Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also contribute to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I also indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendments as well as the substantive legislation. There can be little question that one of the primary functions of the executive government is to protect the citizenry of this country. That is beyond doubt. This extends to matters of economics and society, and to the harmony of the community. It also means the physical security, defence and protection of the nation-state. This primary function of executive government, however, is not a function in isolation. The protection of the nation and of the citizens of the nation also means the protection of our values and our Australian way of life. These are the values of a transparent and accountable government and also an informed parliament with executive oversight and, at times, restraint. The parliament, rightfully, has and should always continue to have a critical role over the powers extended to the executive and the use of those powers.

In finding that balance between personal freedoms and the responsibility of government to protect is a balancing act each parliament must face anew. The pace of change and the evolving nature of the threats posed to the country and to the security of the nation mean that these issues cannot be set aside and not dealt with. They must adapt and respond to the issues of the day as well as the views of the community. There will never be a perfect balance between the individual and the state. This is especially true of any policy, but particularly so when it comes to the security of this nation. As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has noted:

… intrusive powers must always be balanced by appropriate safeguards for the privacy of individuals and the community recognising that Australia is a democratic nation which values personal freedom and places limits on the powers of the state.

The legislation before the chamber today is a mark of our democracy. That we can apply accountability and scrutiny to the powers of our intelligence agencies and to the executive government is a very good thing indeed.

These bills have not been drafted in a rush. I should also note that, despite their timing, it is wrong to consider that they are a direct response to the security issues that we presently face. Even if these updated powers must be used as part of that security threat, they are a broader set of changes to our intelligence framework and are long overdue. Some of the measures in this refresh relate to provisions as old as the 1970s. Some of the advisers may not recall the 1970s, but most of us in here would. The technologies, means and methods of the risks and threats to our national security have clearly changed since that era.

The bills we are currently debating come at the end of a long and proper legislative and expert driven policy process to continue the modernising of our intelligence agencies and their instruments. Labor initiated the review of these laws back in 2012, where they were considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Chapter 4 of that June 2013 committee report made 24 separate recommendations, which are largely represented in this amendment bill. The government has obviously gone through its own internal processes and has presented these bills to the Senate. Some may argue that it took Senator Brandis quite a while to bring them forward. Nonetheless, they are and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

In the 2013 review committee report, the Attorney-General's Department noted that the security environment in which Australia's intelligence agencies operate is 'continually evolving and becoming increasingly diversified'. It is always difficult to make sense of the soft language security and intelligence officers use, but it is fundamental that there has been a significant shift over the last 10 to 15 years of our security environment and the way we respond to that is crucial. That is the fundamental issue that modern intelligence agencies need to confront—how we respond to those changing and evolving issues not only as they change but also diversify from what they once were.

The challenge for parliament is to assess and, where needed, amend the responses developed by the executive government in response to that evolving environment so that they match both the security environment and the standards of the community. The Australian Labor Party has insisted throughout this legislative process that any amendments be scrutinised and open to public submission and to public hearing. That has occurred with this legislation and has allowed proper debate to be continued in this chamber.

The amendments in this legislation update the employment framework of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation workers and clarify the relationship between ASIO and the private sector. Further, the bill strengthens the ability of ASIO and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to cooperate in more streamlined chains of approval.

Security agencies have not been operating in a vacuum. Over the last decade, we have seen the evolving nature of the Australian Federal Police. They have significantly moved and changed to meet the criminal elements, from 2001 and all the way through. They have come before parliament and sought, through the executive, improved powers to manage the criminal threats to our society. During that process, we have had many a debate on how you balance the freedoms and the requirements of strong measures for the Australian Federal Police to deal with criminal elements. Those debates have ranged long and wide in the Senate. With that expansion, improvement and ability of the AFP to deal with criminal threats, we have not seen the intelligence community move with them. That has not occurred for a whole raft of reasons. It is now clear that this bill will allow the security and intelligence organisations to also move and be contemporaneously relevant with the Australian Federal Police.

We will not see the headline issues of the amendments today. They go to the point that these are modernising bills that have long been in process, starting with Labor referring them to the Senate committee in 2012. It was recognised that while the various powers of the Australian Federal Police are evolving and changing to address the threats of criminal elements in our society, the powers and scrutiny of the intelligence community have not been evolving, to the same degree, with the evolving nature of the threats.

