Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government is committed to fulfilling its responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests, while instilling confidence that our intelligence and security agencies conduct themselves and exercise their powers in a just and reasonable way. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011 will ensure the IGIS is able to undertake the work of the Office of the IGIS more effectively and efficiently. It will strengthen the accountability and oversight framework governing the activities of the agencies that make up the Australian intelligence community in order to provide greater assurance regarding the legality and propriety of their activities. I commend the bill to the House and I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Cowan seeking leave to speak on the bill?

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to my shadow minister coming up fairly soon.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it suits the convenience of the Main Committee, the chair will resume in five minutes.

Proceed ings suspended from 19:32 to 19 : 35

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011. We on this side of the House understand that high-quality intelligence is arguably more important to government now than at any time since World War II. Global terrorism has transformed Australia's perceptions of its security, and intelligence is a key facet in Australia's response to this changed environment. Since September 2001 the coalition government provided over $10.4 billion of funding to 2010-11 to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism by increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies and also by boosting Australia's aviation, maritime and border security.

I want to say at the outset that I am a supporter of our Australian intelligence services. They need tools in place so they can conduct their business efficiently and properly, and we need to provide them with these tools. Unfortunately, the Gillard Labor government's most recent budget was a blow for our intelligence and national security community. Labor's latest budget revealed that Labor is going to waste $1.75 billion in taxpayers' money on the blow-out in the immigration detention program, but in the meantime the Gillard Labor government has slashed Australia's national security and border protection budgets to pay for its costly immigration and border protection disaster.

Labor cut $6.9 million in funding to ASIO for its security checks for protection visa applicants. They have made this funding cut at a time when ASIO is under increasing pressure to pump through vast numbers of those security checks for those who have come to Australia illegally via boat. ASIO has also had funding cut for training overseas liaisons, to the tune of $8.8 million in slashed funds. ASIO was not the only national security agency that was targeted by this Labor government for cuts to help their budget bottom line. The Australian Federal Police were also badly affected by Labor's mismanagement of our national security. Labor cut funds to the AFP and also cut 72 of their staff. Considering the work the AFP do with counterterrorism and cybersecurity, in conjunction with our intelligence agencies, it raises grave concerns about how Labor is managing Australia's national security.

I now turn to the specifics of the bill. As outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to provide the inspector-general with capacity to undertake own-motion preliminary inquiries and extend the capacity for own-motion full inquiries; to permit the delegation of the powers of the office of the inspector-general subject to ministerial approval; and to permit the inspector-general to release material to royal commissions at the discretion of the government of the day. The bill will also make a small number of technical amendments.

As a background to the amendments in this bill, it is important to note that the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was created in response to the 1983 Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, known as the Hope royal commission, to provide for oversight and review of the intelligence and security agencies, of which there are now six. The six are the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Office of National Assessments.

As the act now stands, it allows the inspector-general to undertake preliminary inquiries, but only when a complaint is made to the office. Where an allegation is made but there has been no complaint to the office, the only formal option for examination of the matter is to commence a full inquiry. There is also an apparent anomaly in the act. The inspector-general can conduct an inquiry on his or her own motion into the activities of the Office of National Assessments, ASIO and DIO but has no such capacity in regard to the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, DSD or ASIS.

Presently, the act also permits the inspector-general to provide to the Prime Minister a copy of any report covering the ONA but not the other five agencies within the inspector-general's jurisdiction. As the act presently stands, it does not provide for any power of delegation. All the powers of the office must be exercised personally. This limits the number of inquiries that can be conducted at any one time on top of the inspection and complaint handling functions. The provisions of the act relating to secrecy are intended to prevent court proceedings becoming an indirect channel for the disclosure of information and documents gathered as a result of the complete access to which the inspector-general is entitled. However, there are likely to be instances where the inspector-general could assist the work of a royal commission. The bill will make provision for regulations for a commission to seek such evidence. The inspector-general will not, however, be obligated to give evidence at the request of any royal commission.

In concluding, I would like to draw attention to the matter that the honourable member for Berowra brought up in the House yesterday when reporting on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Following on from the comments I made earlier, I would also like to endorse the comments made by the member for Berowra about the serious impact of Labor's efficiency dividends and budget cuts to our national security and intelligence agencies. The need for intelligence agencies has in no way been diminished and we live in an increasingly uncertain world. Their workload is growing, especially in relation to counter-espionage and cyberterrorism with increasing worldwide threats to our national interest. The impact of efficiency dividends is likely to weaken the ongoing effectiveness and the capacity of these intelligence organisations which we on this side of the House have been trying to develop. The coalition believe the intelligence community should be adequately resourced at a time when it is facing increasing challenges. The coalition support the passage of this legislation through the House. However, it reserves the right to move amendments in the Senate, pending the report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is due to report on 7 July.

