Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I take note of what Senator Faulkner has said, particularly about the responsibilities he has had previously as the Minister for Defence. I note also Odgers' Australian Senate Practice and the constraints placed on those who have the heavy responsibility of dealing with intelligence matters.

I think that this motion to suspend standing orders being moved by the Greens is timely in the context of revelations over the last few months, and in recent days, about the potential metadata surveillance of Australian citizens, and also the extent to which surveillance powers should be more transparent and accountable. I do want to take issue with what Senator Ludlam said about Senator Brandis, suggesting that there are some parallels between Senator Brandis and J Edgar Hoover. I am not sure if he was being serious, but I cannot take that as a serious comment. I think that it is unhelpful to the debate. I accept that Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General, takes his responsibilities in relation to matters such as this very, very seriously.

I agree with the comments made by Professor Clinton Fernandes, Associate Professor at the UNSW Canberra, in an opinion piece published this morning where he describes the raids that are the subject of this suspension of standing orders motion:

The raids were designed to seize and confiscate documents believed to contain intelligence on security matters.

I agree with Professor Fernandes that Senator Brandis, as Attorney-General:

… was probably correct to deny that he had authorised the raids in order to impede the arbitration; it is more likely—

says Professor Fernandes—

that the intention was to see whether the names of Australian spies who had conducted the espionage would be revealed. Protective measures could be taken in advance.

I agree with that. We must protect the identity of those who work for our intelligence services overseas because that puts them and their families at risk.

But there are still a number of important matters that are raised in the context of this motion. It simply seeks to suspend standing orders for an explanation. I think the difference with Senator Faulkner's approach is that we should not force the Attorney-General to make a statement at this time. I think simply requesting that the matter be addressed—and it could be that the Attorney will say, 'I will make a further statement down the track'—would itself be useful. But I think that this motion highlights the importance of this debate in the general community about the issues at stake here.

I also want to make it clear that the Attorney-General is perfectly entitled to take whatever protective measures there ought to be to protect the identity of those security or intelligence officers working overseas. That is axiomatic and that is something that I support. But I agree with Senator Ludlam that there ought to be a suspension of standing orders. It would be healthy and transparent to debate these issues. I reject any comparisons between the Attorney-General and J Edgar Hoover, the former Director of the FBI. I think that diminishes the arguments in favour of the suspension of standing orders. I think it is important that these matters be aired and ventilated, but that does not necessarily imply a criticism on my part of what the Attorney-General has done. But I think an explanation is warranted and justified at this time. That is why, with those caveats, I support this suspension of standing orders.

Question negatived.