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

I query whether for the Attorney to categorise these as hypothetical matters is actually correct. The Alert Digest makes reference to six particular matters under six subheadings. The first is:

• item 62 enlarges the category of person who may be authorised to exercise powers conferred by Part 2-2 warrants;

That is not hypothetical. The second is:

• item 63 extends authorisation to intercept communications on behalf of ASIO;

Again, I do not think that is hypothetical, and I think the same could be said for:

• item 67 allows ASIO affiliates to communicate foreign intelligence information to another person.

• item 69 extends to affiliates an exception to an offence relating to accessing stored communications;

• items 70, 71 and 72 will extend authorisation to ASIO affiliates relating to receiving, communicating, using or recording foreign intelligence; and

• items 73 and 74 will extend provisions to ASIO affiliates which permit the disclosure of information or documents to ASIO.

I do not think that they are hypothetical matters. I appreciate the Attorney's candor in his answers to date, but it seems that these are matters where the committee raised issues of how qualifications will be determined and assessed and what safeguards will apply given that those ASIO affiliates are not employees of the organisation. To categorise them as hypothetical matters is not fair. I think it is reasonable to say that the committee has identified a number of items where there are some additional powers. All I am trying to establish is how those additional powers will be dealt with and what safeguards will apply. The Attorney is quite right to say that this does not relate to operational matters, but can there sometimes be circumstances when a so-called management issue can flow into or intersect with an operational matter?