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

As the opposition is well aware, the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity in relation to the documents that were the subject of the orders for production Nos. 472 and 501.

While the parliament has the power to require the production of documents, it has also been acknowledged by the parliament that the government holds some information which, in the public interest, should not be disclosed. In this case, the Attorney-General has made clear that the disclosure of the information requested would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security. This is an accepted ground on which a public interest immunity claim can be made. In fact, I would note that claims of public interest immunity on this ground were repeatedly made by ministers in the former coalition government.

The Attorney-General claimed public interest immunity after receiving advice from relevant agencies on the expected impact if the information was to be disclosed. The order requests documents relating to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The position of the government on the IRGC is clear. The IRGC is a malignant actor that has long been a threat to international security. The Gillard government understood this and placed broad based sanctions on the IRGC as a whole in 2010. The Albanese government has also recognised the threat it presents. That is why we have taken meaningful action, including sanctioning 60 IRGC linked officials and 55 IRGC linked entities since September 2022.

What I've heard from some of those opposite is a bit rich considering they said nothing and did nothing on Iran during nine long years in government—not one new sanction on Iran. More sanctions have been imposed on Iran by this government than under any previous Australian government. I would also note that listings under the criminal code apply to non-state actors this and not to state actors. These are the same listing provisions that applied when those opposite were in government and have not changed. The IRGC is a fully formed part of the Iranian state. State actors cannot be listed as terrorist organisations. The position of the Attorney-General on these documents is clear: the disclosure of the documents would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security. This is the basis upon which the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity. That claim stands.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

In the response just provided by the Minister representing the Attorney-General on the government's refusal to comply with orders of the Senate in relation to documents relating to the terrorist organisation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, once again we have seen this government completely disrespecting the Senate.

The minister's statement has provided absolutely no justification for its assertion that the public interest would be harmed by the release of these documents confidentially to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That assertion makes absolutely no logical sense. Everybody in this Senate knows that the IRGC is involved in terrorist activity. Everyone in this Senate knows that the government knows it. That is why the documents that we have sought to compel the government to provide were created. How can the confidential disclosure to the parliamentary committee with specific oversight of security and intelligence matters of two documents based on publicly available open source information possibly create a risk to our national interest? That is the grounds upon which the government has again refused this request today.

The reason the government refuses to release these documents—despite the fact that, as I've said, they have no proper justification for doing so—is that it doesn't want the public to know that its agencies were preparing for the IRGC to be listed before someone in government put a stop to it. The government never admitted of its own volition that the Department of Home Affairs had been highly advanced in preparing a listing of the IRGC in January last year. In fact, when the Attorney-General's Department made a last-minute submission—almost a last-second submission—to the Senate inquiry I chaired, on the night before our report was tabled, that department was in possession of a statement of reasons and a nomination form for the IRGC, but they made absolutely no reference to it in their submission to my committee. Instead they claimed that they had suddenly—in the space of two weeks—formed the view that it wasn't legally possible to list the IRGC.

But we have enough information now, despite the best efforts at secrecy from this government, to have an idea where the direction to shut down the listing of the IRGC came from. During Senate estimates last year, I asked the Attorney-General's Department where the idea to put in a last-minute submission to the Senate inquiry claiming it was impossible to list the IRGC had come from. The answer was, 'We had conversations with the Attorney-General's office.' I asked whether those conversations were initiated by the Attorney-General's office rather than by the department, and department officials confirmed that this was the case. So we know that the government department had prepared documents for the terror listing of the IRGC, and we know that members of the Albanese government's cabinet made sure that that listing was shut down. Every time we have asked a minister since then what they are doing to progress a listing, including drafting any legislative amendments that they believe would be required—something we have offered bipartisan support for—the answer has been that they're not doing anything.

