Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges entitled Foreign influence transparencya scheme for Parliament, together with the Hansardrecord of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Committee of Privileges reports on its inquiry into the development of a parliamentary foreign interference transparency scheme.

As background to the committee's current inquiry, it drew on the work the committee had undertaken in the previous parliament, including discussions with its House counterpart and a briefing from the officers of the Attorney-General's Department. The committee's work was undertaken as part of an inquiry that the Senate had referred in tandem with a reference in similar terms to the committee's House of Representatives counterpart. Neither committee reported prior to the May election.

In this parliament, the matter was referred on the motion of Senator Patrick and was not mirrored with a similar reference from the House to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. As a consequence the Senate committee has not undertaken any further joint work on the matter with the House committee.

The committee sought a submission from Senator Patrick, as he proposed the reference in this parliament.

The executive scheme commenced in December 2018 and is set out in the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018. It operates with a budget of approximately $8 million for this and the next three years. It requires people who undertake certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal to register both the nature of the activity and the foreign principal for which the activity is undertaken. The scheme also provides the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department with information gathering powers to support compliance. It's early days for the scheme and it has limited registrations, with much of the work of the departmental officers in outreach. As of 11 November, the most up-to-date figures I was able to discern for reporting to the Senate, there were 50 people and organisations registered and 194 activities.

In accordance with practice, the bill establishing the executive scheme was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee made a number of recommendations, including the removal of parliamentarians from the executive scheme, noting the 'uncertainty in the interpretation of "parliamentary proceedings"'—and to avoid members of parliament being potentially required to register under two separate schemes'. The committee further recommended that the parliament develop its own transparency scheme which would require all members of the parliament to 'report on any registrable activities, or arrangements entered into, on behalf of a foreign principal'.

The recommendation to develop its own transparency scheme was picked up by the committee's inquiry in the 45th Parliament. The new terms of reference asked the committee to consider the legislative scheme in the PJCIS report when exploring the matter.

In its consideration of the legislated scheme the committee noted the number of registrants and registered activities. It considered the response made by the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Mike Burgess, at estimates on 21 October 2019. When queried about the numbers he indicated that his view was that the numbers were meaningless as the scheme 'is one of many components'. The committee also noted the media coverage of how the information gathering powers were exercised.

The committee appreciates that members of parliament are not immune to foreign interference, particularly given media reports over recent days. The executive scheme has been developed to ensure there is transparency in the activities taken on behalf of foreign principals. However, the committee considers that there is a threshold question of whether a member of parliament, acting on behalf of a foreign principal, can also meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility to sit as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives under the Constitution.

While section 44(i) of the Constitution was, during the 45th Parliament, the subject of intense focus because of dual citizenship issues, the subsection also serves to disqualify a person who is 'under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power'. Thus, if a senator is undertaking a registrable activity on behalf of a foreign power, there is certainly a question as to whether that activity would put the senator in breach of section 44(i) of the Constitution.

The parliament has established a register relating to section 44 of the Constitution, as well as a register of interests. These registers support the parliament's transparency and act as reminders to all members of parliament of their obligations. The committee is of the view that these registers are a ready vehicle to implement any foreign transparency scheme. However, there are substantial difficulties in developing a scheme that sits by an executive scheme which not only is experiencing teething problems but excludes not only members and senators but also their staff and state and territory members of parliament. Therefore, the Committee of Privileges will continue to monitor the executive scheme with a view to developing an appropriate one for senators and for members of the House of Representatives. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.