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

I am grateful to the Attorney for his response. I will again refer to the Alert Digest of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I do so because one of the great things about the Australian Senate is that we do have these processes for thoroughly scrutinising legislation. The committee process and the way the Attorney is engaging in this committee process is a fine example of that.

Page 12 of the Alert Digestrelates to enlarging the category of persons who may be authorised to exercise powers and extending authorisations to ASIO affiliates to receiving, communicating, using or recording foreign intelligence and also extending provisions to ASIO affiliates which permit the disclosure of information or documents to ASIO. That is just some of the examples given in the Alert Digest based on the legislation. The concern expressed by the committee was:

A key question for each of these instances is why is it appropriate to extend a range of powers, authorisations and exemptions to ASIO affiliates. This does not appear to be addressed in the explanatory memorandum other than to say it is 'consistent with operational requirements'. It seems to the committee that there is a real issue about what powers etc. might be appropriately be held by different classes of decision-makers, how appropriate qualifications will be determined and assessed and what safeguards will apply given that ASIO affiliates are not employees of the organisation.

I think they are reasonable questions by the committee. The Attorney has, in his previous answers, gone some way to explaining those, but I think it is an issue of concern. Insofar as the committee asserts that the explanatory memorandum does not address those issues, I would be grateful if the Attorney could address those issues now.