Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The memorandum takes account of recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In standing in relation to this matter I am not closing the debate.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I seek clarification from the government in relation to the order of legislation for today.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the bills listed on the Senate Notice Paper, we are going to resume the debate on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 for a short while this morning. Following that, we will go to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—We understand that this is the first time that the Senate has commenced at the same time as the House of Representatives, so there is obviously a delay in the message coming across from the House of Representatives. We understand that the message is very close. If it would be more convenient, we would agree to a very short suspension, five minutes or less, on the basis that we on this side cannot proceed with the debate on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Our leading speaker is Senator Brandis. We always have shadow cabinet at this time. The shadow cabinet understand there are no divisions until 12.30 pm, so they will not be attending the chamber. Therefore, if we know the message is fairly close, I think it would be a more suitable outcome to commence the bills that everyone has lined up to speak on. Otherwise, if the government wishes to commence with the telecommunications interception and intelligence services legislation, I suggest that we have only one speaker and interrupt at the end of that speaker to move to the scheduled legislation.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I can offer a few words about this bill, and I understand that Senator Ludlam is also on the list to speak and has been approached to come to the chamber to give his contribution.

I would like to speak briefly to the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill reintroduces measures contained in the bill which was introduced in the House on 24 June 2010 and lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. The bill amends three acts to facilitate greater cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies and removes legislative barriers to information sharing within Australia’s national security community. Considering events in the Middle East and elsewhere over the last few weeks, we know how important it is to have integrity in Australia’s security systems so that our law enforcement agencies can work cooperatively to be assured of what is happening in the rest of the world and also to ensure that Australia is well placed to address the issues that are happening at the moment or may happen in the future.

This government has a proud record of continually reviewing Australia’s law enforcement and intelligence legislation to take cognisance of developments in this field internationally and nationally. I have to say that in most cases these initiatives are done with bipartisan support because all of us here understand that it is a fundamental role of the parliament to ensure that there is integrity in the law enforcement area, particularly with regard to interception and intelligence. We know that sometimes those areas are very controversial. We have to get a good balance between the right of people to communicate as they need to and the need to be cognisant of the fact that at times the parliament has to have oversight of areas of legislation which can sometimes be controversial.

Currently, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, law enforcement agencies can seek the assistance of other law enforcement agencies in exercising an interception warrant, and that ability has enabled smaller agencies with limited interception capacity to rely on larger agencies to intercept on their behalf. However, we understand that ASIO does not fall within the group of agencies from whom assistance can be sought. The bill will amend the interception act to enable ASIO to intercept on behalf of other agencies and therefore ensure that ASIO itself has more flexibility to support the whole-of-government initiative to protect our communities from the threats that are real now or that may become an issue in the future. In assisting other law enforcement agencies, we are also well aware that ASIO will continue—and it is important that ASIO will continue—to be subject to existing legislative requirements set out in the interception act. The bill will ensure that that happens.

Other aspects of this bill contain amendments to the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Services Act to enable intelligence agencies to cooperate more closely and to provide assistance to one another in a wider range of circumstances than is possible under the existing legislative framework. The bill makes several amendments to the interception act that will improve the operation of that act. Carriers and carrier service providers will be required to inform the Communications Access Co-ordinator of proposed changes such as maintenance and support that could significantly affect their ability to comply with their statutory obligation to assist interception agencies.

Those are just some aspects of the bill that I am pleased to acknowledge on behalf of the government. As I said, in a time when our nation is alerted to happenings elsewhere in the world that could affect our own security, it is timely that the parliament considers this legislation. I commend the legislation to the Senate.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise at very little notice to add some comments on behalf of the Australian Greens to the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. You always know that something is up when a committee recommends changes to an explanatory memorandum. That is always a bit of a red flag to me. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs looked into this bill. Many submitters to the inquiry, including the Law Council—and I will read into the record some of their comments—made very clear their substantial concerns about this bill, which were that it substantially broadens the scope of what ASIO and its agencies will be able to do on their own motion and the kind of information that they will be able to share with other agencies and also that ASIO will be able to be brought in on the request of any other Commonwealth agency to investigate, as far as I can tell, virtually anything at all. The Law Council describes what we are doing here as ‘setting up a mercenary force’. That is reasonably strong language. I think we need to be very careful about where this bill takes us.

ASIO operates under very, very strict circumstances that have been laid down over a very long period of time. There are reasons why we put such constraints on the operation of an agency that operates under conditions of, as ASIO argues, necessary secrecy. I have had the good fortune to speak to the Director-General of ASIO in estimates committees a couple of times. ASIO is extraordinarily circumspect about what it will put on the public record. This agency operates under the cloak of darkness. ASIO argues that that is entirely necessary for the kind of work it does, and it is for that reason that we do not want to expand the reach or mandate of ASIO into areas like tax law, welfare law or any of the other areas which the Law Council and other submitters put on the record as being of extreme concern.

The legal and constitutional affairs committee heard those concerns loud and clear and, in response, all they proposed was that some changes be made to the explanatory memorandum—which really gives us cause for concern—to provide greater clarification. In fact, it is not just clarification that we need; this bill needs wholesale repair. The key concerns are that the bill proposes to relax the restrictions on where ASIO can share information with other agencies. I think there is a case to be made in the case of other intelligence agencies that ASIO should be able to share information more effectively; we do not want our intelligence communities fire-walled.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.