Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The coalition supports this bill in principle. The bill proposes to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to ensure consistency and interoperability of provisions, clarify provisions relating to computer access warrants, provide new grounds for the collection of intelligence on an Australian person and clarify the existing immunity provisions for intelligence agencies and officers.

Tuesday's budget revealed that Labor is going to waste another $1.7 billion in taxpayers' money on their blow-out—not on their border protection program but on managing their failure of the border protection program. We have gone from spending $100 billion a year under the coalition on asylum seekers to over $1 billion per year. That is an astonishing blow-out of 1,000 per cent per annum. Clearly there is a price to be paid for all of this wasted money. The price is being paid for Labor's failure by Australia's front-line national security agencies: The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Federal Police and, importantly in relation to this bill, ASIO, ASIS, ONA and the other Defence intelligence agencies are all suffering because of Labor's enormous failure to protect our borders and the cost to the taxpayer. The cuts need to be found from somewhere to pay for this failure, and it is the front-line agencies that are bearing the brunt.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there are two issues I would like to raise. First, the member is not being relevant to the legislation. This is not legislation about border protection. Second, I take offence at the member sitting beside him saying, 'Sit down' and calling me by my first name. That is very unparliamentary.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly inappropriate for a member's personal name to be used. I would expect that there would be no repetition.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the speaker was being entirely relevant. If the member is offended by the content, she has appropriate ways to respond in the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume his seat. We are debating the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and the preamble says:

A Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to intelligence, and for other purposes

That gives certain leeway; however, it is not a blank cheque to talk about anything one wants. I would counsel the member for Stirling to stick to the provisions of the bill. I call the honourable member for Stirling.

Ms Hall interjecting—

I do not need the assistance of the honourable member for Shortland.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hate to inform the member for Shortland but, when you are dealing with the intelligence services of Australia, her government—the Labor government—has tasked both ASIO and ASIS, the agencies that are the subject of this bill, with dealing with the border protection crisis that the Labor Party has created. In fact, if she were to go to the budget papers that were released on Tuesday, she might look at the Attorney-General's portfolio budget statement or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade budget statement dealing with these agencies and she will find line items in both of those portfolio statements dealing expressly with border security. In fact, that will be the title. I will make it very easy for the member for Shortland. Maybe she could just Google the words.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate the member speaking to this legislation will have looked at the budget papers, but could I just remind him that this is not about—

Mr Hawke interjecting—

Excuse me!

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What standing order? What are you referring to?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mitchell will remain silent.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation we are debating today is not the budget. We are debating a very specific piece of legislation and it sets out point by point—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland will resume her seat. We are debating the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill. I would ask the member for Stirling to restrict his contribution to the provisions of that bill.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that. I was obeying your ruling when I was referring to the budget, of course, because the budgetary process has dealt explicitly with the agencies that are the subject of this bill. I say to the member for Shortland that if she wants to confirm that what I am saying is correct she can go and check the budget papers. Alternatively, she could just take my word for it. I can certainly tell the member for Shortland that border protection is an integral part of what these intelligence agencies are now required to respond to because of her government's failure on that issue.