This is a political decision for secrecy and inaction by the Albanese government. Again today we have a minister coming into the Senate and blatantly refusing to follow an order of this Senate. When it comes to serious national security matters, there is a clear pattern of obstructionist behaviour by the Albanese government. Just look at the story in the Age newspaper today in which multiple government insiders admit that the offices of the minsters for immigration and home affairs held tactical meetings about how to avoid answering questions from my colleague Senator Paterson about the criminal records of detainees released into the community by the government. It reveals that, instead of spending their time focusing on the safety of the community, they were holding meetings about how to keep the community in the dark.

We learn today that government ministers were infuriated that their own department secretary answered questions and provided the requested information because it was, according to a government source, 'tactically the wrong thing to do'. That is a disgraceful attitude to public safety by this government, but it is exactly the type of attitude we have become used to over the past couple of years and, indeed, over the 12 months since we've been examining these Iran questions. We are not going to put up with the government refusing to answer questions about why it has done everything it can to stop the IRGC being listed as a terrorist organisation. It is completely unacceptable that this government is refusing to comply with orders of this Senate relating to the IRGC, and we will continue to pursue answers and transparency from this secretive, arrogant government.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken on this issue a number of times. I congratulate Senator Chandler for her advocacy in this matter. I want to take issue with two points that were raised by the minister. First, he described the IRGC as a 'malignant actor'. That was the phrase he used in his statement—'malignant actor'. It is a terrorist organisation. The IRGC should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. If there is some legislative impediment then talk to the opposition. We have made our view s abundantly clear in this regard and we will cooperate to amend the law if that is what is required to have the IRGC declared a terrorist organisation. Members of the crossbench will also co-operate, I'm sure, because this is an organisation that engages in terrorist operations all over the world.

It appears we came so close in January 2023 to nominating it as a terrorist organisation. There was even a statement of reasons prepared to nominate it and then nothing—crickets! Nothing. The US has declared it a terrorist organisation. The European Union parliament has almost unanimously called on its member states to declare it a terrorist organisation. But this government describes it as a 'malignant actor'. I wonder who crafted that phrase? It is not a 'malignant actor'; it is a terrorist organisation.

I want to give people listening to this debate some sort of insight into what this organisation does. I am reading from an article here that was written by Matthew Levitt, Wednesday 8 February 2023. It's entitled: 'The EU can and should designate the IRGC is terrorist group'. These are some of the examples he gives:

Beyond Europe, the latest evidence of Iranian terrorist plotting abroad came out last Friday, when senior U.S. officials gathered for a press conference to reveal the indictment and arrest of three criminals charged with the attempted murder-for-hire of an American-Iranian journalist in New York.

That is what they do. This is a terrorist organisations that targets Iranians dissidents who are shining a bright light on the almost unbelievable human rights abuses that are occurring in Iran.

The three were part of an organized criminal organization based in Eastern Europe with ties to Iran. The leader of the group, who was based in Iran, was enlisted by Iranian agents in 2022 to assassinate the victim in the United States.

Another example:

In August, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted IRGC personnel behind assassination plots targeting former senior U.S. government officials in the United States, among others. In 2019, two Iranian operatives pleaded guilty to charges stemming from their surveillance activities targeting Iranian dissidents and Jewish targets in the United States.

How is this? More recently, this is what the IRGC, the organisation described as a 'malignant actor', did: they agreed to pay an assassin $300,000 to kill John Bolton, who used to be US representative on United Nations. More recently, the IRGC agreed to pay an assassin $1 million for the assassination of the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. This is the organisation we are dealing with. The United States has declared it a terrorist organisation. The EU parliament has overwhelmingly called for its member states to declare it a terrorist organisation, not a 'malignant actor'.

