Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would also like to speak on the annual report of committee activities of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. As outlined by the chair of the committee, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 requires that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security report to this parliament annually on the committee’s activities the previous year. It is worth bearing in mind when considering this report that this committee is relatively new, having commenced in about March 2002, and that it has dealt with continued referrals of security legislation review and review of proscriptions, in addition to the scrutiny of the administration and expenditure of intelligence agencies.

It is also important to note that this committee operates on a bipartisan basis. It is my observation, and that of the committee, as reflected in this report, that this committee has been dealing with the dilemmas of all committees which oversee intelligence agencies—that is, the tension between proper scrutiny that would be required in a functioning, vibrant democracy like Australia and the protection of national security information. As stated in the report, the committee has always sought to provide the maximum reporting to the parliament and to preserve the optimum powers and privileges of parliament consistent with its national security obligations.

In particular, last year saw amendments to the Intelligence Services Act which changed the committee’s name from the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS, and DSD to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This change, implementing one of the key recommendations of the Flood inquiry, increased the committee’s oversight to include all six intelligence agencies—ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIO, DIGO and ONA. As the chair has stated, the committee has increased in size from seven to nine members, with the addition of a new opposition member and a new government member of the House. A position of deputy chair has been created, to which I have had the honour of being appointed, and the committee now has the capacity to form subcommittees, should they be required due to workload constraints.

As also detailed, the committee tabled six reports: four reviews of terrorist listings and two reviews of legislation, one being a review of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers. I will comment on this particular review of the committee. It made a series of 19 recommendations relating to the clarity of the legal framework, the transparency of procedures, particularly some limitations on the secrecy provisions, and improved process—rights to legal representation and the supervision of the process by the prescribed authority. The committee noted that, whilst the regime established by division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act had been administered in a professional way, there could be improvements given the extraordinary nature of the powers conferred to the security agencies by this particular provision.

One issue in particular was the committee’s view that a sunset clause for these powers must remain, although the period recommended was 5½ years. It is interesting to note that the government disagreed with nine of the 19 recommendations arrived at by this bipartisan committee, particularly the recommendation relating to the sunset clause. The government inserted a 10-year sunset clause instead of the committee’s recommendation, so the next review of this very controversial legislation will occur in 2016.

It is my view, given that this committee does operate on a bipartisan basis, that the rejection of this particular recommendation was short-sighted and ignored the experience of this committee, which has a proven track record of improving security legislation that it has been asked to review and in providing the right balance between effective legislation and appropriate legislative protections to the Australian community.

In addition, the committee has conducted a review of the recruitment and training procedures of all six intelligence agencies. The procedural issues highlighted in the annual report are also worth mentioning. The first, relating to the conduct of the inquiry into ASIO’s questioning and detention powers, has just been dealt with by the chair. The other issues, relating to the preservation of archived documents and classified documents with which committee members were working, are of some concern and may require an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act in order for the committee to appropriately discharge its duties. Additionally, as mentioned by the chair of the committee, concerns remain about the application of the non-disclosure provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Intelligence Services Act.

I would comment on the application of section 7, where in some cases the government or government agencies have the capacity to veto the committee reporting of any matter that they determine as relating to national security or prejudicial to Australia’s foreign relations. In my view this section is very broad and it could be argued that, if inappropriately applied, it could operate as an impingement on this committee’s capacity to appropriately report on mandated matters to the Australian parliament. The committee has sought modification to this clause with the government without success to date.

In closing, I would like to thank the hardworking staff of the committee secretariat, including the secretary, Ms Margaret Swieringa, the inquiry secretary, Ms Jane Hearn, research officer Dr Cathryn Ollif and executive assistant Mrs Donna Quintus-Bosz. I certainly recommend this report to the House.

See this speech in context