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

I am grateful to the Attorney for his answer. I said this in my speech in the second reading debate and I will say it again: I want to make it absolutely clear that I understand the grave danger that an ASIO officer or an ASIS officer is placed in if they are involved in a covert operation and their cover is blown. I understand that. That is why I am generally supportive of a significant penalty for disclosing that person's identity.

But, if we are talking about the specific instance that I referred to in my contribution in the second reading debate, in respect of witness K—and I understand it is a matter before the courts—if there is no question of the security officer's identity being involved, if the covert operation is already over and done with, and there may be some compelling public interest reasons to disclose, I think that ought to be taken into consideration, in the context of penalties.

I do not want to verbal one of the Attorney's very fine advisers, who have been very helpful in this whole process. I want to congratulate the Attorney on the quality of his advisers and the advice that they have given. But there is a concern about whether, in the case of witness K, the disclosure of information is in the public interest. This is a real-life example currently before the courts; the circumstances relate to allegations of the bugging of the East Timor cabinet room and the implications for East Timor in relation to a treaty negotiation. I am of the view it is in the public interest; presumably, the Attorney would say it is not.

But there would be many people of good faith who are concerned about security who would think that it is not an unreasonable thing to disclose why that person should be subject to a much more significant level of penalty and why there should not be consideration of the penalty or the prosecution of that person. That would be distinct from someone who is a spy for another country, putting the lives of Australians at risk. That person would be a traitor to this nation—in other words, someone with a commercial consideration, receiving money to disclose information to another government. That is very different from a situation where an intelligence officer or someone disclosed information about something that may be dubious or unethical or illegal. That is the context.

I want the Attorney to please understand that I do not want to put the lives of our security officers at risk in covert operations. I understand fully the imperatives in ensuring that they are not at risk. As I said earlier, disclosing their identity if they are operating in a covert operation, with some pretty evil people, is effectively signing their death warrant. I do not want that to occur. There should be clear legislative sanctions against that. The case of witness K is quite different I think.