Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is with some surprise and some concern that I find myself speaking on this bill today. We have been running through the business this week with legislation listed across every preceding day this week, through Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, indicating the government's order of priority for their bills. In doing so, they indicated that the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 would be the next government bill to be considered following the consideration of the social services bill that had been considered earlier during the week as their first order of business.

Yet, today we discover that the government has brought on debate on this bill—brought it on, strangely, only shortly after receiving suggestions from the coalition that, in fact, the dual bills dealing with sensitive national security management issues should be considered together. The government, failing to adopt that suggestion, ought to respond sensibly to that suggestion. My colleagues the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Paterson, and the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, wrote to their government counterparts this week encouraging that the two bills—this one, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill and the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023—be subject to some joint consideration. Each of these bills, as my colleagues noted in their correspondence to government, makes notable changes to the oversight arrangements of our intelligence agencies. Each of these bills also overlap, and they have a combined effect that we think is significant. It would be, and is, a mistake to seek to consider these bills in isolation.

That's why, as I say, it is a surprise, a shock and a disappointment to see this bill was not deferred so that the two bills changing oversight arrangements for our intelligence agencies that are now both before the parliament could be considered in a coordinated way and in a joint way. Instead of that, the government has acted in completely the opposite direction by, in fact, bringing forward consideration of this bill—bringing it up the list of the order of business and, therefore, creating the situation in the chamber today where a number of coalition contributions are being made, and made because we do think government should take heed of the benefit to be had in considering these bills jointly and together. We acknowledge that the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 has not yet been the subject of report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

That's all the more reason why this bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill, should not be being considered at present so that we can try to work through the proper parliamentary committee processes of the Intelligence Services Legislation Bill before reaching a point of parliamentary conclusion in the consideration of this national security legislation amendment bill. We urge that because we think that there may be scope in considering them together to potentially achieve a negotiated position that considers the combined impact of the two bills across Australia's intelligence and security framework. That's why we raised these issues directly with the government.

The oversight arrangements for the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs, which are touched on in relation to these bills, do have a complex history in terms of different approaches being recommended by certain reviews over the years, although no major review of the oversight arrangements for the national intelligence community has proposed that the intelligence function of Department of Home Affairs should be subject to oversight of either the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In fact, the Richardson review, which the bill before us responds to in significant part, expressly recommended against the inspector-general having oversight of the Department of Home Affairs, noting the intelligence functions of Home Affairs and its portfolio agencies other than ASIO are different to the intelligence functions of other Australian intelligence agencies and, as the Richardson review found, that there are no apparent gaps in existing oversight that would warrant such inspector-general oversight.

Given these facts and that the Richardson review also took the position in relation to the AFP not being subject to IGIS oversight in respect of its intelligence functions, we think that there should be a coordinated consideration of the issues before us across these two pieces of legislation, rather than the type of rushed approach being applied to the bill that is before us right now and the risk of some of the proposals going against prior recommendations of expert assessment of our intelligence arrangements that are put in the other bill, which is yet to come to the chamber. Indeed, we are concerned in terms of this bill that it has been a rushed approach the whole way through. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was given only a month to complete its inquiry into this bill and only opened its submissions for one week.

No justification was ever given in any satisfactory way for the very short time frame provided in relation to the bill that is before us. And now we have the government seeking to rush it forward, bringing it up its list of bills for consideration, and push it through the parliament with greater priority than bills that it had previously indicated had higher priority, such as the jobs and skills bill, the inspector-general of live animal exports bill or the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill, all of these having previously been identified as being higher priorities for the government during the course of this parliamentary sitting week. That begs the question: why the rush? Why the hurry? Why is this government seeking to put the bill through in such a rushed time frame, when it makes far greater sense for this bill, together with the intelligence services legislation, to be considered jointly and in a complementary way.

It is hard to do anything other than draw the conclusion that the hurry, the rush, the desire of the government to push this bill forward, is not because of any of the proposals for enhancements and improvements to the way in which our intelligence agencies have oversight applied to them within this bill, which the coalition largely supports. But instead the rush and the drive from the government is to do with something else, seemingly the change in composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that is a concern to us. That is a genuine concern to us.

We are broadly supportive of the enhanced legislative framework for the national intelligence community provided by this bill that implements a number of the recommendations of the Richardson review, unlike the other bill which acts in the opposite direction to a number of findings of the Richardson review. This bill proposes 13 amendments to related Commonwealth acts and we broadly support those proposed enhancements. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction to ASIS. I place on record broad support in relation to those reforms and my thanks to the various agencies, particularly ASIS in this case, for their engagement with the committee, and with me directly as the relevant shadow minister in relation to ASIS, for stepping us through the rationale of and the reasons for those proposed changes. That engagement is important because it's consistent with the long track record that we've sought to maintain in relation to intelligence legislation in the parliament, and that is that it is pursued, as far as possible, in a bipartisan way between the parties of government.

There is no greater responsibility on governments than the safety and security of Australia and of Australians. Our national intelligence agencies play a very critical role in ensuring that safety and security of Australia and Australians. And, in undertaking that role, our national intelligence agencies have significant powers vested in them, as they need and require. Also, they operate in many areas with a degree of secrecy and confidentiality that is a necessary part of their function and operations, and so cooperation is needed across the parties of government to ensure there is effective oversight, to ensure there is effective scrutiny. But we also need to ensure that we can all have confidence through that oversight and scrutiny that the agencies have the powers they need, the resources they need and the functions they need to undertake their duties with the responsibility that we entrust to them but without breach of that security, without the publicity of their operations that could undermine or hurt those operations.

And that is what brings me back to the point of contention in this bill. The point of contention between the government and the opposition in this bill is the proposal to increase the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 members to 13 members, to make changes to the required composition from each chamber of parliament and to also make changes to various quorum requirements. This concerns us. It was not a matter of consultation between the government and the opposition prior to simply proposing this increase in the size of the committee membership.

Unlike other committees, this is a committee whose appointments are made by the Prime Minister following consultation with party leaders. Senator Wong and I, as party leaders on each side of the table in this place, have at times consulted with one another about appointments to this committee as we have both sat in these chairs at the front of this table so as to ensure that it is a committee comprised of members of the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. Respecting and acknowledging the particular role the committee has and the responsibility the national intelligence agencies have, we are deeply concerned that increasing the size of the committee without appropriate explanation as to what the intention or rationale behind doing so is will see the committee operate in a way where it is no longer comprised only of the parties of government. And with an increased size in membership, with a different composition of its membership, it changes the ability of the committee to do what it has done so effectively for some 17 years now—that is, to draw bipartisan conclusions around its work and its reviews, to not have dissenting reports and to provide Australia with outcomes in relation to the operation of our national intelligence community, and to enjoy the support of both the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. That level of bipartisanship has been critical and has played a key role in the successful work of our national intelligence agencies, and we are concerned that the reforms being rushed forward by the government, in terms of the composition of the PJCIS, could threaten that and undermine the type of work the committee does and the scrutiny it applies.

Again, I urge the government to hit the pause button on this bill, to consider it alongside the intelligence services legislation in a coordinated and comprehensive way, and to compromise—in particular, by withdrawing its amendments to the composition of the PJCIS that threaten the way in which that committee operates.