David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Review of administration and expenditure No. 5: Australian intelligence organisations.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

The fifth review of administration and expenditure is the first full review conducted under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2005 of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence agencies since the act was amended in December 2005 to include ONA, DIO and DIGO within the committee’s oversight. The committee has a statutory obligation to review the financial statements for all AIC agencies. This review broadly looked at all aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies.

All the intelligence and security agencies have over the last several years undergone structural reorganisation to varying degrees to enable them to absorb recent growth in the most effective way. During the current review, the committee found that for some agencies this has entailed a significant reorganisation to build up various sections to better serve the whole organisation and to deal with emerging needs, while other agencies have absorbed increased staff numbers into the existing structure with little structural change. All the agencies satisfied the committee that they are mindful of the pitfalls of dealing with substantially increased budgets and each is taking measures to manage budget growth appropriately.

Agencies are working hard to meet recruitment targets in a highly competitive labour market, and agencies face the additional challenge of recruiting staff who are able to meet the most stringent Commonwealth security standards. Agency heads told the committee that it is foremost in their minds that rapid growth could negatively impact the agency’s work if not handled very carefully. All agencies demonstrated to the committee that they are expending a considerable amount of their resources to attract and then retain the right staff for their agency.

Agencies continue to make training and development of staff a high priority and, in most agencies, training budgets have steadily increased—in some cases very substantially. Agencies outlined to the committee a range of improvements that they have made to their training programs over the past 12 months. They noted that, with so many new staff, average experience levels will be lower in the short term. To counter the effects of this experience gap, agencies are putting extra emphasis on training programs for new starters in the early stages of their employment. Additionally, several agencies noted that they are directing extra effort into leadership training. The committee is satisfied that agencies are making a concerted effort to match their increasing staff numbers with appropriate training programs to ensure that the agency has a highly skilled workforce which is capable of meeting the high standards that each requires.

During the previous administration and expenditure reviews, agencies explained in detail their strategies for augmenting and retaining their linguistic capacities. Updates during the current hearings demonstrated to the committee that those agencies which rely on linguistic capacity continue to explore all avenues for attracting, recruiting, training and retaining highly skilled linguists.

The committee found that recent legislative changes to the Intelligence Services Act and other acts which have relevance to certain areas of agency operations have impacted on agencies to varying degrees, but no agency felt negatively impacted by recent legislative changes. On the contrary, agencies generally felt that legislative changes have improved their ability to operate. In general, agencies noted that they are developing, or have developed, processes to ensure compliance with relevant legislative changes, and the committee is satisfied that each is managing the impacts of recent legislative changes adequately and appropriately.

Due to the high standard of submissions and the evidence given at the hearings, the committee has increased its knowledge of the finance and expenditure activities of the intelligence and security agencies. The committee found nothing in the evidence provided to raise concerns about the existing financial management within any of the agencies. Agencies discussed the challenges they have faced and continue to face—handling considerably increased budgets in conjunction with, in most cases, rapidly increasing staff numbers. In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the head of each agency and their staff for their ongoing cooperative approach to the work of the committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the report to the House.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I thank the chair of the committee and endorse his remarks. In the presentation of the next report I intend to make some personal remarks, given that it is probably the final report that the chair will present to the parliament on behalf of this committee. He has been an extraordinarily good servant of the parliament in relation to this important task.

May I endorse the substance of the report. There is no doubt that this report reflects the strain which our various intelligence agencies are inevitably under as they increase their staff size; as they seek to recruit as they need to adjust so that they have an adequate range of skills, including language skills; and as they cover what is a growing gap between the top ranks of officers of long experience and a large influx of newer, less experienced entrants at the bottom end. Those difficulties, however, appear to be being sensibly addressed by each of the agencies. Each has its own individual pressures and different challenges but, insofar as our committee was able to ascertain, the responses of the agencies to those pressures have been well judged.

In this context, of course, the committee cannot behave as many parliamentary committees do and dig down directly to first-hand experience that might potentially challenge the source of evidence that is provided directly by agency heads. We have addressed that issue in our report, at paragraphs 1.11 and 2.77. I do not wish to suggest in any way that we have a suspicion that, were we to do so, there would be a different outcome. It simply reflects the fact that in this area we are particularly limited in our capacity, although we do have the benefit of the insights from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the insights from the Audit Office, which has provided us with a substantially good basis on which to be confident of judgements that we have made when we add them together with the direct reports from the agencies themselves. So I think the parliament has good reason to be confident of the judgements that are being made by the committee in this regard, but they are subject to the caveats that the report itself states.

I particularly wish to commend ONA for the approach that it has taken, set out at paragraph 2.88, leading to its own internal review of key judgements. Plainly, there were circumstances prior to the invasion of Iraq in which the intelligence that was relied upon was conceded to be far from ideal. One of the issues that future parliaments will have to address is whether to equip this committee with the standing capacity to undertake similar reviews of the tasking and capacities of our intelligence agencies. At the moment we look either to specific areas of responsibility under the legislation, to particular proscriptions, or to the administration and budgetary arrangements of agencies but we do not have the capacity that was given to the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD when it undertook the decisions made in the intelligence assessments prior to Iraq. It may be that future parliaments consider that it is truly in the national interest to make certain that the oversight committee does have that capacity, because at the moment our committee could not undertake a similar task were it to take the view that it would be important in the public interest to do so. Those are issues that future parliaments will need to address.