I will end as I began: we live in an increasingly uncertain world and the roles of our intelligence agencies remain very important in keeping Australia safe from myriad threats that we face in the national security environment. It is very important that the legislative basis for the actions of that intelligence community keeps pace with these changes and the opposition therefore support the passage of this bill, although with the caveat that we will be interested in the report from the relevant Senate committee and we reserve our right to make amendments on that basis.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Much has happened in the world in the more than 20 years since the creation of the inspector-general, which I understand was originally set up in response to the 1983 royal commission on intelligence and security. The world of 1983 is very different from the world that we see ourselves in today. In 1983, the Soviet Union was still in existence and our security and intelligence services continued to view the world through the prism of the Cold War. However, much has changed since that time. The Berlin Wall has fallen and the Soviet Union has broken apart. The security concerns of a generation ago seem now a distant memory and the security and intelligence concerns of today are more dynamic and complicated than the world of the Cold War. We have seen the rise of asymmetrical warfare. We have seen the rise of non-state players. We have seen the rise of Asia and in particular China. We have seen instability in our region. But perhaps, most importantly, we have been witness to the tragic events of September 11 2001 and the rise of Islamist terrorist organisations. The events of that day brought into stark reality the presence of not only a new threat to Australia's interests overseas but also a very real threat to the physical safety of Australians domestically and abroad. We have seen this with the Bali bombings and the attacks on hotels and our embassy in Jakarta. At home we have seen our security and intelligence services foil plans to attack military and civilian facilities. These events, both tragic and alarming, underscore the very real impacts of these new world threats on our way of life.

Apart from the change in the types of threats facing Australia, the world has also seen great technological change. In 1983 when the royal commission took place, who could have imagined the changes that we have now seen in technology, especially with the internet and social media. I was in India in 1996, and the internet had just actually hit the streets. I think that I was one of about 120 people in New Delhi, which is a city of some 20 million, using the internet. So we look at the changes that have taken place in just that time.

The use of the internet has been of particular use to al-Qaeda in its recruitment and propaganda. As the Director-General of Security noted in his statement to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:

The internet helps al-Qaeda in its task. It is both a propaganda and a recruitment tool. It provides terrorists with both a platform to support operational activity and the means through which to project their ideology onto the international stage. The dissemination of violent extremist ideology through the internet poses the very real danger of drawing individuals down the path of radicalisation.

The new threats and the new technologies serve to highlight the importance of having a well-resourced and supported intelligence apparatus. The potential danger and tragedy that could result from not having one is too great. I believe very firmly that the only reason we have been spared the experience of a London bombing or a September 11 is because of the great work of ASIO and its sister agencies. However, it is a constant battle and one with the consequence of failure being very high. That is why this government has invested in increasing the capabilities and capacity of our security service.

In addition, I think these organisations do great work. I have had some dealings—both as a member of parliament and in my former life as someone who was with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and who consulted with the Department of Defence for 10 years—with those people who work in the intelligence community. The work of the staff in our intelligence agencies, by its nature, goes largely unsung. Unlike other public servants who can at least see or speak about the fruits of their work in the world, the members of these agencies must be silent and largely unseen.

It has often been said that the success of the intelligence agencies is usually measured by the things that do not happen—the terrorist attacks prevented and the assassinations that never took place. Thus, it is very easy for us to take their work for granted and possibly, in extreme cases, even claim that they serve no purpose. But we should avoid such simplistic analysis.

However, that is not to say that the intelligence services should be given an entirely free hand in what they do. There are obvious and at times well-founded concerns about the accountability and probity of intelligence services. The concerns are perhaps more relevant given that this parliament has in the past consented to the passage of new laws and regulations which, in the case of security related offences, provide the justice authorities and intelligence services with greater powers and flexibility than would apply in the usual criminal cases.

Our intelligence services are today armed and empowered to a much greater degree than ever before. Their capacity to gather information, and therefore their implied capacity to infringe on civil liberties, has never been greater. While this expansion in capacity is to the credit of the government—for it would be shirking its duty to defend the country if it did not do what it thought was necessary—we must consider the protection of the individual's liberty as well as their safety. I believe it is critical that whenever the state takes on new powers over the individual there must be built-in processes and protocols that ensure these new powers cannot be abused. It is in this light that we should consider this bill, for this bill is about oversight and scrutiny of the intelligence services. It is a true mark of a mature, liberal democracy that it can maintain and support effective covert intelligence services while at the same time ensure that the powers held by these services cannot be abused or used to infringe upon the liberties of its citizens. In this light, I would also like to recognise the work done by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and her staff in ensuring that our intelligence community are true servants of the Australian community and not their own.