The Australian-Iranian diaspora is looking to this parliament to take action to declare this terrorist organisation a terrorist organisation, and all we get from the government are mealy-mouthed excuses as to why they can't. Their lack of good faith in this matter is indicated in the fact that they refuse to engage in constructive discussions with the coalition and the crossbench to address any legal impediments that would prevent the IRGC being declared a terrorist organisation. The IRGC should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the heart of the minister's attendance before the chamber this morning is the issue of accountability and transparency of this government. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most transparent and accountable government ever, but, through the actions of this government, we are finding that, in fact, the Prime Minister leads the least transparent and the least accountable government since Federation. Day after day, the Senate asks for documents, the attendance of ministers and for information relating to the expenditure of taxpayers' money and to decisions concerning the safety of Australia and its citizens, and day after day the executive of this country snubs its nose at the Senate and, by snubbing its nose at the Senate, snubs its nose at the Australian people. That is what we are talking about here today.

This Senate, this house of review, elected by the Australian people, has passed a motion concerning an order for the production of documents, and the government has failed continually to release those documents. For those listening at home, we're not asking for the documents to be put on the web or on the Prime Minister's Facebook page. We're not asking for the documents to be put in the public domain. We're asking for these documents concerning a terrorist organisation, which is actively involved in the murder of innocent citizens and in the production of terror activities across the world, to be released to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—a committee that meets in private.

What has the government got to hide here? This is what this debate is about. The senators asked for these documents to be released. We know that these documents exist; it's not a fishing exercise. We know that the documents that have been requested are in existence, but this government have said no, they won't release them. They've claimed public interest immunity, but they've failed to substantiate the claims of public interest immunity. The minister 's statement here before was a very nice collection of words that may have had the correct amounts of nouns and adverbs and adjectives to construct a sentence, but they did not construct a narrative as to why these documents should not be released. The government are hiding something, really hiding something.

This Senate has the right and the power for these documents to be so ordered and released to the relevant parliamentary committee. So it comes down to transparency. Prime Minister, what are you hiding? Minister, what are you hiding? Executive cabinet, what are you hiding from the Australian people? This order for the production of documents does not relate to the angle at which paperclips should be bent. It is not an order for the production of documents for what size horseshoes should be. It is an order for the production of documents relating to a terrorist organisation, a terrible—there's tautology here—terrible terrorist organisation, which on a daily basis is actively involved in the murder of innocent people around the world. Yet this government are refusing to release the documents. As similarly bad as that, they are refusing to say on what basis they are refusing to release these documents to a committee that meets in private, is represented by the parties in government and can make decisions in relation to the security and the defence of this country to make sure that Australians can sleep safely in their beds at night. I say to the Prime Minister and the Labor Party: what do you have to hide? You promised to be transparent, but you're not being transparent. Day after day you mislead the Australian people, and you need to be better. (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, essentially to make the same substantial point that Senator McGrath has just made and extend on that. What we're here is a pattern of behaviour. It's more than just a pattern though; they have laid tracks that are immovable now, because they have demonstrated that this government is not adhering to the practices of transparency—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. The minister made an unparliamentary interjection there. I ask him to withdraw.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, I did hear a word that is perhaps not particularly parliamentary shouted across the chamber and I do ask that you withdraw.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What this government has demonstrated through their behaviour is that they are on a track that is immovable. By their actions, they are demonstrating that they are not prepared be accountable and transparent. Yet we all heard time and time again in the lead-up to the last election that there was going to be this new standard. Well, that's exactly right. We do have a new standard. We have set a very retrograde standard here in this place with the way that the government is operating with their complete disregard for the Senate and, as Senator McGrath was saying, by extension their complete disregard for the Australian people. It is appalling that they are not committing themselves to the transparency that they said that they would provide.

As I said, it is more than just a pattern, because we're seeing it time and time again. How they behave is railed in. For example, they require any stakeholders that they're engaging with in relation to bills that are prospective and coming before the parliament to sign non-disclosure agreements. We've seen this with the car industry in relation to their fuel efficiency standards. They are making stakeholders sign up to agreements. They're requiring them not to speak publicly. If they do, guess what. You're not going to be invited the very next meeting. They only bring into the room those that are maybe going to speak up and speak the way that they want them to speak. This is the behaviour of this government. We've seen it with the ALRC report. We've seen it with the consultation on the potential future religious discrimination bill. They'll only engage with those that are prepared to keep silent and not engage their wider constituency. This is atrocious. It is not the transparency and accountability that was promised by this government. The Prime and Minister, as leader of the Labor Party, as the leader of our nation in the political atmosphere that we have, is letting the Australian people down.

