Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor 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 Review of Administration and Expenditure: No. 8—Australian Intelligence Agencies.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

As always at the outset, I thank the secretariat for its support of both the committee’s work on this report and all our other endeavours throughout the term of this parliament. I also thank the other members of the committee, who have contributed in a very constructive and beneficial way to the good governance of this nation in what is a very critical area of parliamentary oversight.

This report is a little different to some of the others this committee has presented in that it addresses a number of recommended changes to the legislation, something the committee does not do lightly or often. In the very short time available to me, I will concentrate on three of the recommendations that go to some of those matters. Recommendation 1 of this report says:

The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP—

that is, the Australian Federal Police—

counterterrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.

The report goes into some detail about the importance of that change, but I just refer to two of the concluding remarks contained in the report. At paragraph 1.40, the committee report says:

It is untenable that the Committee cannot seek information from the AFP on its counterterrorism role and intelligence functions in the same way that it does with ASIO,ASIS, DIO, DIGO, DSD and ONA.

My apologies for the acronyms! The committee has enjoyed very productive and positive cooperation from the Attorney-General, who has facilitated the opportunity for senior officers of the AFP to meet with the committee, but the committee strongly takes the view that there is a need for legislative change to place the AFP counterterrorism elements on the same footing as those members of the Australian intelligence community. Elsewhere in the report, at paragraph 1.43, the committee notes:

Of all the AIC—

that is, the Australian intelligence community—

agencies, and agencies that work closely with the AIC, the AFP is the most public and visible. The Committee sees no reason why the AFP alone, of all the agencies encompassing the AIC, should be immune from Committee review other than with the specific consent of the Attorney-General. These matters are too important to be left to the variations in views that the Attorney-General of the time may hold.

These are important matters. The committee has a key role in ensuring a balance between the security requirements of laws that all of us in this place—as well, I think, as people throughout the country—understand and appreciate might otherwise be seen to transgress the civil liberties and basic human rights which we in a democracy hold dear. This parliamentary committee is a key aspect of the counterbalancing of those concerns and should not be subject to the differing views that various attorneys-general of the Commonwealth may hold from time to time.

I turn now to recommendation 2. It says:

The Committee recommends that the Government agree to amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable specific material which does not affect current operational activity to be provided to the Committee. A small working group drawn from the relevant Departments, Agencies and the Committee should be set up to prepare this amendment for consideration by the Government.

The committee has enjoyed very productive relationships with all of the agencies over a long period of time, not just in this parliament but also well before. That has been an essential aspect of the committee’s being able to do its work. As the report makes clear, many of those things which the committee deals with and have become custom and practice might be read by some not to be covered by the existing wording of the legislation. Again, to ensure the parliament’s proper oversight of these sensitive and important laws, we think it is now time for the government to review the legislation and to put in place measures which more accurately reflect the status quo.

Recommendation 7 proposes to amend the act to put in place a provision requiring that the ANAO report to the committee on its reviews of the Australian intelligence community. In fact, the ANAO quite willingly does that, and the committee relies significantly on those contributions, but it should not be open to either the vagaries of individuals or arrangements that exist from time to time. It needs to be in the legislation.

This committee performs an enormously important role not just for the parliament but also for the public confidence in these most important laws. The enhancements proposed in the recommendations of this committee report will go a long way towards ensuring that that remains so, that it is seen to be so and that it is above party politics. (Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I thank the member for Brisbane for his leadership of this committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I do so in the context of the report’s recommendations I will shortly discuss. I commend his observations on the work of our secretariat. I primarily intend to discuss recommendation 1 of the report but I do note recommendations 6 and 8. Recommendation 6 deals with the effects of the efficiency dividend and a concern that I have that growing security engagement, particularly in relation to visa scrutiny, has put a number of organisations, ASIO in particular, under very considerable pressure. Efficiency dividends fit uncomfortably with the view that the role of an organisation should be expanded, because resources are ripped out. Recommendation 8 is about the increased activities of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I draw those recommendations to the attention of the House.

As I said, I want to speak specifically about recommendation 1, which is:

The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP counter-terrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.

I draw members’ attention to the discussion in the report. It contains some matters that perhaps my colleague the member for Brisbane would not want to draw attention to but I think I safely can—that is, an obvious reconsideration of this matter by the government. As noted in the report:

1.

15 The Attorney-General wrote to the Committee on three separate occasions on this matter. The first letter, dated 23 December 2008, advised of the Government’s decision to enable the PJCIS to extend inquiries to include the AFP in appropriate cases with the Attorney-General’s consent.

1.

16 The second … outlined the Attorney-General’s reasons for requiring the Attorney-General’s consent, those being that such an arrangement provided the most flexible and appropriate means of identifying whether a matter involving the AFP has a relevant link with security and intelligence issues.

1.

17 The third … advised that the Government was not pursuing the proposal to extend the mandate of the PJCIS …

It is obvious that there was some reconsideration of that matter. I do not know what that reconsideration was, but, if it was to ensure that an element of our security and intelligence functions should not be reviewed by the relevant committee of this parliament, I would see that as very serious indeed.

There have been a number of inquiries over time that pointed to the need for security agencies to be under government scrutiny. It seems to me, as one who has seen both the executive function and the parliamentary function, that the idea is that there are a number of agencies that are subject to review. The committee report points out the extensive nature of that review, in that it applies to bodies like our internal security organisation, our external security organisation, our defence organisations and the Office of National Assessments. But the AFP is excluded, even though the National Counter-Terrorism Plan states:

ASIO, other Australian Government intelligence agencies and the AFP maintain overseas liaison channels to gather intelligence and to pursue investigations.

It is clear the AFP has an intelligence function; the committee report points out the nature of that intelligence function; and yet, despite being part of those arrangements, that one agency seems to be excluded.

I do not think there is any evidence that any other committee will be reviewing the intelligence role of the AFP. If that function is not given to the intelligence and security committee—the committee that deals with the review of intelligence functions—it seems to me that that role of the AFP will be exempt from scrutiny while other agencies will be subjected to it. There is no logic, it is totally inappropriate, and I would urge the government to look very carefully at this report and to reconsider its approach. If it does not, I believe it is being derelict in its responsibilities.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Brisbane wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.