The inspector-general of intelligence has oversight of ASIO and ASIS as well as the Defence Imagery and Geo-spatial Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Office of National Assessments and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. The inspector-general of intelligence has the responsibility to review and, where necessary, investigate the intelligence services to ensure their activities comply with ministerial direction and legislative requirements and with respect for human rights. The IGIS does so independently, with a capacity to generate their own investigations as well as in response to ministers and the public.

The amendments before this House today are designed to update and modernise this legislation to address issues that have become evident over time. This bill will ensure that the essential work of the inspector-general is carried out efficiently and effectively and will strengthen the accountability and oversight of the Australian intelligence community. The amendments in this bill expressly recognise the role of the inspector-general in assisting the government in providing the parliament and the public with assurances that the intelligence community is subject to scrutiny and is using its powers in accordance with law. It also strengthens the capacity of the IGIS to undertake its own-motion preliminary and full inquiries, provides for the ability to delegate the power of the office with ministerial approval and, as well, provides the IGIS with the capacity to release material to assist royal commissions.

It is a cliche, but true, that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. I firmly believe that this includes appropriate and robust oversight of our intelligence community. This robust oversight is the reason the Australian public has such support for our intelligence services. This very oversight is the difference between a police state and a modern, liberal democracy. I commend the government for its commitment to national security as well as for its commitment to ensuring that our intelligence services are acting with integrity and propriety. I commend the bill to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011. I rise simply to record a series of what I regard as concerns merely with what could be seen as some of the acts that this bill is seeking to change. The member for Canberra referred to modernising, and I do not think anybody has a problem with modernising, but my concerns are with some of the powers within this bill that we are discussing today. It is important to note at this juncture that we have referred the matter to a Senate committee, and I think that is probably a wise decision in relation to the power to delegate. The office of the IGIS was created in 1983 and there are now six intelligence agencies in Australia. The IGIS was set up to provide an oversight and review, and I think the member for Canberra makes an important point about having sufficient oversight and review functions of such important agencies in a liberal democracy. I want to record my support of those six agencies and the work that they do on behalf of our nation. Intelligence and the gathering of it is, by necessity, a secret business; nonetheless, I regard it as fundamental for our nation's security and its future. The act currently allows IGIS to undertake preliminary inquiries, but only when a complaint is made to its office. Where an allegation is made but there has been no complaint to the office, the only formal option for examination of the matter is to commence a full inquiry. There is also an apparent anomaly in this act in that IGIS can only conduct an inquiry on its own into the activities of agencies such as the ONA, ASIO and DIO but has no capacity in regard to DIGO, the Defence Signals Directorate or ASIS. That is an anomaly that does need to be corrected. I think that is a valid and important modernisation of this act. The act also permits IGIS to provide the Prime Minister a copy of any report covering ONA but not the other five agencies. There are plenty of discrepancies within this current act that certainly do need modernising and these amendments from the government are to be welcomed and bring us into line with what you would regard as a common-sense approach for this particularly important agency.

At present the act does not provide for any power of delegation. I think this is where as an opposition we have a concern. If you are proposing a power of delegation, that should be the subject of sufficient scrutiny and review to ensure that we are not giving extra power or additional ability that we may not ordinarily grant as a parliament to such agencies. There is very sensitive information that IGIS is able to gather and that needs to be closely held. The ability to delegate is probably something that should have a very rigorous examination by Senate committee.

The act also confers strong coercive powers on IGIS, which should not be allowed to proliferate. Those coercive powers in relation to calling witnesses and bringing people to provide evidence or information are very serious. It is the role of government to hold an exclusive monopoly on the right to use force and we allow agencies, particularly police and intelligence services, to use it on our behalf. They have to be subject to the appropriate protection and scrutiny for all citizens. This is a valid consideration that the opposition has in terms of ensuring that this is given broad scrutiny. That is why we have foreshadowed that we do not oppose this bill as it is currently drafted, but there could be potential amendments following an examination by the Senate committee. I think it is important that that consideration is given, particularly in regard to these powers of delegation.

I do not really have a lot of other objections or things I would like to comment on in relation to this bill. I note the submissions and concerns that will be provided to the Senate committee will deal with many of these provisions. There are some concerns from the Law Council of Australia. While I may not always agree with the Law Council of Australia, I think it is proper that they have the opportunity, as do other concerned stakeholders, to put their concerns to a properly comprised Senate committee where we can consider the scope for any further amendments to this act and to the provisions of the amendment bill before us today. While not opposing anything in particular, in fact there are some worthwhile provisions in this bill, it is important that it have rigorous scrutiny and that people be given the opportunity to make submissions on potential further amendments to this legislation.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to close the debate on this important bill. These are the first amendments to this act since 1983. I commend the bill to the House and thank the honourable members for their contribution in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Main Committee adjourned at 19:59