Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee entitled Review of administration and expenditure: Australian intelligence organisations: Number 4—recruitment and training. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I present the first review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence agencies conducted under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2005. Since December 2005, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has had an obligation to review the administration and expenditure, including the annual financial statements, of DIGO, ONA and DIO in addition to those of ASIO, ASIS and DSD, which were previously reviewed under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The committee previously resolved that at least once a parliament it will review broadly the administration and expenditure of the agencies, and, in the intervening years, it narrows its focus to review specific matters of administration and expenditure.

Over the last four to five years, the Australian intelligence and security agencies have been undergoing rapid expansion in staff numbers and have been managing increasing budgets. The review being reported on today examined the recruitment and training strategies of the six intelligence and security agencies in light of that expansion. Much of the evidence taken by the committee at hearings and from submissions was of a classified nature and cannot be tabled in parliament. However, as much information as can be publicly reported, including agency evidence, has been included in this report. An expanded, classified report has been forwarded to ministers and the heads of the intelligence agencies. It reports in detail on evidence heard by the committee regarding the recruitment and training strategies and initiatives of each agency.

The review was not publicly advertised. Detailed submissions were sought and received from each intelligence and security agency and, additionally, letters inviting submissions were sent to a number of individuals and organisations which have had associations with the intelligence services or have had an academic interest in intelligence matters. Only two further submissions were received as a result. The committee took evidence in private hearings from the agency heads and two non-agency individuals and, in the course of the inquiry, the committee met with some trainees during inspections which were conducted at various intelligence facilities. The committee notes that, as the evidence taken in this inquiry was largely confined to the agencies themselves, the committee’s perspective on recruitment and training in the Australian intelligence community might be limited by the narrowness of its evidence base.

The committee heard that it has been and continues to be a real challenge for agencies to find large numbers of suitable new recruits in a very tight marketplace. Once people are recruited, agencies must devote a lot of time and resources to ensure that new recruits are adequately trained to maintain existing high agency standards. Agencies described to the committee a range of initiatives and strategies which they are devising and implementing to meet staffing targets and to retain staff. They have had to rethink and refine their recruiting strategies. The committee was impressed by the range of strategies and initiatives that agencies have devised to meet recruiting goals and to recruit the right people for the agency’s needs while being mindful that they must not become so absorbed in recruitment and training that they risk missing important developments in their operational fields.

The committee found that agencies are making a substantial effort to review, develop and refine their training to keep it up to date and appropriate to the work of the agency in order to create a highly skilled workforce. The two areas within recruitment and training which were found to be particularly problematic for agencies are: employing, training and retaining linguists; and having new staff security cleared in a reasonable time frame. These two areas were examined by the committee in detail. The committee is satisfied that in spite of the complexity of the issues, the agencies are finding ways to overcome the difficulties to successfully grow while maintaining their high standards. The committee found no serious problems within the agencies regarding recruitment and training at this time.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the member agencies of the Australian intelligence community for their cooperation with the committee during this review. I would also like to thank members of the committee, who have undertaken their duties in a bipartisan fashion and who recognise the need to put the national interest and effective parliamentary scrutiny of highly sensitive matters before any partisan political interests. The work of the committee continually presents the members with the challenge of reconciling the demands of national security with parliamentary and public scrutiny. I commend the report to the Senate.