If you look at what the budget has done to these agencies, you will see that their ability to do the other parts of the job they are required to do will have catastrophic circumstances. For example, the member for Shortland might like to note that in the budget Labor has cut $6.9 million to ASIO, one of the agencies that is subject to this bill—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I hope the member for Shortland is not going to test my patience. The honourable member for Shortland on a point of order.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is on relevance. He is talking about the budget again, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Stirling.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing order 183, Appointment of Main Committee, and standing order 187, Maintenance of order, allow for members of this place to dissolve the Main Committee on motion without notice, and I would say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and through you to the government, that if order is unable to be maintained because of the actions of government members I am happy to move a motion without notice to adjourn the Main Committee.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. Order is being maintained in this chamber. There have been points of order taken, which are within the standing orders. I have ruled on those points of order. I have called the honourable member for Stirling and he can continue his contribution if he wishes without interference from the honourable member for Mitchell.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that also applies to the honourable member for Shortland.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or any other member operating outside the standing orders.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, my contribution was going to take only about four minutes, but it has been extended by the frivolous persistence of the member for Shortland. As I was saying before I was interrupted, the budget explicitly cut funding to one of the agencies that is the subject of this bill. It cut $6.9 million from ASIO's funding to enable it to carry out security checks for unauthorised maritime arrivals. When people arrive on our shores illegally, they have paid a people smuggler big money and they rarely have identity documents, so we ask our domestic security agency to check the veracity of their claims. The security checks are incredibly difficult to do because you are dealing with people who do not supply their identity to the Australian government and who come from faraway places with limited administrative abilities, and ASIO is required to assess whether these people will pose a threat to our national security. You can imagine that that is an incredibly important task and people are arriving here on our shores at such a great rate, and the resources of ASIO are being taken up extensively on dealing with these security assessments. The response of the government is to cut ASIO's funding for a program that deals with its ability to assess unauthorised maritime arrivals. I think most Australians would find that extraordinary.

On top of that, cuts to the national security area also include cuts to our ability to surveil our northern waters with aircraft. Astonishingly, the response of the government to the border protection crisis, its response to the $1.75 billion of wasted money, is to reduce the area that the aircraft which patrol our northern waters will be able to patrol. Can you believe that!

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's irrelevant.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that aerial surveillance is generally considered relevant to national security, but clearly—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not relevant to this legislation.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might need your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the member for Shortland.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a robust debate and I am sure that the honourable member for Stirling has broad shoulders. However, I would ask the member for Shortland not to test my patience any further.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has made this stunning cut. I am talking specifically about the $6.9 million that has been cut from the ASIO budget to deal with asylum seeker security assessments. It has cut this funding at a time when ASIO is being pressured to pump through vast numbers of security checks for those who have come to Australia illegally by boat.

The response of the government to the riots on Christmas Island, where buildings were burnt and Commonwealth officers were assaulted, where literally millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was put to the torch, was astonishingly to write to all these people saying, 'Look, we'll cave in to your demands; we'll make sure that all these security assessments are done by the end of April. Regardless of whether ASIO has the capacity to push through these individual security assessments, we will put an arbitrary time frame on these assessments being done.' Of course, that sent a great message to everyone within the detention network that the way to get a response from the Labor government is to act up and it will respond accordingly. ASIO has also had funding cut for training overseas liaison officers to the tune of $8.1 million.

As I have said, ASIO is not the only national security agency that has been targeted by the Labor government with cuts to their budget bottom line. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have suffered at the chopping block also, with 90 staff axed and funds cut from crucial areas such as aerial surveillance, as I said earlier. They have also had $32 million slashed from their passenger facilitation program at our eight international airports. The Australian Federal Police have also been badly affected by Labor's mismanagement of Australia's national security. Labor cut funds to the AFP and also cut 72 of their staff. I know that this will particularly interest the member for Fowler, who takes a keen interest in police matters, and I am sure he will express his disappointment in the caucus about these particular cuts. With cuts like these, you really do need to wonder whether Labor take our national security seriously.

As mentioned in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments proposed in this bill will amend the ASIO Act to align the definition of 'foreign intelligence' with the definitions in the Intelligence Services Act and the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979. It will amend the ASIO Act to clarify that a computer access warrant authorises access to data held in the target computer at any time while the warrant is in force and is not limited to data held at a particular point in time, such as when the warrant is first executed. This does not change the law but ensures consistency within the computer access warrant regime.

The bill will also amend the ASIO Act to exclude the communication of information concerning the engagement or proposed engagement of staff within the Australian intelligence community from the security assessment procedures in the ASIO Act and put ASIO on the same footing as other intelligence agencies in relation to sharing information relevant to implement within the community.

