Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak on the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I want to comment initially on the short notice we've been dealing with here. This bill was introduced into the House yesterday, at the same time a very short PJCIS committee report was being handed down, and we find it in the Senate today. We are also seeing a gag motion applied to it. My great fear is that we won't get to the committee stage. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in relation to this bill.

I want to point out something that everyone who is watching ought to note, and that is that, when this bill was introduced in the House, in the second reader the minister basically said it's not possible to identify why it's so urgent. I'm going to presume that there's an operation going on at the moment that requires some of these restrictions to be overcome—an important national security operation, no doubt. But, to all of those who've been watching this morning, you'll note that this really important national security bill was so important that it got put behind the electoral bills. So just understand where the coalition and the opposition sit on this. Electoral reform bills must go through the parliament before urgent national security bills. I think that ought to be noted by everyone who is watching.

I have some concerns about this bill. People will know I come from a Defence background. I am very supportive of our intelligence services, but we know that they make mistakes. We look at the IGIS reporting every year and see that mistakes are made. We've seen some shockers from the intelligence services in the past—spying on the East Timorese, hotel raids for training purposes going wrong, a whole range of different instances where the intelligence services haven't done as well as they might. That's the reason why we always need to have the right checks and balances in place.

I'll come to the amendment that I intend to move if we get to the committee stage, otherwise I won't get to speak to it, but where I want to go immediately—and maybe the minister will be able to address this in her response to the other speeches on the second reading—is that schedule 2 allows the intelligence services to spy on an Australian, and the threshold for doing that is:

… the Attorney-General must not issue the warrant unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the person is, or is reasonably suspected by the Director-General of, acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power.

We've seen those words used before, in relation to our Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. I just went and had a quick look at that scheme and some of the people on that list who would meet the criteria, in my view, for a warrant to be issued. One of the persons on that list is one Tony Abbott. He is registered from 6 October 2020 as an unpaid adviser to the UK Board of Trade. I wonder if the minister at some stage could answer whether or not Mr Abbott is going to be spied on by our intelligence services just because he meets the criteria as being an unpaid adviser for the UK Board of Trade.

Another name on that list is Kevin Rudd. I wonder if Senator Keneally has rung Mr Rudd, because, if you go on the foreign influence transparency register and have a look, there's quite a scathing letter that he has put on the register. He is a very, very unhappy person in relation to the requirement to be put on that list. I reckon he's going to be even more unhappy now that he understands that, under this bill, he can also be spied upon by our intelligence services. I wonder if Senator Keneally has actually rung Mr Rudd and said: 'Do you know this is happening? We're going to let this happen. We haven't really dealt with this sort of issue, because it's just being rushed through the parliament.'

The best one—this one I actually like; this is a good one—is another person on the list: Mr Alexander Downer. He's been on the list for the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme since 27 August 2020, as he supports the government of Gibraltar. This is the one exception to the rule. I think there would be great irony in our intelligence services spying on Alexander Downer. After I've finished this speech on the second reading, I'm going to ring up Mr Bernard Collaery and let him know, because that might make him feel just a little bit better as he is being persecuted for allegedly revealing what Mr Downer did back in 2004. There are some genuine questions to be answered about that, because, in my view, these gentlemen, these former prime ministers and foreign ministers, actually fit the criteria that would allow a warrant to be issued and spying and interception to occur. So I'll leave my commentary on the bill at that.

I'll go now to the amendment that I would normally talk about in the committee stage. That is, an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act. Every time we increase the powers of our intelligence services—again, I don't necessarily begrudge the intelligence services; I want our intelligence services to have the right tools available, but—whenever you give anyone a power to be exercised in secret, you have to put the right checks and balances in place.

I just listened to Senator Paterson talking about the comparison between our Five Eyes colleagues. I've looked at the PJCIS report, and at the back of it there's a table that talks about all of the current laws used in all of the different Five Eyes jurisdictions. What Senator Paterson didn't indicate was that these other jurisdictions have parliamentary oversight of their intelligence services. That is a fundamental difference between us and the rest of our Five Eyes partners. So I invite the government and, indeed, the opposition to support my amendment, which I've moved on several occasions, but particularly the Labor Party, noting that their own party position is to have the PJCIS be able to examine the operations of our intelligence services. That's in a private member's bill. I think Senator Wong has carriage of it, or it might actually be Senator McAllister—I can't recall. But that is the position of the Labor Party. I find it mind-boggling that every time I bring this particular amendment to the chamber to effectively attach Labor policy to a government bill, the Labor Party reject it. So I'm going to have another crack today, and I'll have another crack on every intelligence bill that comes through. This is about making sure that whenever we give these powers—again, powers exercised in secret—that we have the right checks and balances in place.

I think a few phone calls need to be made. Perhaps Senator Cash might ring Tony Abbott and give him the bad news, and Senator Keneally can ring Kevin Rudd, and I don't care if anyone rings Alexander Downer or not, but I'll be ringing Bernard Collaery.