Anthony Byrne (Holt, 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. 9 (2009-2010)Australian intelligence agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's oversight of the Australian intelligence community is a key element of our national security architecture. I am therefore pleased to present the ninth review of the administration and expenditure of the AIC by the PJCIS.

This review examined a wide range of aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies, including the financial statements for each agency and their human resource management, training, recruitment and accommodation. In addition the review looked at issues of interoperability between members of the AIC. Submissions were sought from each of the six intelligence and security agencies, from the Australian National Audit Office and from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

The submissions from ANAO and the six intelligence agencies were all classified confidential, restricted or secret and were therefore not made available to the public. As has been its practice for previous reviews, ASIO provided the committee with both a classified and an unclassified submission. The unclassified version was made available on the committee's website. Each of the Defence intelligence agencies provided the committee with a classified submission. The agencies marked each paragraph with its relevant national security classification. This has enabled the committee for its 2009-10 review to directly refer in this report to unclassified information provided in the Defence agencies' submissions.

The committee also received five submissions from members of the public or public organisations, which included: the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; the Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project; Refugees, Survivors and Ex-Detainees, or RISE; and the Refugee Council of Australia. These submissions all dealt with ASIO security assessments of refugees. On 25 March 2011 the committee held a private hearing at which ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIGO, ONA and DIO appeared. On 16 June the committee held a public hearing—its first since July 2006—and heard from representatives of the Refugee Council of Australia, RISE, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and ASIO in relation to visa security assessments. The committee thanks all attendees, particularly those from organisations providing support to refugees, for the time and effort they took to put their views to the committee. Given the public interest and importance of the topic of visa security assessments in this report it is this issue that I intend to speak to at great length.

The committee notes the request from some advocacy groups for ASIO to declare its non-statutory criteria for making visa security assessments. The committee believes that making non-statutory criteria publicly available could compromise national security because applications from potentially hostile individuals could be tailored to meet these criteria. The committee therefore does not support this suggestion, and notes that since its previous administration and expenditure inquiry ASIO's visa security assessment workload has increased significantly. Processes for undertaking visa security assessments have been placed under considerable strain and, in some cases, assessments have taken longer than is desirable.

The committee takes very seriously the concerns put before it by various refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups, but it also recognises that the job ASIO has is a very difficult one. Therefore, the committee welcomes the efforts introduced by ASIO in March 2011 to streamline the process of security assessments in an attempt to clear the backlog and to process future assessments in less time. The committee is satisfied that the current regime for visa security assessments is the correct one. The committee notes that IGIS has stated that ASIO is doing its job in a 'proper and legal manner'. Overall, on the basis of information provided, the committee is satisfied that the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies is sound.

However, I note that concerns raised on the efficiency dividend's impact on agencies during the committee's Review of administration and expenditure: No. 8 (2008-2009)—Australian intelligence organisations were specifically raised in the evidence the committee took for the current review. This is extremely concerning to the committee. The committee will continue to monitor the impact of the efficiency dividend on the Australian intelligence community.

The committee was pleased with the level of information given to it on interoperability and will continue to monitor this area to ensure that interoperability management and budgetary structures are in place across the AIC. The committee thanks the heads of the AIC agencies and all those who contributed to this review. I want to thank the secretariat staff: Dr Margot Kerley and Dr John Carter who are no longer with us, Jerome Brown, Robert Little, Cathryn Olive, Jessica Butler and Gillian Drew. I commend the report to the House.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

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

I endorse the comments of the chair and thank him for his acknowledgement of the professional staff and the assistance they give to us. I have always found our intelligence agencies professional, and they act with great probity. The Australian public might find that difficult to understand because of the nature of the work that these agencies have to undertake. The work is often covert, and it is extremely difficult to independently review those matters. It is equally difficult for a committee to comment on matters that might compromise their operations but which it would be helpful for the government to be aware of. These are matters of potential concern.

In discussing this report, I take the opportunity to identify some of the difficulties under which the agencies are operating. You will find these in the report if you look closely. For instance, under human resources, agencies have been growing to meet needs. One of the difficulties they have in ensuring their professionalism and their probity is to recruit people who are sufficiently talented and appropriate for those tasks. One of the comments made in the report is that ASIO had aimed for growth but did not meet ambitious recruitment targets while recruitment remains a high priority. I think there is a signal there for the government.

If you look at security issues, the agencies are having to address a wider range of issues. We always thought they only dealt with counterespionage. In fact, the broadening of their activities to include counterterrorism and more recently cybersecurity have put the organisations very much at the focus of protecting our national interest under enormous pressure. Coupled with that is pressure they really do not need: the security assessments that have to be undertaken on people who come to Australia. While refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups have raised issues, let me say that it is absolutely essential that these inquiries are undertaken. We know that there have been adverse security assessments. Look at the increase in the numbers of people who have to be seen. In terms of Christmas Island, from 2008-09 there were 200 assessments needed. In 2009-10 nearly 3,000 assessments had to be made. This is having very significant impact on the re-allocation of resources to a function we should not have to be doing, away from those that are absolutely essential.

There is difficulty undertaking this task when the people that you have to see actually dispose of documents that might help even understanding where they are from and who they are. Yet all of our agencies, including IGIS, the independent security intelligence review agency, have seen a significant increase in their workload. The complaints that IGIS receives have gone from 153 in 2008-09 to 1,015. We have the advocacy group saying that there ought to be a whole lot of new procedures put in place for review. Where is this going to lead to in terms of the ability and the capacity of these organisations to do their essential work?

Then we come to the unforeseen elephant in the room that my colleague mentioned: the impact of efficiency dividends. We are not able to talk about the potential of the impact of efficiency dividends but we know that the impact on small agencies—and these are relatively small agencies—can be extraordinarily significant. The committee has recommended the government review the potential adverse impact on the efficiency dividend on intelligence agencies. It would be very reprehensible if their activities were to be compromised because of the unforeseen impact of a measure of that type.