David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 2089 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 26), after item 8, insert:

8A At the end of subsection 6(3)

Add "and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner".

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 1 to 4), omit subsection 6(3A), substitute:

Limitations on appointment of Inspector-General

(3A) A person must not be appointed as Inspector-General if the person is, or the person's most recent position was:

(a) the head or a deputy head (however described) of an intelligence agency; or

(b) the Chief of the Defence Force; or

(c) a Minister; or

(d) a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator; or

(e) the head of a Commonwealth agency not mentioned in any of the preceding paragraphs.

(3B) A person must not be appointed as Inspector-General unless the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience to perform the role.

(3) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 15), after item 91, insert:

91A At the end of section 18

Add:

Requirement to consider certain matters before requiring information, documents or attendance to answer questions

(10) Before requiring a person to give information or produce documents under subsection (1), or to attend before the Inspector-General to answer questions under subsection (3), in relation to a matter under inquiry, the Inspector-General must consider whether the requirement is reasonable, proportionate and necessary having regard to the following:

(a) the nature and gravity of the matter under inquiry;

(b) the likely substance and importance of the information, documents or answers in relation to the matter under inquiry;

(c) the likely weight that would be attributed to the information, documents or answers in relation to the matter under inquiry;

(d) whether any other information, documents or answers are available to the Inspector-General from any other source in relation to the matter under inquiry.

(4) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 19), after item 118, insert:

118A At the end of section 26

Add:

Limitation on certain paid work after holding office as Inspector-General

(5) A person who ceases on or after the commencement of this subsection to hold office as Inspector-General must not, during the period of 5 years starting on the day after the day the person so ceases, engage in paid work (other than paid work for, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth or as an officer of the Commonwealth) in relation to:

(a) the production of weapons; or

(b) the exploration or extraction of fossil fuels; or

(c) national security.

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) does not apply in relation to ceasing to act as the Inspector-General.

(5) Schedule 1, item 131, page 26 (line 24), after "Commonwealth", insert ", or law of a State or Territory,".

(6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 51 (line 3), after "1986", insert "(other than the amendment to insert subsection 18(10) of that Act)".

(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 51 (after line 7), after subitem (4), insert:

(4A) Subsection 18(10) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, as inserted by Schedule 1, applies in relation to a notice given by the Inspector-General on or after the commencement of that Schedule under subsection 18(1) or (3) of that Act.

These amendments together propose a number of changes which largely are intended to implement the recommendations which came from the PJCIS. We're often told how important the PJCIS is, that it's got a lot of kumbaya, that it comes up with a unanimous recommendations after considering material closely. We then find that, even with all that kumbaya, it doesn't extend to this chamber, because their recommendations are not actually adopted or reflected in the legislation. These amendments largely try to move from kumbaya to legislation, which is probably a step forward.

The first amendment seeks to include the Australian Human Rights Commissioner at the end of subsection 6(3) of the act, which would include the Australian Human Rights Commissioner in the list of persons who will be consulted on the appointment of the inspector-general. Given the very clear human rights concerns that are often considered by the IGIS, ensuring that that human rights lens is applied on the appointment, the Greens believe, is a positive outcome.

Amendments (2) and (4) really work together on putting further limitations on the appointment of the inspector-general. They provide that a person must not be appointed as inspector-general if the person's most recent position was the head or deputy head of an intelligence agency, the Chief of the Defence Force, a minister, a member of this house or the other, or the head of a Commonwealth agency that's not already included in the very limited list of limitations, as well as requiring the person to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and experience.

Proposed amendment (4) puts additional limitations on paid work for the inspector-general after leaving the office. It is a five-year prohibition on that person engaging in work in relation to the production of weapons in the arms industry, the exploration or extraction of fossil fuels or going back into the national security field. This is so there is a guaranteed period, after engagement in this highly sensitive office, with regard to industries that often come under the remit of the IGIS's statutory work. Those amendments seem sensible. They do, I accept, go beyond the bare recommendations of the PJCIS. They extend them and take them further, but they would promote the integrity of the office.

Amendments (3), (6) and (7) are to deal with the issue of self-incrimination and coercive powers, really in large part picking up the concerns that have been raised by the Law Council on the abrogation of important privileges. One of the concerns raised by the Law Council was that the immunity from self-incrimination only applies in relation to the prosecution of Commonwealth laws. Of course, in this space there are a raft of state and territory laws that cut across the Commonwealth laws and security. The Law Council proposed that the prosecution immunity for those who voluntarily provide information and documents to the inspector-general should not be limited to offences under Commonwealth law and should apply, for completeness, to offences under federal, state and territory laws. These amendments seek to do that.

Taken together, they are an advancement on the bill. They support the independence of the IGIS. They protect and promote important, longstanding common-law rights and immunities in a balanced way. I commend them to the Senate.