In 2012, Labor recognised the need for this change. These particular amendments that have been put forward today are not sudden or hasty responses to immediate security challenges—and this should be welcomed. The fact is that these have been scrutinised, brought forward, examined and passed through to us since as early as 2012. I am sure Professor George Williams would not mind me quoting him. He has noted:

Many laws are in poor shape after being rushed through prior parliaments, while others need updating because of new technology.

Whilst I might be taking him out of context, having known Professor Williams for many years I am sure he would not mind me adding that quote to this debate because I think he would recognise that there has been public scrutiny of these laws and that they have not been rushed through parliament. They have come through a proper process with proper consideration.

Whilst we reserve judgement on bills still unseen, in the process conducted on the current amendments bill it reflects the process that Labor has called for. Labor takes seriously the responsibility to support modernisation of our national security and the importance of appropriate scrutiny of these laws.

I want to make plain the point that Labor will take a different position to government on matters of national security where they do not align with our values or our beliefs. The responsible oversight of national security is such a belief. This is why, when in government, Labor created the position of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. It was a bad decision of this government to seek to repeal that position. It was wrong, and it was under the guise of removing red tape. I think everybody saw through that poor slip by the government. It was irresponsible, and Labor disagreed on that point. Labor opposed that decision, but I understand that even Senator Brandis is capable of eating humble pie. He has—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I know you laugh. I know you find it difficult to accept that proposition, but it does appear that in this instance he has. In this instance, Senator Collins and Mr Mark Dreyfus have called for this position. It needs to be properly funded and filled with experienced and credentialed individuals and have the support of this place. If the government is going to be serious about national security, it needs to be serious about national security oversight as well; not just a token gesture, but a real monitor in addition to the checks and balances in this chamber.

I think Senator Collins went to this very issue earlier today, but it is worth saying it again. On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition addressed the House of Representatives on Labor's approach to the national security challenges presently facing Australia. As Mr Shorten said:

Labor believes that our security agencies and national institutions should have the powers and resources they need to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism.

I think that is an axiomatic statement. I think everybody in this chamber would want that to occur. He went on to say:

We also believe in safeguarding fundamental democratic freedoms. We must ensure that in legislating to protect our national security that parliament is careful not to damage the very qualities and liberties that we are seeking to defend from terrorist threat.

We do need to be vigilant. That is why, through the joint committee, various parliamentary committees and this Senate we have the opportunity of scrutinising the legislation. In committee stage, we also have the opportunity of examining the amendments to ensure they reflect that right balance that we speak about.

At this time, it is worth reflecting on the deep Labor principles. At the time the bill was introduced in the Senate on 16 July 2014, Labor gave in-principle support to most of the amendments proposed. However, Labor insisted that the bills be referred to the committee for public consultation to ensure that they are properly scrutinised and reflect the proper balance that I speak about. But Labor has always recognised the importance of our nation's security. While in office, we undertook a range of measures to strengthen national security. This is an ongoing process, an ongoing story for Labor. That is why we support this bill. It continues to be part of the story of Labor—about how we support striking the right balance between personal freedoms and our national security.

In government we strengthened intelligence relationships with our major allies. We proscribed terrorist organisations and ensured that our security agencies were resourced to prevent terrorist actions on Australian soil before they occurred. We built a new state-of-the-art operations centre for the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation in Canberra and, even now in opposition, Labor is working constructively with the government on matters of national security.

That does not mean we give the government a blank cheque. What it does mean is that we ensure the government responds appropriately to the need to see that our security agencies have the appropriately resourced powers to maintain the security of the nation. As Labor has consistently argued, while we support the appropriate extension of the powers of our intelligence agencies to meet Australia's security needs, it is critically important that these powers be appropriately balanced against the rights and democratic values that our nation holds dear and that it contains those suitable checks and balances in place to ensure that these powers are always used correctly. That includes a well-resourced Digest and a well-resourced Monitor. It includes proper oversight of ASIO and a proper oversight of our intelligence organisations, more specifically.

In looking at all this and doing its job, the committee examined many of these issues. I want to single out one or two before my time finishes. For example, changes that we sought and that the committee recommended, concerned the Attorney-General's approval of any special intelligence operation including variation to an SIO or its extension beyond six months—recommendation 9. This is about ensuring that there is proper oversight, in this instance, by the Inspector-General of Intelligence. The enhanced oversight of the SIO scheme by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is recommendation 10. These are about making sure that the national security legislation is both supported here and in the community and responds appropriately to community concerns, but that it also addresses what I have described as the 'catch-up' by ASIO to a modern security environment where it has appropriate powers to deal with evolving security threats.