Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. The short answer to your question is, yes, there is a discretion for the Attorney-General, but just to do so rather than a requirement. But let me fill this out a little further to explain. The legislation provides appropriate limitations on the purposes for which foreign intelligence information may be communicated. Foreign intelligence information may only be communicated under subsections 65(2) and 137(2) of the bill in the 'proper performance or exercise of a person's functions, duties or powers'. ASIO is subject to a stringent legal and policy framework, including legislation and ministerial, parliamentary and independent oversight, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Director-General of Security's ability to communicate foreign intelligence information under subsections 65(1A) and 137(1A) of the bill is limited by section 20 of the ASIO Act, which requires that the director-general shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work of ASIO is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions. As I said, in addition to that there is a range of oversight already built into the system, including by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. In those circumstances it's appropriate that the Attorney-General have a discretion as to whether to approve any purposes or impose conditions in relation to the communication of foreign intelligence information. For example, the Attorney-General may specify restrictions on the communication and use of the information, including the persons who can communicate and use the information and the manner in which the information may be communicated and used.