Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to make changes to the telecommunications laws around ASIO's practice of sharing foreign intelligence information. At the outset, we know that this being rushed through at such a rapid pace raises significant concerns about the laws that ASIO has been operating under.

Under the current law, ASIO can only share this information with persons named in the warrants issued by the Attorney-General. The bill seeks to change this by creating a purpose test for sharing information instead of a person test and by imposing conditions. What this means is that the Attorney-General, instead of specifying who intercept material—aka the results of phone taps—can be provided to, will specify a purpose for which information can be shared. Instead of information only being shareable with persons approved by the Attorney-General, the explanatory memorandum says:

… the amendments will allow the Attorney-General to limit the communication and use of such information by specifying purposes, or imposing conditions.

However, the AG does not have to put in any limited purposes and is not required to put in conditions. The bill, in fact, refers to 'a purpose, if any', which means there is likely not even a need to provide basic purpose. This would allow the information to be shared with anyone for any purpose that ASIO sees fit. This is a fundamental flaw with the conditions clause too, since the conditions imposed only restrict ASIO and are not imposed on any people ASIO gives the information to.

The rationale for supporting the bill is that ASIO says it needs the ability to rapidly share time-sensitive information about credible risks from foreign targets in Australia to protect from risks such as cyberattacks. On balance, we do not believe the bill should be supported without significant amendment. The Greens will be seeking to move amendments in the Senate to address the accountability gaps in the scheme proposed here and implement some reasonable checks and balances. The amendments will focus on requiring the AG to put in specific purposes for the use of any information obtained by a warrant and, in recognition of the rushed nature of the bill, put in place a three-month sunset clause in the bill to allow a rapid review of the bill and consider it afresh after that.

This is part of a worrying trend for years now in Australian governments, where the context of emergency and urgency is used to rush through the expansion of powers, especially when it comes to our national security apparatus. It has been used repeatedly, often ironically, to undermine our democratic freedoms and civil liberties in Australia. This instance, in particular, highlights a practice that has been used by governments again and again. It's alarming as well that this information can be shared by ASIO with anyone, including, obviously, foreign intelligence services like the US.

This is a part of, again, a broader trend we've seen over the last few years of surrendering a lot of this country's sovereignty to the United States. There was a recent report in the ABC with the headline 'US military analysts to embed in Australia's defence department'. It's quite remarkable that that was accepted as a sort of fait accompli—that we would invite the United States into our defence department. I think that there's a clear and worrying shift—in the context of AUKUS, in particular—towards shifting our sovereignty and surrendering it to the United States empire.

The irony of this is that so often these laws are used and claimed to be protecting Australia's freedoms and security, but, often when these laws are rushed through, you see the opposite happen, in that we give up our civil liberties and democratic freedoms without so much as a debate. It's remarkable to me that, so often when these laws are rushed through, there is very little media scrutiny, very little parliamentary debate and, in this instance, barely any consideration of the practical effects of this bill or why this is being proposed at such an urgent time.

It's clear that we should be holding our intelligence services, including ASIO, to account. We should be ensuring that there are strict rules and regulations around who they can share information with. Certainly, I think that expanding it to a purposes test as opposed to naming individuals is a clear expansion of their powers and something that the Greens are firmly opposed to.

This warrants parliament taking its job seriously around ensuring that any expansion of the powers of intelligence services are scrutinised to the nth degree and given proper scrutiny in the same way that a lot of other bills in this place are. The Greens would hope that this bill, rather than being rushed through, is given the timely consideration that it deserves and that civil society in Australia is given the chance to understand the effects of this bill and what it means.

By the way, it's clear that, while this is targeted at foreign agents, this could include intercepts that include an Australian citizen. The effect of this could allow ASIO to share information, or the results of wire taps that include an Australian citizen, with foreign intelligence services without the Attorney-General necessarily signing off on the specifics of that information being shared or naming a specific person. That is a remarkable and alarming expansion in their powers.

Sometimes it seems taboo, in a way, to comment or critique the expansion of national security powers—often using the threat of emergency or claiming that any resistance to a shift or expansion in these powers is somehow going to put Australians in danger. Of course, over the last 20 to 30 years, especially since 2001, we have seen a surrender of a lot of our civil liberties, powers and democratic freedoms that Australians once enjoyed, through the excuse that this is all about keeping Australians safe. However, over the last 20 years we have seen a marked and alarming expansion in the powers of our national security services, often without so much as a debate or any proper opposition from the official opposition in this parliament, whether it be the coalition or Labor.

I would encourage this parliament to take this bill seriously—in the same way as any other bill—ensure that it undergoes proper scrutiny and ensure it goes through the committee process in the normal fashion and isn't just rushed through again. We're never going to hear about it again with any chance to scrutinise its effects, impacts or why it's being rushed through at such an alarming rate right now.

See this speech in context