Further, the bill will amend the Intelligence Services Act to permit the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation specifically to provide service to the defence forces in support of military operations and to cooperate with the ADF on intelligence matters. This is for clarification to ensure consistency with the Defence Signals Directorate's similar function. The bill will further provide for ministerial authorisation for the purpose of producing intelligence on an Australian person where the minister is satisfied that an Australian person is involved in or likely to be involved in activities relating to the contravention of UN sanction enforcement law. It will amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify that the immunity provision in section 14 is intended to have effect unless another law of a Commonwealth, state or territory specifically overrides it. Finally, it makes a corresponding amendment to computer offences in part 10.7 of the Criminal Code.

This bill is currently the subject of a Senate inquiry. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is having a look at the provisions of this bill. The opposition welcome that. We think it is appropriate that the Senate have a look at these matters, although we are broadly supportive of what is in this bill because it enhances the ability of our intelligence committee to do their job effectively. As I said at the beginning of this debate—and I probably would not have laboured the point so much had I not been so heavily encouraged by the member for Shortland—our intelligence community is suffering grievously at the hands of this government. The tiny cuts that are needed to make up for the fact that $1.75 billion has been wasted on the border protection fiasco has come out of our front-line national security agencies. Every single front-line national security agency had a cut in this budget. Extraordinarily, this is occurring at a time when they are massively overstretched specifically as a result of Labor's border protection fiasco. All of these agencies are required to deal with the people-smuggling issues. All of them have been specifically tasked to deal with this by this government and, at a time when there is this call on their resources, they are all getting cuts in their budget and some of them are getting cuts in personnel. So, whilst the opposition support the passage of this bill through this House, we as ever reserve the right to foreshadow potential amendments pending the outcome of the Senate committee's review into this particular legislation. But, as I said, this government is making life for our intelligence community extraordinarily difficult, and that is something we will change when we get into government.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support this bill. Despite the politics that have been played out—and I do understand that the opposition have got to get the obligatory media releases out—I, like the member for Stirling, know of the efficiencies that have been achieved in the security space. I am sure the member for Stirling would join with me in acknowledging the level of cooperation and efficiency between our respective security organisations and law enforcement agencies and also that the deployment of various provisions that apply under the federal regulation and legislation has caused great efficiency amongst our intelligence gatherers and also in how that intelligence has been deployed not only in respect of home affairs and security but also in respect of law enforcement. Despite all the rhetoric that goes on, on all sides of this House we should take pride in the men and women who represent these agencies and do such a sterling job. The fruit of their labour is now coming through in terms of the number of arrests and the amount of disruption that is occurring in respect of possible threats to this country. ASIO is a very professional organisation and the way it interacts with other intelligence and law enforcement services is second to none. All sides of the parliament are right to be very proud of these institutions.

As I said, I support this bill. The changes in this bill would probably be considered minor, and some of them are technical. The amendments are about improving the operation and key provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. These are practical changes in the operation of these bills ensuring consistency and efficiency in the way those powers are employed. These amendments are not dramatic by any means but they do play an important role in the government's ongoing assessment of legislation that underpins our national security and will allow those who work in that field the necessary improvements within their daily operations. That is not just to say that that is contained simply to ASIO and ASIO officers. This is now an interrelationship of intelligence-gathering services that apply across a broad spectrum. It also, under federal regulation, limits what matters can be exchanged with other agencies. What we are seeing now is the harnessing of our intelligence-gathering resources to be deployed in such a way that it has been very good for this country and its efficiency and effectiveness.

The government has a strong commitment to national security, and we understand that it is an issue that is important to a large number of Australians. You do not have to go much further than reading the morning newspapers and you understand how significant security is to this country. It is not just a reflection of areas of world instability, it is also an important factor—things that are a threat to national security are not just the issues around terrorism, there are also issues and strategies engaged with regard to organised crime and criminal activity that can be used to threaten national security as well. These are things that our agencies have in the forefront of their thinking as they approach these matters.

Therefore, ensuring national security is an ongoing task. It is not the sort of task you should go and look at every 10 years or so and come back with a wad of amendments. This is something we need to stay on top of and make adjustments to from time to time in a way which is necessary to ensure that responsiveness and consistency to ensure efficiency measures are protected within these institutions. Therefore, while this amendment does not seem significant in itself, it nevertheless plays an important role in Australia's national security framework.

