Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. It does not stand alone; rather, it is one of a series of steps the government has taken over the last 3½ years to create a more democratic system of effective oversight across the executive government.

When I spoke in this place on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill in 2023, I said that our system of government requires transparency, disclosures, checks and balances. On that occasion, we passed legislation to ensure that no future Australian Prime Minister would be able to take on ministries in secret. Prior to that time, no parliament conceived that such legislation would be necessary. Events proved otherwise, and the Albanese government took action.

I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is an important part of our system of effective oversight and was already long overdue at the federal level when we passed the legislation in 2022. In 2024, I spoke on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. We inherited an AAT that was simply not working, beset with delay and inappropriate appointments. Without a solid system of administrative review there can be no public confidence in government. I'm pleased to see the government's reforms in this area are coming into effect—a legacy that the former attorney-general can be proud of.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill is before the Senate—and not for the first time. That committee, once constituted, will act to enable this parliament to, in an appropriate way, more effectively monitor the Department of Defence and defence supply ecosystem. We've seen in recent days how necessary such oversight is. All of these examples and more are part of an underlying attitude on the part of the Albanese government that our institutions must be strong and that part of this strength is a formidable system of effective oversight that allows the parliament and the people to have sufficient knowledge that will engender trust in those institutions and in our democratic system as a whole.

Support for effective democratic oversight is, as I have said, a hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. I can say further that it is a significant feature of Labor governments generally. ASIO was established by the Chifley government, by executive action, in 1949. In 1974, the Whitlam government established the Hope royal commission, the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. That commission reported in 1977. In 1986 the Hawke government enacted the legislation for an inspector-general of intelligence and security, which had been a recommendation of the Hope royal commission. We passed legislation in 2023 to update and improve the Office of the IGIS, and it's fair to say that, today, that body has broad support across the parliament. In 1986, when the Office of the IGIS was established by the Hawke government, it was not supported by the coalition. There was a view that the intelligence agencies should not have their work disturbed by oversight. It was a James Bond-ish view of intelligence and security that perhaps we, as a society, have grown out of.

About 15 years ago, I was a principal policy adviser to WA Labor Premiers Gallop and Carpenter and Liberal Premier Barnett. I advised on security and emergency management. As part of my role I advised the premiers on WA's response to terrorism. I worked with my national counterparts and provided input to the COAG processes and decision-making with respect to the same. The fundamental importance of checks and balances and the role of oversight mechanisms such as IGIS was instilled in me then, and I have regard to this knowledge whenever I'm called to consider, debate and legislate on extraordinary powers that are largely carried out in secret.

The bill before us does a number of useful things and is the result of deliberations, reviews and committee inquiry over the past decade. As the Attorney-General stated in her second reading speech, the security threat environment is evolving and requires the intelligence community, which involves 10 agencies, to be increasingly interconnected in this work. Our oversight, therefore, needs to evolve likewise in order to ensure that both the parliament and the public have sufficient assurance that the work of the intelligence agencies proceeds appropriately and according to law.

The bill expands the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, particularly in relation to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs. The bill provides for expanded oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I note that the government has budgeted $1.3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $0.3 million on going to support that expansion. The committee's expanded powers include greater capacity to review functions of the ACIC, the AFP, AUSTRAC and Home Affairs; the capacity to request an inquiry by the AGIS, which the AGIS, being independent, will consider, but it will not be compelled to inquire; and a greater scope for the requesting of briefings to the committee from relevant agencies, with heads of many agencies named and the list of agencies explicitly non-exhaustive. From my experience on that committee, these expanded powers will be helpful in providing for greater assurance.

The bill also brings a greater focus on security clearances for committee staff and underlines more explicitly the independence of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, or INSLM. I have studied the work of INSLM's present and past and appreciate the frank and clear advice that they have provided. It's important for us to bolster and protect the independence of that office in whatever way we can. The bill also broadens the scope of the legislation that the INSLM may consider and review.

The PJCIS inquired into the bill, and its report has been taken into account. In the hearing for the inquiry, the Department of Home Affairs welcomed the bill. Mr James Robinson, First Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy, said:

Oversight by the IGIS and the committee would enable the implementation of a consistent best-practice approach for managing proportionality, propriety and governance across our intelligence functions.

There is such a contrast between that statement and the statement of the Liberal member for Menzies back in 1986, the Hon. Neil Brown, who said:

… the very notion of having an Inspector-General to second guess an intelligence agency is utterly absurd and it is a severe restriction on its effectiveness.

Times and attitudes have changed, and the Office of the IGIS is broadly viewed and accepted as an integral part of our security architecture, as are the committee and the INSLM. This bill will make their functions more effective still, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context