George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

This was looked by the PJCIS, actually, in considering this bill. Can I refer you, Senator Xenophon, to committee recommendation 34, which provides:

The Committee recommends that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 be amended to provide that the Committee may inquire into any matter raised in the annual report prepared under proposed section 187P, including where this goes to a review of operational matters.

Legislative change to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 should be implemented to reflect this changed function.

The Committee further recommends that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security provide notice to the Committee should either of them hold serious concerns about the purpose for, or the manner in which, retained data is being accessed.

The government responded positively to that recommendation. The government's response—let me read it to you—is this:

The Government considers there is benefit in conferring an appropriate function on the Committee for the purposes of establishing a further oversight mechanism for the operation of the data retention scheme.

Consistent with the focus of the PJCIS on non-operational matters concerning security and intelligence, the new function would enable the PJCIS to inquire into the effectiveness of the operation of the data retention scheme, with respect to the purpose and manner of access by ASIO and AFP (to the extent those agencies are the subject of PJCIS oversight).

So, that recommendation was adopted, at least in part, by conferring an additional power, and that is reflected in one of the clauses of the bill before the chamber. But the government has not gone the further step, for reasons that I have indicated, of modelling or remodelling the PJCIS along the lines of the US Senate or House intelligence committees.