The amendments outlined to the bill can be understood as amendments to the ASIO Act, and amendments to the Intelligence Services Act. I will start with the ASIO Act. In the first instance, the bill amends the definition of 'foreign intelligence' in the ASIO Act so that it is consistent with both the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. As was the case with last year's amendment to the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Act 2010, this is all about ensuring consistency in the collection of foreign intelligence, and reflects the modern national security context. This context encompasses threats from both state and non-state actors, so it is important to ensure consistency across this intelligence base.

It also amends the ASIO Act to clarify computer access. In doing so, it will ensure that that access is available for the life of the warrant and therefore it does not change the operation of the provision of the access regime. Lastly, it aligns ASIO with other intelligence agencies with regard to information relating to employment within the intelligence community, excluding it from part IV of the act.

This amendment also deals with amendments to the Intelligence Services Act. These relate to the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, providing specific functions for the DIGO to cooperate with and provide assistance to the Australian Defence Force. This is something that always was assumed to occur, but this will give it greater definition and clarification with regard to that. On national security issues it is essential that all our agencies work together and that they have the legislative framework to underpin that. That is what I say in response to some of the comments by the member for Stirling. We are seeing those efficiencies now coming in. As opposed to having discrete intelligence silos, we are seeing the harnessing of intelligence and the deployment of that intelligence in such a way that is effective in protecting not only the borders, but also protecting the Australian public with regard to proposed terrorism events or threats, but also being deployed in such a way to protect the Australian community against serious and organised crime.

The bill contains amendments to provide a new ground for granting ministerial authorisations for producing intelligence about Australian persons, with regard to contravention of UN sanctions. Another important element of this amendment is the clarification of the immunity provisions in the Intelligence Services Act and the Criminal Code computer offences to ensure that those provisions are not vulnerable to being inadvertently overridden by later provisions occurring in other legislation, as it does from time to time. We saw that a number of years ago, where that did occur. As I understand it, that was in relation to issues of court based offences, but this is to ensure that the provisions in respect of those computer offences remain paramount and cannot be overridden at a later date.

The last element relates to the government's commitment to clearer laws in this area. It moves existing exemptions from the Legislative Instruments Regulations to make them clear in respect of the application to the Intelligence Services Act.

As the member for Stirling said, I do tend to speak a fair bit in relation to police and law enforcement matters, but I do have the utmost respect for the officers of ASIO. I imagine I should not use the person's name, and I will not, but I had the opportunity to attend the very fine wedding not all that long ago of a young fellow that I have seen grow up since he was at high school.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is it?

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure there are security provisions that would prevent me from naming him. He is a very fine young man, a very bright young man. And to see this young fellow grow up and have a job in ASIO is a very fine thing. I have seen this kid show his dedication through his schoolwork. I see it in the way he applies himself to his studies at university. And it does go to show that ASIO is an organisation that is targeting the best and brightest in our community to go out there and to be intelligence gatherers. Just knowing this young fellow personally, as well as his lovely bride, I can put a personal reflection on the standard of people that we have acting on our behalf and protecting our community. The Gillard government is strongly committed to maintaining Australia's national security to give the community peace of mind and to ensure that we protect our borders and our community at large with respect to all threats, including serious and organised crime.

Though these amendments may be small in the overall scheme of things they are necessary and they play a strong role in the day-to-day operations of our national security legislation. I commend this legislation to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to speak on the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I want to endorse the remarks of the member for Stirling, the shadow minister for justice and customs, who made what I regard as a very valuable contribution to this debate today in highlighting that many of the bills that we face from this government, whether it concerns intelligence services or the operation of ASIO or our security services, are affected by government's decision making in relation to the budget. His points in particular in relation to previous cutbacks in 2011-12—$6.9 million in funding cuts to ASIO for security checking of illegal arrivals—was a cogent point. It was particularly cogent because—

