SENATE

Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 7
This bill, if it were passed, would enable the committee to conduct inquiries into legislation prior to a sunset
date. This is an unnecessary duplication of the role of the INSLM, who has been granted powers that are tailored
specifically to reviewing the operations, effectiveness and implications of Australia's national security agencies.
The amending bill also would enable the committee to conduct its own review into the activities of ASIO,
ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD and ONA, provided the PJC—the committee—has first consulted with the responsible
minister. As I said, this is an unnecessary duplication of the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence Services.
In 2014-15, under the coalition government, the Inspector-General received an increase of $840,000 in ongoing
funding, allowing for the recruitment of additional staff to ensure effective oversight. So, the government has
given these independent statutory officers all the resources necessary to properly oversee our security agencies—
to make sure that they are doing the right thing. I think that is a system that works very well.
Of course, I do not know about—I am not privy to—the work of ASIO, or ASIS or any of the intelligence
agencies, although as chair, once, of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the Australian Crime
Commission I did get some limited insight into the work that is done by that agency and, indeed, others. But I
have the highest regard for the professionalism and integrity of our services—particularly as they are overseen by
independent statutory officers, in whom I think I can say confidently everyone in this parliament has confidence.
So, as I said, whilst I listened to the arguments and I understand the sentiments of the bill I think it is
unnecessary. I think the system works well as it is at the present time and I would urge the chamber not to support
the amending bill.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:27): I thank the opposition for bringing this Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015 on for debate. I want to start my contribution by just reflecting
on the context—the global security environment within which we are having this discussion.
It is certainly true to say that at the moment we are facing on a global scale a very complex and rapidlyevolving
security environment. It is one that brings with it specific and, to date in human history, unique
challenges. That is why the Greens believe it is important that there is proper scrutiny through this parliament of
Australia's security agencies. But, more importantly in that context, it is why we believe that we need a more
strategic approach to law-making in this country around issues like intelligence gathering, data collection and the
way that our security agencies operate.
I want to make the point up-front that in fact the Australian Greens do not believe that we are taking a strategic
enough approach to making laws in this area. Of course, what we have seen in recent times—particularly in the
last 15 years, since 2001-2002—is an ever-changing landscape of laws that the Australian people are told is there
to protect us against some of the threats that I have just spoken about. We have seen a large volume of legislative
change that has been made in the name of counterterrorism and national security, and I think it is beyond
argument that the majority of those legislative changes have in fact eroded some fundamental civil rights and
human rights that have existed in this country for many years. In many cases, these are civil and human rights that
our ancestors fought for and in some cases tragically died to protect. We are now seeing some of these rights
eroded away in the name of counterterrorism and national security. I think that is an unarguable statement.
Where discussion and, potentially, contention comes into this is: are those trade-offs worth making in terms of
the advances that they bring protecting the Australian people? That is a discussion we want to place front and
centre in this parliament and in the public conversation in this country. We urge both the coalition, currently in
government, and the Labor Party, currently in opposition, to think very carefully about whether they would be
prepared to support a more strategic approach around the way we are seeing our civil liberties eroded in the name
of counterterrorism and national security.
I want to be clear that the Australian Greens genuinely believe it is time for a white-paper-style assessment—
call it a blue paper if you like—of whether or not the legal changes that have occurred in the name of
counterterrorism and national security have in fact made Australia safer, as we are told they were designed to do
and, more specifically, whether that reduction in our civil liberties in this country has been worth any advance in
national security and counterterrorism. As I said up-front, we are facing a very complex and rapidly-evolving
security scenario around the world. The danger with taking a white paper approach is that it is a snapshot in time
and then the world moves on, rendering all the work that had been done to generate a white paper less relevant
than it otherwise would have been.
We believe that it is well within the competence of our policy makers and our security agencies to design a
living white paper—one that is capable of evolving in very close to real time to respond to changes in the global
security environment. We do not think this is a contentious idea. We see white papers in, for example, the
Defence portfolio. We would pose the question: why don't we have a white paper process in the counterterrorism
space and the national security space? There is nothing wrong with a strategic approach in this environment. We
CHAMBER