredible powers are held accountable to the people whom they serve, who are ultimately Australians, and, by proxy, through their representatives.

I think this is particularly important in the space around intelligence. A simple basis is: we know why information can't be released in the public square. We know that, when we're dealing with allegations of terrorism, investigations or undercover officers, and looking at how data is collected and what it's used for, there must be a robust secrecy and a protection not just to the people who may be directly affected but to people who may be undercover or contributing to the activities of an operation—and not just to them, but to their families and their friends—and to make sure there are successful investigations and other activities, and to make sure that there is success to keep Australians safe.

It goes to a point of trust: trust that Australians should be able to have in our government and in our federal authorities to do their good and important work. What I've seen consistently is that there is a very high degree of trust in agencies like ASIO and the Australian Federal Police—I don't think most Australians would know the Office of National Assessments. One of the reasons Australians trust them is that they know they do important work, and they know that they keep us safe. But there is a comfort that comes from parliamentary oversight, and, frankly, I'd like to see a lot more of that. I'd like to see parliament holding agencies to account. This is not a point of partisanship—although, sometimes we might devolve into that—it's a point about how we're going to run our bureaucracies and our agencies.

Frankly, I don't think there's enough oversight of the Australian Taxation Office, an agency that is set up to manage the tax affairs of the nation and make sure we secure the revenue to support the base of activities that we decide happen in this place but then goes on to provide the services the Australian people have come to expect. There isn't enough oversight over agencies often that have the power to investigate people's private affairs, particularly their tax and financial affairs, and frankly I think there is probably a case to have much greater scrutiny over how a lot of those agencies operate and whether they successfully work with individuals, small business and big business to do their job.

Sometimes when I'm driving along, I hear these ads on radio by companies that promote the concern that many Australians have about the Australian Taxation Office and whether it is going to be on their back. Don't misunderstand; I believe that Australians should have respect for the state and its purpose, because it is a common wealth of all of us. But I also think that there should be accountability for those people who seek to implement and interpret the law. You hear this all the time from small businesses who are concerned about it, who fear taking on the ATO because they fear they might have a very dangerous consequence to their business and they're going to get adverse rulings, or they fear they are going to get dragged through bureaucratic bullying. Certainly, that's the fear.

I know that might sound a little off topic, but the same principles apply to national security agencies. We should be able to hold the police to account. That's not to question their motivations and it's not to suggest that they're doing anything wrong; but they are here to serve the people, to maintain a degree of law and order in our society. What parliamentary scrutiny and accountability does, whether it's through committees or any other means, is achieve that end in the national and public interest. So, while seemingly irrelevant amendments to the Australian Border Force Act 2015 may not excite the public mind, they are critical. They are critical to our duty to the people we serve. These amendments are critical to the degree of confidence that Australians can have in our democracy. They are critical for the electoral legitimacy that we all secure in sitting in these seats. And it's a privilege and a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. It's a privilege and responsibility that serves our country well.

It goes back, of course, many decades, back to looking at parliamentary oversight of the setting of tax rates and why ministers or the Crown shouldn't be able to impose legislation or regulation around rates or any other means which has the effective consequence of a tax without parliamentary sovereignty and approval. It goes to the heart of parliament itself. And it doesn't just apply to tax; it applies to every artifice that this government—Liberal, Labor or anything else—entertains. That's why one of the great challenges we face in our modern democracy is that the executive is not all powerful. The executive has a critical and important role to represent the Crown and to administer the Commonwealth of this country, to govern for the national interest and for everyone. We're going to have some disagreements—everyone will from time to time—about how that is best done, and rightly so. The role of departments is to regulate and implement that through to execution for the Australian people, and we in this place in parliament have a responsibility as well.

Based on what I've been told only moments ago, there is going to be increased scrutiny in this parliament as numbers change. That wasn't going to be the point of my remarks today, but it's an interesting coincidence. But it does highlight the power and the sovereignty of this place and the legislative means that we go through to maintain that accountability. And, frankly, one of the things that I find most difficult and disturbing in this age is how much power parliament hands to the executive. That's not a comment on this government or, particularly, the previous one or the one before that or the one before that or the one before that. We, as parliamentarians, must defend parliamentary sovereignty because, if we don't, who will?

See this speech in context