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

Please be relevant to the bill before us. If you are not going to be relevant to the bill before us you are not going to get as easy a ride as under the last Deputy Speaker, so be warned.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to highlight why that is relevant. It is a lovely opportunity to do so. It is relevant, because when we see bills such as this one before us today that contain provisions that say to us that we ought to streamline and consolidate the operation of various acts of parliament, I tend to think that that is a worthy objective. Some of the matters contained within this bill are indeed worthy objectives. But the member for Fowler comes into this place and says that part of the reason we are here debating this bill is to do with efficiencies, and not government waste. It has been a wide-ranging debate where both previous speakers have talked about this question of funding for ASIO and our intelligence services, the very agencies that are in this bill. The member for Fowler made the point that this was about some sort of efficiency. I reject that notion. I think that there are other reasons why there have been cuts in relation to ASIO and other agencies.

Turning to the specific provisions, there are submissions to the Senate committee on this from various agencies and I want to address a couple of the points in those submissions. Some of the provisions in the bill before us, such as the alignment issues in relation to the definition of 'foreign intelligence' in the IS Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, are definitely things that we should be pursuing. For example, the submission of the Law Council has some validity in regard to the question of warrants and how warrants are issued to security services for interception, surveillance and other matters. There is the contention that if this legislation is passed by the parliament the ability of these agencies to access warrants will be increased in a very broad range of circumstances. That of course is something that should be subject to proper scrutiny.

I want to record that I am a supporter of our intelligence services. They need tools in place so they can conduct their business efficiently and properly. We need to provide them with those tools. However, it is also valid for agencies such as the Law Council and other outside bodies to raise concerns about individual rights, privacy of citizens and of course the ability of law enforcement agencies to act in particular circumstances.

This submission to the Senate is very relevant and it is of course why the coalition, pending the recommendations from the Senate committee, supports many of the provisions of this bill. This should be subject to the great scrutiny and rigour of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They do good work in examining provisions. In particular I would endorse their comments on the increased access to warrants. I do so just to ensure that we have a transparent and proper process in place, that stakeholders concerns are being met and that those people, particularly, who deal with the law in protecting citizens rights are as comfortable as they can be with many of the provisions that we are seeking to amend and enact today.

The bill is not highly controversial, although that may not have come across in the most recent actions of the member for Shortland. It is not a bill that I would seek to make a long contribution on other than to say that some of the provisions, including the ministerial authorisation for the purposes of producing intelligence on an Australian person; whether the minister is satisfied that an Australian person is involved in or likely to be involved in activities related to a contravention of a UN sanction enforcement law; and similar acts that uphold ministerial discretion and authorisation are I think worthy provisions. There are other bills before us in this place at the moment that seek to put in statutory processes instead of using ministerial discretion and authorisation.

I tend to think it is better for us to uphold ministerial discretion and authorisation in preference to statutory instruments, allowing for the very complex nature of many intelligence questions. I do not think there is a way for us in legislation to prescribe every circumstance that may be before many of our fine agencies that have to operate in very difficult environments. That is where the role of ministerial discretion and authorisation comes into play. In this bill, those provisions are right. That allows for the accountability of this parliament to be used in that example. A minister is accountable to the parliament and the minister's discretion allows flexibility and rigour.

While this was not a controversial bill I do want to note that the coalition are strong supporters of our intelligence services. We support them being well resourced and well funded. When a government continually seeks to cut back the amount of money that is provided to our intelligence services we reject that approach. We do not recommend that the government cut $6 million from the 2011-12 budget to ASIO. We do not think that is a good idea, and I do not think that can be justified in the name of efficiencies as a worthy objective either.

We look forward to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee examining these submissions and the provisions of this legislation and, subject to those recommendations, we are happy to support this bill.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to voice my support for the amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Intelligence Services Act 2001and the Criminal Code Act 1995. These amendments aim to strengthen the operation of some provisions in these acts.