Here we have a simple request by the Senate for a document. It is not that it be released publicly; we understand that there are often national security implications, particularly in relation to the listing of an organisation. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation, so of course there might be some national security implications. But we are the Senate. This was not just a couple of backbenchers or a couple of members of parliament. This Senate ordered that the government provide those documents to the PJCIS, a committee of this parliament that is bound by confidentiality and that meets in private—in fact, in a secure room in this building. Great measures are taken to ensure that documents that maybe sensitive, as have been requested here, are presented in a safe manner and are able to be dealt with appropriately. That committee is a committee of multiple members of parliament from multiple parties and it provides the transparency that is necessary.

Again this government is proving that they are not submitting themselves to the accountability that is necessary. They made a commitment before the last election that there would be the accountability and that there would be a new standard. Well, we have seen a new standard. We have seen a lowered standard in this place when it comes to transparency and accountability, and this Prime Minister is shown wanting, time and time again. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak to this issue, not so much with details about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I think anyone listening to this debate would understand that the IRGC has been one of the key backers and supporters of terrorism both in their region and around the world and, as we have seen in recent times, also inflicting terror and totalitarian rule on the citizens of Iran, many of whom have lost their lives or their freedom standing up against a regime that brutally puts its own people down.

I want to talk today though about the process of the parliament being the representatives of the people and holding the executive and its departments to account. Particularly, I come to this as someone who has served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for nearly a decade. Through that process, we dealt with some thorny issues when it came to listing—for example, the terrorist organisation Hezbollah. For many years, Australia had listed the external security organisation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but not the entirety, because of concerns that parts of Hezbollah were parts of government in other nations and therefore perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate.

This was a long and involved discussion, with multiple stakeholders who came and presented their perspectives—in confidence, in classified hearings—to the committee. That committee, having considered all of those facts, still made the recommendation that the entirety of Hezbollah should be listed. I'm pleased to report that in 2021 the entirety of the organisation was listed. In 2022, Hamas was listed. And we have seen in the past, groups like the Islamic State, who were also putting themselves forward as a government for a period of time, have been listed multiple times—the most recent in 2023. But a key point here is that the whole purpose of the PJCIS, established under the Intelligence Services Act, is to enable the parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, to have oversight over both departments and the security agencies when it comes to decisions such as this. The practice to date has been disclosure within that classified environment to enable an informed debate to occur. So this decision of the Albanese government runs against the practice of governments of both sides of politics over many years which saw the PJCIS as a trusted entity to fulfil that function of insuring transparency and oversight on behalf of the Australian people.

The committee has demonstrated over many years that it is capable of dealing with sensitive issues around national security and foreign relations that often underpin decisions around things such as listing, so this decision is bewildering, to say the least. I would also note that the committee has been largely proven right in its insistence that things like Hezbollah be listed in its entirety. When those listings have been made, the statement of reasons is actually a document which is designed to be released publicly so that the Australian public can get an insight, though perhaps not of every detail and not every consideration—that's why we have the committee, to consider those things in a classified environment—but it provides the Australian people with a rationale and some insight as to why this decision has been taken. The fact that this document was developed indicates that the departments recognise that there is a case for listing the whole of the IRGC. The fact that it is designed as a document to be released publicly means that the request for that to be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is actually the committee ceding quite a bit of ground, saying 'We're happy to deal with this in a classified environment' when it's a document that should have been released publicly.

This is a breach of trust with the parliamentary structures which have been set in place to oversee our intelligence and security. I call on the government to be transparent.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Senate take note of the ministerial statement.

Question agreed to.