Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I say that very generally. If we're sending Minister Ruston somewhere, it's to do good and to make sure that, if there are any problems with relations, they disappear.

But, quite seriously, for the last decade or two, Australia has not been considered a friend of East Timor. That's because of what we did back in 2004. It's a disgraceful part of our history. I know a little bit about this, having asked the IGIS to have a look at that particular operation. The fact is that, when it comes to the issue of whether or not ASIS were acting lawfully, all that the IGIS can do is simply make sure that they followed the directions of cabinet, those instructions. No-one reviews those instructions. No-one looks and says: 'What are the impacts of those instructions? What are the impacts on our foreign policy, on our relations with other countries, in terms of the risk assessments?' Of course, once again, that ties back into the ONI. The ONI is that coordinating body.

Once again, I am just making it very clear. Centre Alliance support the bill, but we raise the issue again with the parliament, with the chamber, that, as we restructure this organisation for good, we're not dealing with the checks-and-balances side of things. I just want to make the chamber very aware of that. It's not as if the idea of parliamentary oversight of intelligence services is at odds with what the rest of our Five Eyes nations do. For example, we know that in the US Congress there are a number of committees that keep a watch on the activities of the US intelligence community. We know the situation is the same for Canada. We know the situation is the same for the UK. So we're in fact now becoming a bit of an aberration amongst our Five Eyes partners.

Of course, the Senate would be aware that I have a bill before the chamber. I don't want to verbal the Labor Party, but they have looked at it relatively optimistically and made some additional comments to the report that came back to the Senate. The government oppose the bill outright because they're simply shying away from any of that necessary oversight.

Once again, as we pull the intelligence service together to make sure we coordinate properly, through this office, both the domestic and the international situation, where we are lacking is that we have turned a blind eye to the oversight aspects of it. The purpose of me standing here is just to remind the chamber of that, and hopefully, if I say it enough times, we might get some progress in terms of that oversight. It's not intended to be intrusive in any way. There are sensible ways we can conduct that oversight. Noting the number of people now working in the intelligence field, noting the amount of money that we are spending in that domain and noting the powers that we give those agencies, for good use, it would be foolish not to think that from time to time some of those powers would be misused. We are not in a position, as the current oversight regime stands, to be able to deal with all aspects of intelligence operations. The IGIS will admit herself—and has done so in writing, actually, to me—that there's an area where she simply does not have jurisdiction, and it's an important area of oversight. So, once again, I just wanted to raise that with the chamber. Centre Alliance will be supporting the bills, and I commend them to the Senate.