The amendments align the definition of foreign intelligence in the ASIO Act with other acts, clarify ASIO's computer access warrants and authorise access to data held in a target computer at any time during the life of the warrant. They exclude the communication of information relating to employment within the Australian intelligence community from ASIO security assessment provisions. They provide the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation with the general function of providing support and assistance to the Australian Defence Force. The amendments include a new ground relating to the breach of UN sanctions for ministerial authorisations for the production of intelligence on an Australian person under the intelligence act and provide immunity provisions in the IS Act and in part 10.7 of the Criminal Code. This cannot be overridden unless expressly stated in other legislation. The member for Mitchell said that we cannot always provide exact recommendations for our services to go about their task, but this amendment, particularly on the possible breach of UN sanctions and people involved in that, is very important, and I want to focus on that in my remarks. This new ground will apply where the minister is satisfied that an Australian person is involved in, or likely to be involved in, activities related to the contravention of a UN sanction enforcement law.

Information intelligence on those who move goods or money to specific countries contrary to UN sanctions is becoming an increasing focus for the intelligence community. This new ground is particularly important if we consider one of the greatest threats to international stability is Iran's pursuit of nuclear and missile technology and its unlikely connection to Australia. Various European papers have reported, on the basis of WikiLeaks that, in the period 2006-2007, 350 Iranian companies and organisations were involved in the pursuit of nuclear and missile technologies. They have done this by moving goods and money through various individuals and organisations worldwide, violating and circumventing UN sanctions to acquire the following materials: computers and control systems required to run nuclear reactors, uranium for the use of enriching plutonium for use in nuclear weapons and alloy steel gyroscopes and graphite used to increase the range of ballistic missiles. The regime in Tehran has attempted to purchase these materials through individuals and organisations in the following countries: South Korea, China, Spain, Japan, South Africa, Taiwan, North Korea, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, India, Turkey, Germany, Ecuador, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. This is a direct violation of the sanctions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929.

The new ground in this bill ensures that Australian individuals who would seek to circumvent UN sanctions, such as through the pursuit of nuclear and missile technology, would be monitored. This collection of intelligence would allow our agencies to detect initiatives from various countries like Iran at the earliest possible stages. Last year Australia joined the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea in imposing autonomous sanctions on Iran beyond the United Nations sanctions in order to achieve a peaceful outcome of preventing Iran, with all of its aggressive international claims, from acquiring nuclear weapons to be matched with its ballistic missile technology. In Australia this was followed by the then Minister for Defence, John Faulkner, using powers afforded to him under the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act to block and issue prohibition orders on three companies which sought to export goods that could be used in these developments in the production, acquisition and stockpiling of such weapons. There is evidence that Iran has been successfully evading previous sanctions by, for example, rebranding its shipping fleet so that ships no longer appear to be Iranian owned. Recently Senegal was forced to cut off relations with Iran when it discovered in a nearby port in Lagos that a Marseilles based company, CMA CGM, had sought to transfer arms into that country. Similarly, a ship, the Victoria, was arrested—I suppose that is the word—off the coast of Gaza containing arms in violation of the UN Security Council resolution 1929. Again, it was a ship operated by CMA CGM, a highly dubious company which is obviously some kind of Iranian front. I have sought assurances from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other relevant ministers that these ships do not transit through Australia, that they are inspected if they do, and that they do not have cargoes that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

I commend the government for acting very strongly under its existing powers to support the United Nations on these shipments of arms to Iran for activities that have been criticised by the UN Security Council. But I do also think that this new ground enhances the existing ground for ministerial authorisations for activities that relate to the contravention of these UN sanctions. These amendments strengthen the ASIO Act, the Intelligences Services Act and the Criminal Code Act. I welcome them and I hope the government will make effective use of the powers which this bill creates. I commend the bill to the House and I commend the minister for including these amendments in the act.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, before thanking honourable members for their contributions, I will just clarify some facts about the resourcing of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the assertion that this government has reduced resourcing to that organisation. Before giving those figures, I will just put things in their context. Since 2001, over the budget cycle—this budget cycle taking it out to 2014 and 2015—the change in resourcing of ASIO will go from $62.7 million per annum to $415 million per annum in 2014-15. On those figures, that is $352.4 million—a 562 per cent increase, in resourcing of ASIO over the decade. Just in terms of the period of this government, over the budget period there will be an increase in resourcing of $123.6 million, or a 42.4 per cent increase in resourcing. So those are the facts.

