Andrew Hastie (Canning, 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 2015-16.

  Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's annual report for 2015-16. The national focus on counter-terrorism measures continued throughout 2015-16 with further legislative reform leading to significant activity by the committee.

The committee maintained its bipartisan approach to reviewing proposed changes to Australia's national security legislation and in 2015-16 concluded inquiries into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill. Across these two inquiries, the committee made 41 recommendations that sought to strengthen the provisions of each bill and ensure that they included appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms. I note that the government accepted all of the committee's recommendations.

The committee also continued to fulfil its key statutory oversight responsibilities. The Intelligence Services Act requires the committee to review the administration and expenditure of the six Australian intelligence agencies on an annual basis. The committee completed its review for 2013-14, concluding that agencies were overseeing their administration and expenditure appropriately.

As it had in previous years, the committee looked closely at the impact of the efficiency dividend and other savings measures on agencies. It sought assurances that each agency continue to have the necessary resources to address Australia's national security priorities. The committee noted that increases to the ongoing funding of intelligence agencies and the Office of National Assessments exemption from the efficiency dividend addressed the committee's concerns that funding cuts to agencies were affecting ongoing capability or operations. The committee has continued to monitor these issues in its subsequent reviews, which it will report upon in its next annual report.

Also during this period, the committee conducted its second review of the Australian Federal Police's performance of its functions under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, which contains the Commonwealth terrorism offences, control order regime and preventative detention order regime. The committee also reviewed and supported the re-listing of five terrorist organisations.

Our evolving security environment has required the expansion of the functions, oversight and security responsibilities of the committee. Following the expansion of the committee's functions that occurred in 2014-15, the committee obtained additional responsibilities following passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill. This included the requirement that the committee review the operation, effectiveness and implications of certain parts of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 by 1 December 2019 and an ongoing power to review any declaration of a 'terrorist organisation' under that act.

The committee accepts that recent operational experience has demonstrated that our legislation must adapt to the evolving threats facing Australia, so that our security and law enforcement agencies are agile enough to protect the Australian people.

Of course, as a liberal democracy, we must always seek to balance our security measures against the freedom of all Australians from unconstitutional government interference in our lives.

The scrutiny and oversight functions performed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security hold the intelligence agencies and national security powers accountable to the Australian people.

I commend the report to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Labor welcomes this annual report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which provides an important accountability mechanism to the parliament and to the Australian public. Annual reports of the intelligence committee provide insight into the committee's work concerning Australia's intelligence agencies and national security powers.

Labor is proud of the bipartisan work we do through the intelligence committee to ensure all national security legislation is fit for purpose. Both in opposition and in government, Labor has a consistent record of working in a constructive manner to ensure that measures are passed through the parliament that will increase national security and keep our community safe. However, that does not mean that Labor will blindly support any measures proposed by this government and that it claims are necessary for our national security. Instead, we will work with the government to ensure that any new measures strike the right balance between keeping Australians safe and protecting the liberties of Australians and our rights to privacy.

Labor also works hard to ensure that our national security laws are always consistent with our Constitution and never undermine the rule of law in Australia. It is, of course, the particular responsibility of the Attorney-General, the First Law Officer of this country, to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

At paragraph 1.52 of the report, the committee says, 'in executing its scrutiny functions, the Committee takes evidence from witnesses and agencies. It may at times receive advice from the Attorney-General. Some Opposition members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the fullness of advice provided.' I now want to detail what that concern is. During the committee's inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, the committee heard detailed concerns about the constitutionality of the bill from several submitters, including leading constitutional lawyers and the Law Council of Australia. Noting the strength of these concerns, the committee sought assurances from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, that the bill was constitutional. Senator Brandis refused requests to provide that legal advice, even in camera, to the members of a committee whose members are frequently entrusted with sensitive secret intelligence.

However, in an attempt to meet committee concerns, Senator Brandis wrote to me on 27 August 2015, asserting:

… the Government has received advice from the Solicitor-General, Mr Justin Gleeson SC, that, in his opinion, there is a good prospect that a majority of the High Court would reject a constitutional challenge to the core aspects of the draft Bill.

The committee viewed this statement as sufficiently important to reproduce it in paragraph 3.39 of the report on the citizenship bill, and reproduced in full the letter containing this statement as appendix D to that report. Noting the Attorney-General's assurances, the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Just to be clear, the committee recommended that the bill be passed because we relied on the Attorney-General to accurately and truthfully advise the committee about constitutional matters, particularly advice from the Solicitor-General.

Regrettably, it emerged in October 2016 that the Attorney-General had not accurately and truthfully advised the committee. The former Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in October 2016 that he was not given the opportunity to advise on the final version of the citizenship bill as presented to parliament and as considered by the intelligence committee. It is clear that Senator Brandis misrepresented the advice of the Solicitor-General. The consequence of Senator Brandis's misrepresentation was to mislead the committee about a matter of great significance. After the revelation from the former Solicitor-General in December 2016, the Attorney-General was invited by the intelligence committee to make any further comment, but he declined that invitation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security plays a vital role in ensuring that our security agencies are accountable to our elected representatives. In doing this, the committee helps to maintain public trust in those agencies. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth should never undermine that public trust and must always act with complete candour and integrity when providing information to the committee. It is imperative that the intelligence community be able to trust advice given to it by the Attorney-General when it is considering significant legislation. Both the rule of law and our national security will be compromised if the Australian parliament is misled into passing legislation that could be struck down by the High Court. Labor members of the committee note their strong disapproval of the actions of the Attorney-General in relation to the citizenship bill and call on him to give assurances that misrepresentations to the intelligence committee of this kind will never happen again.

I commend the report to the House.