Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s oversight of the Australian intelligence community is one of the key elements of our national security architecture. It provides confidence not only to the members and senators in this parliament but to the wider community as providing a parliamentary oversight of what would otherwise be activities that, of necessity, are dealt with largely behind closed doors.

I am happy to be able to advise that the committee, in conducting this review, has concluded that the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies is sound and I would like to place on record my thanks to the agency heads and all those who have contributed to this review. I particularly want to add my thanks for the contribution we received from the Australian National Audit Office. Understandably, the ANAO have a particularly important role in reviewing the financial activities of these agencies. Their report and submissions to our committee are a significant aid in enabling us to better understand and investigate the matters that come before us.

I would also like to place on record my particular thanks to the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and, in doing so, the recently retired holder of that office, Mr Ian Carnell, who has undertaken that work in an exemplary manner. The inspector-general’s office has been a very willing participant in the work of this committee. Its insights, advice and recommendations to the committee have been particularly helpful.

There are often misunderstandings of the workload and activities of some of the intelligence agencies that are reviewed by the committee. I thought I would take a brief moment in speaking to this report to refer to one aspect of those activities, and that is the security clearances that are increasingly required to be undertaken. It is perhaps a sad reflection, but nonetheless a necessary fact of life, that increasingly there are various occupations and activities for which our intelligence agencies are required to undertake security background checks on individuals because of the nature of the work they undertake or because of the high-profile nature of events involved. I am not sure that many people actually understand the extent of that requirement.

As the report acknowledges, some of the agencies were able to provide the committee with unclassified submissions, which we were able to draw on in our report, and others provided submissions that were classified and obviously were not able to be reported on. So we have tended in this report to talk more regularly about some agencies than others. ASIO have provided a good deal of information in an unclassified format that we were able to report on here.

I think most Australians would be surprised to know that ASIO in the year in review conducted in excess of 70,000 security assessments for the aviation security identity cards. That is just in the aviation and maritime industries. That is a substantial workload. In addition, ASIO conducted some 4,500 assessments for those people seeking licences to access ammonium nitrate. Members of parliament will recall that some years ago we legislated to restrict the availability of ammonium nitrate. It is something that is widely used in the rural sector but of course, sadly, is an ingredient of choice for some terrorist activities.

ASIO conducted in excess of 1,200 assessments of staff and visitors to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, which operates the nuclear facility at Lucas Heights. They did in excess of 13,000 assessments for people requiring accreditation for special events such as APEC and World Youth Day a year or two ago. This is a substantial workload that takes a good deal of time for the agencies but nonetheless it is important. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the extensive work that they do.

I am also happy to report that during 2007-08 the agencies were able to advise us that there were no security breaches reported by any of the agencies which resulted in national security classified material being compromised. There were, perhaps understandably, minor difficulties where there were some breaches of protocol but there was no event that compromised national security classified information.

I also want to commend the agencies for the work they are doing in staff surveys. The agencies have gone through a period of quite dramatic sustained growth. That has had bipartisan support. It began under the Howard government and was supported by Labor in opposition. It is a much-needed boost to those resources. There have been particular difficulties for the agencies in managing the growth and career structures that go with it.

They all conduct quite comprehensive staff surveys and have had good responses. It is interesting to see the enthusiasm and the overwhelming support that those who work in the agencies have for what they are doing. That is how we would want it. This is not the sort of employment where you turn up between nine and five to pick up your pay; you do it because you are highly motivated, and I think that is very much reflected in the surveys of staff.

The final thing I want to refer to is e-security. This is a matter that the committee has had an ongoing interest in, along with things like electronic passports and their security. E-security is one of the serious challenges that we confront as a nation. It is a challenge for intellectual property for the business community, it is a challenge for governments and, indeed, it is a challenge for this parliament in ensuring the e-security of the systems we all use. It is a challenge that our security agencies are addressing. I know it is a matter that the committee has an ongoing interest in. I commend the report to the House.

Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned.