SENATE

4 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
I want to briefly turn to an international comparison. An increasingly complex and unpredictable security
landscape in Australia and around the world means the powers of intelligence and security agencies have changed
dramatically in recent years. This is as true in Australia as it is in many other similar democracies. The
maintenance of public security in the current security environment has led to greater powers for the agencies
charged with these responsibilities. However, the protection of democratic liberties and freedoms equally
demands enhanced oversight of the exercise of these powers. This is the case at home and abroad.
As senators would know, Australia forms part of the Five Eyes intelligence and security network of nations,
including the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Canada. With the exception of Canada, each
of these countries has at least one committee of the legislature that exercises oversight of that country's
intelligence and security agencies.
In the United Kingdom, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament consists of nine members drawn
from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The numbers from each chamber are not specified in
the governing act. Similarly to our committee, the members of the intelligence and security committee of the
United Kingdom are appointed by the house in which they serve, on the nomination of the Prime Minister in
consultation with the opposition. Recent reforms provided that committee with greater powers and increased its
remit, including oversight of operational activities and the wider intelligence and security activities of
government.
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is established by resolution of the senate and
consists of 15 senators: eight from the majority party and seven from the minority party. It meets roughly twice a
week, generally in closed sessions. Most hearings involve appearances by senior intelligence community officials,
who present evidence and answer senators' questions. There is also the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence in the United States House of Representatives.
The New Zealand Intelligence and Security Committee has a membership of five, notably including the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Two of the remaining three are nominated by the Prime Minister, and
one by the Leader of the Opposition.
As I said at the outset, Canada does not currently have a parliamentary committee responsible for intelligence
and security. However, the new government, during the election campaign, promised to establish an all-party
national security oversight committee if it was elected. The new Prime Minister has instructed the relevant
minister to assist the leader of the government in the House of Commons in the creation of a statutory committee
of parliamentarians with special access to classified information to review government departments and agencies
with national security responsibilities.
As can be generally seen, the legislative branch of government has a central role in the oversight and scrutiny
of the work of such agencies amongst our allies. Further, the membership of the parliamentary committees that I
have outlined in general is more flexible than the situation that currently applies in Australia—something this bill
is designed to address.
As a result of legislation that passed in the last parliament, from 1 March 2016 the parliamentary joint
committee has already had a number of additional functions added to its previously existing responsibilities.
These include: monitoring and reviewing the performance of the AFP's counter-terrorism functions under the
Criminal Code Act; reporting to the parliament on matters appertaining to the AFP, or connected to those
functions; reviewing matters relating to the retained data activities of the AFP and ASIO covered in annual reports
on the mandatory data retention regime, including where this goes to operational matters, for the sole purpose of
assessing and making recommendations on the overall operation and effectiveness of the regime; reviewing bills
in relation to the mandatory data retention regime; conducting a review of a range of counter-terrorism legislation,
by 7 March 2018; conducting a review of the mandatory data retention regime, to be commenced by 13 April
2019 and completed a year later; conducting a review, by 1 December 2019, of the new citizenship revocation
powers contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015. This is in addition
to powers in other areas.
I express my hope that the bill will receive sensible consideration and, in time, I hope, support from all parties
across the chamber, recognising that this is a bill that is designed to enhance the ability of the committee to protect
the interests of the parliament and, through us, the Australian people. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:07): This is the first opportunity I have had to be in a debate
that Senator Farrell has spoken in, so I take this opportunity of congratulating him on his appointment as deputy
leader. I must say I look forward to his further advancement in the opposition in the years ahead.
Senator Farrell indicated in his opening remarks that this was a matter that former Senator Faulkner had an
interest in. While I disagreed with then Senator Faulkner on many issues, I have always accepted his absolute
CHAMBER