I commend ONA for its own internal reassessment processes and endorse what the chair said about the recruitment, training and other issues. But can I give particular attention, before I finish speaking, to the problem of Indigenous recruitment. It is one area where the agencies have truly let matters slide. There are only a handful of Indigenous employees across the intelligence agencies and, as a percentage of those organisations, their number has decreased. That is truly a very sad statistic and one that could be improved.

David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Annual report of committee activities 2006-07.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security completed another full and productive year, scrutinising terrorism legislation and aspects of the administration and expenditure of the intelligence agencies. As the work and volume of the intelligence agencies increase, so too does the work of the committee.

The fourth review of administration and expenditure focused on recruitment and training. The intelligence agencies have been rapidly recruiting staff in order to provide more security and counterterrorism capability. The committee found that, in a competitive marketplace, increasing and retaining staff was challenging and that timely security clearances remained an inhibition to recruitment. A significant challenge for the agencies was the recruitment of sufficient numbers of people with necessary language skills. The committee concluded that language training remains one of the most difficult and expensive areas of training for the intelligence agencies. The agencies demonstrated that various initiatives are being devised to lessen and, it is hoped, eventually overcome these difficulties. Overall, the committee was satisfied that the agencies were managing their expansion.

The other major inquiry of 2006 was the statutory review of the security and counterterrorism legislation. The committee’s review followed and took into account the report of the Security Legislation Review Committee—the Sheller committee. The committee made 26 recommendations and, in particular, recommended the appointment of an independent reviewer of terrorism law in Australia. Under the recommendation, the committee would examine the reports of the independent reviewer. During the review period, the committee tabled four reports on the listing of terrorist organisations. The four reports dealt with the relisting of 14 organisations. Procedural issues relating to consultations with the states and territories and the nature of the information provided to the committee remain a concern in all these reviews.

In addition to these reports, the committee also commenced its inquiry into the operations, effectiveness and implications of the terrorist organisation listing provisions of the Criminal Code, and the fifth review of administration and expenditure. The reports of these inquiries will be tabled in the next reporting period.

On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank and commend Mrs Margaret Swieringa for her excellent support as secretary of the committee from 2002 to June 2007. Margaret provided professional advice and support of the highest standard, and the committee wishes her well in her future endeavours.

In addition, the committee notes the passing of Mr Allan Taylor AM, career diplomat and former Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service from 1998 to 2003. He was, until recently, Chairman of the Board of the Australia-Indonesia Institute, where he continued his career-long contribution to Australia’s international relations. Mr Taylor was instrumental in advancing and implementing the Intelligence Services Act 2001. During this process, Mr Taylor appeared before the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services, where he gained the respect and acknowledgement of all members of the committee.

In conclusion I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the work of the committee during the past year. I commend the report to the House.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the chair of the committee. He has set out, in broad terms, the work of the committee, and the report gives further details of it. There are two aspects that raise issues for the future attention of the parliament and the agencies that are worth mentioning: firstly, the restrictions on reporting to the parliament, which are set out at paragraphs 1.48 to 1.50. I would commend those paragraphs to honourable members for their consideration because the committee has drawn attention to those restrictions on previous occasions. The committee does not wish to be carping or to be seen to be negative in relation to its brief, but it has drawn attention to these matters and would hope that both the executive and the parliament give further attention to those matters. Secondly, paragraphs 1.51 to 1.54 indicate a difference of opinion on the responsibility of the Director-General of ONA to assist the committee in relation to its statutory functions. Those also are matters which ought to be given further attention by the executive and the parliament. Certainly, the legal basis for the claim not to provide assistance seems to be extraordinarily thin, but I will say no more than that is an ongoing matter that will have to be attended to.

May I use the remainder of my time to make some personal remarks in relation to two people whose service this parliament should make great observance of: firstly, Mrs Margaret Swieringa, who was mentioned by the chair. She has been an extraordinarily good team leader, working at the sharp edge of the obligations between this parliament and the agencies, which very jealously—and properly—guard the obligations of confidence and secrecy they are charged with. Of course, this committee, insofar as it is given responsibilities by this parliament, seeks to discharge those responsibilities in the fullness of trust that is given to it by both houses. Margaret Swieringa has been a tremendous servant of the committee, the House and the Senate. With the chair, I am sure those remarks would be endorsed by every member of the committee.

Now I come to the chair himself. There was a time when we feared that, at the close of this parliamentary session, David Jull might not still be in office as the member for Fadden. The member for Fadden, as most people would know, suffered a very severe illness during this parliamentary term. He underwent very grave surgery that involved, I believe, the removal of a lung. But he came back from that and, although sometimes breathless and obviously less well than at other times, he has been a remarkable committee chair. He is always balanced, always moderate, always thoughtful and always bipartisan in the generosity of his approach to his task. He is willing to speak bluntly to agencies when it is the parliament’s requirement to do so, and he is willing to express himself with courtesy at all times. David Jull has been an ornament to this parliament. He is a former minister. He well understands the importance of the security environment in which we operate and he treats that seriously. As chair of the intelligence and security committee he always makes certain that the parliamentary responsibilities given to him, on behalf of both houses, are carried out with a full acknowledgement of the burden that is on him and also of the importance to the parliament of the discharge of those responsibilities. I am certain that we all wish you very well, David—if I may breach standing orders and refer to you in that way. You have been an ornament to this parliament, and your service as chair of this committee deserves this parliament’s tribute and recognition.