Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I will put some context around why the debate is occurring at this time, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. You will be aware that the order for the production of documents required me on behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to comply with the order by 5 pm today. At 5 pm today, the Senate has determined that Senator O'Neill will give her maiden speech. My office telephoned Senator Hanson-Young's office earlier today to inform her that the tabling of ministerial documents would occur after 5 pm because the Senate would be moving to Senator O'Neill's maiden speech at 5 pm.

We asked Senator Hanson-Young's office whether Senator Hanson-Young would be agreeable, in the usual course of business, to me tabling the documents at that required time during the tabling of ministerial documents, at which time debate on this matter could properly occur. It was noted, obviously, that this would be, however, after 5 pm. Senator Hanson-Young, I am informed through her office, stated that this was not acceptable. She therefore advised that this could occur at 3.30 pm. My understanding was that there was some other business that the Senate had to get through today, and that is why Senator Hanson-Young was denied leave. Had we gone through the normal course of events, but for Senator O'Neill's maiden speech, debate would have occurred on these documents.

The power to require the production of information is one of the most significant powers available to us as legislators. There will be, however, occasions when a minister determines that, on the accepted grounds of public interest immunity, it is not in the public interest for the particular information to be disclosed. I refer to the at least 75 occasions on which the former government failed to comply with orders for production of documents. In relation to those 75 cases, did the former government and ministers who were responding have the decency to provide concise reasoning as to the harm which they believed would be felt if the documents were disclosed in relation to the claimed ground of public interest immunity? I can assure you because I have all 75 of the responses that the answer to that question is no. So, Senator Carr, when you stand up today to comment on these documents, I suggest you might want your office to review the statements that were made by your ministers when you were formerly in government.

In relation to the information that I have provided to the Senate, I advise as follows. To assist the Senate, the government tabled a substantial amount of Operation Sovereign Borders related material on 18 November 2013. In addition to this material, the government has offered to provide the opposition and the Australian Greens senators and members with a confidential briefing delivered by Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, the commander of Operation Sovereign Borders. I can advise the Senate that to date the opposition has accepted the confidential briefing and Richard Marles, the shadow minister, has been briefed by Lieutenant General Angus Campbell on a confidential basis. I can also advise the Senate that none of the Australian Greens have accepted the offer of the confidential briefing.

In relation to the other documents for which the notice of motion calls, I have in my response to the Senate submitted that such documents should be withheld from the Senate on the grounds of public interest immunity. I have clearly articulated in my response to the Senate the relevant grounds upon which I am relying and I have then stated in detail—on behalf of Minister Morrison—the harm which I believe would occur if those documents were released publicly. As I have stated, the government has offered a confidential briefing to both the opposition and the Australian Greens and to date the opposition has taken up the offer of a confidential briefing. I would like to reiterate the comments regarding the operational sensitivity of the information that I have determined will not be disclosed that have been made by the Commander of the Joint Agency Task Force, Lieutenant General Campbell, as well as the former Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston. They stated in relation to the matter:

There is a great advantage to have a high level of operational security which means you are not going to be transmitting frequently on what activities you are up to at that particular moment in time.

In relation to the particular grounds of public interest immunity upon which we have relied in our response, I advise that the grounds are as follows: material the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, defence or international relations, including disclosure of documents or information obtained in confidence from other governments; and material relating to law enforcement or protection of public safety which would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or the enforcement of the law in a particular instance, endanger the life or physical safety of persons, disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with matters arising out of breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would or would reasonably be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures or prejudice the maintenance of enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety.

I have further set out in detail in my response specifically to the disclosure that the documents requested relate to operational matters which should not be disclosed for the following reasons of public interest immunity: they would or could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, defence or international relations, including disclosure of documents or information obtained in confidence from other governments; and they contain material relating to law enforcement or the protection of public safety which would have detrimental effects. I then, in response to comments made by Senator Ludwig, specifically set out the harm which this government states would result from the production of those documents—for example, disclosure of the information revealing the location, capacity, patrol and tactical routines relevant to Australian Defence Force and Customs and Border Protection vessels and aviation assets.

The release of this information would undermine the tactical advantage of civil maritime surveillance assets over people smugglers, who may use this information to avoid or trigger detection or to precipitate a search-and-rescue operation. It would undermine the Commonwealth of Australia's ability to protect vulnerable irregular maritime arrivals from the practices of people smugglers and other serious criminal activity. It would also undermine more generally the effectiveness of Border Protection Command assets which seek to maintain maritime security awareness more generally and in response to a broad range of maritime security threats, including the security of oil and gas platforms and the illegal exploitation of natural resources.

I go on to explain in further detail how this information, if it were released, would enable an exploitation of confidential methodology and processes used by the Australian Defence Force and Australian Customs and Border Protection vessels and assets. I then state the harm that would arise in relation to the impact upon Australia's relations with foreign states. I go further to elucidate that it would undermine the further development of international agreements and cooperation. It would undermine the working relationship between operational agencies in relation to safety of life at sea. It would further increase the tactical advantage of people smugglers and consequently increase the risk to the wellbeing of irregular maritime arrivals.

Accordingly the government does not believe, for the reasons I have clearly and properly stated in my response to the Senate, that it is in the public interest to release information that may compromise current and future operations under Operation Sovereign Borders. I remind senators that the government's goal is truly to break the people smugglers' model, to stop people losing their lives at sea, to stop the flow of boats to Australia so that our Humanitarian Settlement Services program can go back to being just that and all places in our program go to people sitting in camps overseas, sometimes for in excess of 20 years. The mere fact is that Operation Sovereign Borders, in the short time it has been in operation, has resulted in an 85 per cent reduction in boats coming to Australia, which means an 85 per cent reduction in the number of people risking their lives to get to this country. I believe that Operation Sovereign Borders, because of the protocols that this government has put in place, is achieving its stated goals.