Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendment circulated by Senator Patrick. The Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment, but I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the intent of the amendment and the measures put forward by Senator Patrick. He makes the point, of course, that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is the primary mechanism for parliamentary oversight of the intelligence committee but that the committee is currently constrained by its enabling legislation. As Senator Patrick rightly points out, it cannot review a range of issues, including intelligence gathering and assessment priorities, sources and methods, particular operations and investigations, information provided by a foreign government, individual complaints about the activities of intelligence services, anything that does not affect an Australian person, or assessments or reports made by intelligence agencies. Of course, we also know from the way this bill has passed through the parliament today that it will not be able to receive the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's reports at the same time they're provided to the minister or to be briefed by the National Security Legislation Monitor on those reports.

Senator Patrick is seeking to adapt the model of the Canadian parliamentary oversight legislation to extend the function of the PJCIS. I won't go through the various ways that his amendment seeks to do that. I do say that the opposition thinks there is some merit in the proposals that Senator Patrick is putting forward. The work and the structure of the intelligence community have changed considerably in recent years, and yet our oversight structures here in Australia have not changed with them.

Passing this amendment here today would not be a complete reform approach. There are things that should be considered, such as how expanding the remit of the PJCIS would have effects on its resourcing and also its membership. We think an inquiry would allow these matters to be determined. And thus, whilst I can't say here today that we would support all of the aspects of the amendments, we think there are many that deserve consideration. We would prefer that these matters be dealt with in a private member's bill and that that private member's bill be able to go to a committee.

The chamber would be well aware that this amendment moved by Senator Patrick today has some similarities to the well-known Faulkner bill—I think it has been the Faulkner bill, the Wong bill, and is currently the McAllister bill—I intend to leave it with Senator McAllister—