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

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I have pleasure in presenting the committee's report entitled Annual report of committee activities 2009-10.The tabling of this report has been delayed because of the federal election. It is a report of the activities of the committee of the 42nd Parliament. The activities dealt with in the report were carried out under the previous chair and member for Brisbane, the Hon. Arch Bevis. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Bevis for his work on the committee. His contributions to this important area of national security will be missed.

Reviewing administration and expenditure on an annual basis is one of the primary functions of the committee. Section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act stipulates that the committee has an obligation to review the administration and expenditure, including the annual financial statements of the Australian intelligence community. During this period the committee tabled their reviews of administration and expenditure Nos 6, 7 and 8 for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. These reports were tabled in September 2009, May 2010 and June 2010 respectively.

The Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 8 (2008 - 2009) - Australian Intelligence Agencies made recom­mendations relating to the efficiency dividend and the funding of the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, OIGIS, in particular. ONA's submission stated that, as a result of the efficiency dividend, there would be 'some modest reduction in ONA's analytical capacity'. Another agency stated that any additional reduction in their budget would significantly impact their operational activities. The committee was concerned about the impact of the efficiency dividend on the smaller agencies of the Australian intelligence community and therefore recommended that the Australian government review the potential adverse effects of the efficiency dividend on the AIC.

The committee also took the opportunity afforded by this review to look at the budget of the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, OIGIS. The OIGIS's budget has not grown in line with ASIO's budget growth. In light of the increases in the number of personnel and activities of the Australian intelligence community as well as an expansion in the IGIS's role, the committee recommended that the budget of the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security be increased.

The Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 7 - Australian Intelligence Agencies noted the difficulties that some agencies have experienced in relation to staff recruitment. The competitive job market, growth within agencies and the desire to ensure staff are of an appropriate calibre has raised some challenges in this area. In response, agencies have sought to invest in reviewing and better developing their recruitment strategies.

Two reports on the listing of organisations as terrorist organisations were tabled in the period under review. The two reports dealt with five organisations comprising four re-listings and one initial listing. The reports were: the Review of the re-listing of Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the Brigades), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995; and, the Review of the listing of Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Seven public submissions were received in relation to the re-listing and the committee held a hearing on 22 October 2009. The committee did not recommend disallowance of any of the regulations in relation to the five organisations.

Since 2002 the committee has sent representatives to the biennial conference of oversight agencies. In 2010, the conference was hosted by the PJCIS and the IGIS in Sydney between Sunday, 21 March 2010 and Wednesday, 24 March 2010 and members of the committee attended. Delegates from Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States attended the 2010 conference in Sydney with a number giving presentations on their oversight structures.

In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the work of the committee during the past year, in particular Mr Robert Little, the inquiry secretary, and former committee secretary Dr Margot Kerley, who has recently retired. I commend the report to the House.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to thank the chair for his remarks. I endorse his comments about the committee secretariat, particularly Mr Robert Little and our former secretary Dr Margot Kerley. Can I just observe that this report relates to activities under the chairmanship of our former colleague and member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis. I acknowledge the very considerable personal interest he took in these matters and the leadership he undertook in relation to the committee's activities. I commend the comments and observations made by the present chair.

I will spend a moment or two focusing on a couple of issues that I think are particularly germane—and not necessarily those emphasised by my colleague. In relation to the Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 8 (2008 - 2009) - Australian Intelligence Agencies it was particularly interesting because the review is the first full review of the administration and expenditure of six intelligence agencies which the committee was able to look at as part of the Australian intelligence community, as we understand it. During this review, the committee found that a significant incon­sistency exists in relation to the way in which the oversight of the Australian intelligence community occurs. An agency whose role is in fact growing is now the subject of consideration by committees that have a different function and are not necessarily expert or do not necessarily have access to the broader information that might be relevant to examining an intelligence function.

The committee noted in its report that it had previously had evidence from a number of agencies that noted the work of the Australian Federal Police that had been developing since the terrorist attacks in the United States and the terrorist attacks in Bali. The committee noted that the Australian Federal Police have increasingly been involved in counterterrorist activities and that sections have been created to address significant counterterrorism and national security functions. I mention this because the committee made a recommendation that the Intelligence Services Act should be amended to include the Australian Federal Police counterterrorism elements in the list of organisations that the committee reviews.

The government has seen fit not to pick up that recommendation. I find that very disappointing. As I see it, there have already been substantial concerns about the work of intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police, which were not seen to be adequately integrated at earlier points in time. It warranted a review by Sir Laurence Street, initiated by the former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Mick Keelty, because it was seen to be a major oversight. I am concerned that the government is perpetuating that in the way in which it has considered this role. I understand that it was because perhaps the AFP did not want to be reporting to two committees. I suggest, with respect, that that was a very poor argument given that it was left with a committee that has no broader experience in the review of the intelligence community as a whole.

The other matter I want to draw attention to is the impact of efficiency dividends, which the committee noted in its earlier report for that same year. Most of the intelligence organisations are fairly small. The need for intelligence agencies has not in any way diminished. Their work is in fact growing, particularly in relation to counterespionage and the area of cyberterrorism. These are matters of public note, but in my judgment the impact of efficiency dividends is likely to diminish the ongoing effectiveness of the capacity of these organisations, which we have been trying to enhance. So I draw attention to our earlier comments on that matter in this report and encourage the government to be very focused on the need to ensure that the intelligence community is adequately resourced at a time when it is facing a growing challenge. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Holt wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

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

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.