Senate debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009 [2010]

In Committee

9:47 am

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

The opposition supports Greens amendments (15) to (18). The essential difference between the bill introduced into this chamber by Senator Troeth and Senator Humphries last year and the bill in the form in which it arrives in the chamber now in the hands of the government is the extent to which this statutory officer is a creature of the parliament and an officer whose function is one of report and advice to the parliament. In the form that the government’s bill originally took, the officer would be an officer who reported to the Prime Minister. The government has conceded, after the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee reviewed the matter, that there should be some limited reporting function to the parliament as well. But, at the moment, that is only the annual report.

Under section 7 of the act when it is enacted, one of the most important functions of the National Security Legislation Monitor is to deal with matters referred to him by the Prime Minister either at the monitor’s suggestion or on his or her own initiative. Reports on references under section 7 of the act at the moment are not required to be tabled in the parliament. The monitor’s only reporting obligation is the annual reporting obligation. That seems to the opposition—we agree with Senator Ludlam in relation to this—to be a massive constraint on the parliament’s right to know and to inform itself of issues which the monitor might identify as being of concern. Remember what the purpose of this officer is. The purpose of this officer is to address from time to time the sufficiency, effectiveness and, if necessary, the potential for overreach of the legislation which is within his jurisdiction. So, peculiarly, this is an officer whose conclusions will be something the parliament is interested in knowing.

For the reasons you, Mr Temporary Chairman Trood, so eloquently expressed yesterday afternoon, it is entirely appropriate and consistent with the philosophy and, indeed, the rationale of this legislation that the parliament be informed of the monitor’s conclusions on individual references, not merely be the recipient of an annual report as to his functions.

It will always be objected in cases like this that issues of operational sensitivity or national security cannot be ventilated in the public domain. This is an issue that arises in relation to all reporting by all national security agencies and it is simply dealt with by redacting from the report that is presented to parliament sensitive or operational material. The amendments (15) to (18) that Senator Ludlam, on behalf of the Australian Greens, has moved provide for that. If there is sensitive or national security information included in the report on a reference, then a redacted report will be produced to the parliament only. There is no issue of compromise to or imperilment of national security by these measures. This is the way the legislation in the United Kingdom works, which is the legislative model which has inspired this bill.

Mr Temporary Chairman, for the reasons expressed by Senator Ludlam and for the reasons expressed by you yesterday afternoon, the opposition is persuaded to agree with recommendation 12 of the unanimous report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on this legislation and to support these amendments.

Comments

No comments