When there has been such an exponential—and I would think unprecedented in Australia's history—increase in resourcing of a security organisation, it is appropriate to take stock. Any business would do that. Any organisation would do that, particularly in circumstances where Australian taxpayers are spending so much money—and appropriately so, given the information I receive on a daily basis on the very important work done by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. They are entitled to know that their resources are being used as effectively and as efficiently as possible. On that basis, ASIO, in consultation with the department, has looked at and recalibrated some programs.

Those savings make sense and they do not affect, in any way, shape or form, the front-line operational capacity of ASIO. Essentially, they relate to re-phasing of funding concerning the operating costs of the new central office which is being built in Canberra. They relate to the improved targeting of protective security assessments, so that the highly qualified ASIO officers are undertaking assessments on those who require that particular expertise; improved targeting for organisation training and overseas liaison activity; and, indeed, cost recovery. The money is not being lost to ASIO, but the cost-recovery measures are being adopted in respect to the ASIC and MSICsecurity assessments—that is, the aviation and maritime security assessments.

So, far from there being a diminution or reduction in resourcing of ASIO under this government over the budget cycle, the record shows that there will be a 42.4 per cent increase under this government, and that is in the context of an exponential increase that has already occurred. It would be irresponsible of any organisation to continue that exponential growth without taking stock and analysing programs as to where efficiencies could be obtained, and ASIO has done precisely that and, I reiterate, without affecting in any way, shape or form its front-line capacities.

To deal with the bill: the bill makes a number of important amendments to improve the operation of the ASIO Act, the Intelligence Services Act and the Criminal Code. The amendments to the definition of 'foreign intelligence' will ensure a consistent approach to the collection of foreign intelligence under the ASIO Act, the Intelligence Services Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. They will do this by aligning the collection of foreign intelligence. The amendments will mean that ASIO's foreign intelligence role is more effectively able to complement the foreign intelligence agencies by covering the same range of intelligence information. The amendments to the ASIO computer access warrants will clarify that these warrants can authorise access to data held in the target computer at any time while the warrant is in force. This amendment is not intended to change the law but rather to clarify the intent of the provision and to ensure consistent language is used throughout the provision.

Excluding the communication of information relating to employment within the intelligence community from the operation of the security assessment provisions in the ASIO Act will put ASIO on the same footing as other intelligence agencies when it comes to communicating such information within the intelligence community. Providing the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, DIGO, as it is known, with a function to specifically allow DIGO to cooperate with and provide assistance to the Australian Defence Force will provide clear recognition that such cooperation is a core function of DIGO. This is not an extension of the functions of DIGO and it is consistent with similar functions of the Defence Signals Directorate.

The new ground for obtaining a ministerial authorisation for producing intelligence about Australian persons will cover intelligence regarding activities relating to the contravention of United Nations sanctions. It will complement the existing ground that covers activities relating to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the movement of goods listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List and ensure the government's intelligence needs in relation to breaches of UN sanctions can be met. The amendments to the immunity provisions in the Intelligence Services Actand the Criminal Code computer offence provisions will make it clear that these limited immunity provisions can only be overridden by express legislative intent. This will ensure that those provisions are not vulnerable to being inadvertently overridden by legislation passed subsequently. Finally, the bill contains amendments relating to the status of certain instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Consistent with the government's commitments to clearer laws, the bill moves existing exemptions from the legislative instruments regulations to make these exemptions express on the face of the Intelligence Services Act.

The government remains committed to ensuring that our national security agencies have the necessary tools and resources to undertake their important functions in a changing and dynamic environment. Part of this responsibility includes keeping relevant legislation under constant review to ensure that it continues to be appropriate for the dynamic national security environment. This bill is an example of the government taking steps to improve the operation of that legislation, and it is an important step in the government's ongoing review of national security legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.