SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016 have seen white paper processes for tax, agriculture and defence. We have even seen a white paper for Northern Australia. But we have not for some time seen a white paper around national security in the context of counterterrorism. Of course, a white paper process would involve the input of our security agencies, but it would also give a range of other experts from a number of other fields the chance to have a meaningful say. It should and could include an examination of the effectiveness of the dozens of legislative and administrative changes made since 2002. I will just place on the record that since that time we have seen new crimes created at least 12 times, legal powers have been extended at least seven times, police have been granted new powers at least 16 times and intelligence powers have been increased at least 12 times. In that period such laws have only been softened twice and new oversight created just once. This erosion of fundamental civil liberties in our country is unprecedented in Australia's peacetime history. We believe we owe it to our people, including the many Australians who have fought and at times died to protect these liberties, to make sure that this erosion is actually justified by an increase in the security of the Australian people. I come now to this legislation. The bill seeks to amend a number of acts. Specifically, it seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 by removing some of the current constraints on the membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It would change it from the current six members from the House of Representatives and five senators to one government member and one government senator and one opposition member and one opposition senator, with the balance of the committee drawn from either chamber. We have heard contributions from both the government and the opposition today. I want to make the point that this committee is very much a closed shop; it is historically made up of members from the government of the day and the opposition of the day. We are facing a context now where one-quarter of Australians did not vote for the coalition or Labor in the recent election—and that is a continuation of a declining trend in the vote of the political duopoly in this country. So the Australian Greens have a view that it is time the membership of this committee provided for an opportunity for a senator who is not from the government and not from the opposition to join in the role that this committee plays in our parliamentary system and in our scrutiny system. So I flag now that in the committee stages of this bill we will be moving an amendment which, if passed, will provide for a senator who is not a government or opposition senator to become part of the membership of this committee. We understand the responsibilities that this would entail, the responsibilities that this would place on whichever member of the crossbench it is. I include the Australian Greens in that context, as members of the crossbench. We understand it would place a heavy responsibility on whichever non-government and non-opposition senator were appointed to fill a position on this committee, but we do believe that it is important that there be at least one voice on this committee that does not reflect the political duopoly, because what we have seen in Australia, certainly in the last decade to decade and a half, is a strong bipartisanship on national security matters. My view is that the reason we have strong bipartisanship on national security matters actually owes more to politics than it does to a robust examination of the legislation that underpins Australia's national security. Neither party when in opposition want to appear weak on national security, so they fall into zombie lockstep with whoever is in government at the time and develop a bipartisanship that means legislation which is continually brought into this place—and we are facing more on the Notice Paper at the moment—and which erodes some of our fundamental civil and human liberties in this country is not adequately scrutinised. We believe we need more scrutiny; we believe there needs to be more justification put before the Australian people for this continued erosion of their civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism and national security; and we believe a crossbench senator, as a member of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, could play that role or be part of playing that role. This is a closed shop committee open only to members of the political duopoly in this country, and frankly the Australian people deserve better. I would like to respond briefly to some comments that were made by the previous speaker, Senator Macdonald. He spoke about the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the role that he plays in scrutinising national security legislation. Well, it is a crucial role that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor plays, but I do want to be clear that the Greens remain unconvinced that in fact the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is adequately funded, and we certainly believe the government is making more and more of a habit of ignoring the recommendations that come from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. In fact, the recommendations do not, as I understand it, currently even receive a response from government. That is not good enough. The government should at least do the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor the courtesy of providing a response to his recommendations. The monitor does a great job in examining a wide suite of legislation. He does report to this parliament, but it is not good enough that the government does not provide a response to his recommendations, which ought to be tabled in both houses of this parliament. CHAMBER
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 9 We accept absolutely the crucial nature of the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does. We believe absolutely that it is an appropriate body that has been established, and we support absolutely the measures contained in this bill—with the caveat around the membership of the committee that has been proposed by the Labor Party. We particularly support the part of this bill that provides for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct own-motion inquiries. That was spoken against by Senator Macdonald in the speech that he just made, and when this bill was previously debated, in the former parliament, it was spoken strongly against. But we do not accept the arguments that have been put up against this. We believe it is reasonable for this committee to conduct own-motion inquiries within the constraints that the act has established and we believe it would improve the scrutiny of our intelligence agencies for this parliament to be able, through this committee, to conduct own-motion inquiries. Of course, it is this parliament that has actually established our security agencies; they are creatures of this parliament. And this parliament has every right within the constraints that exist within the act to, through this committee, have own-motion inquiries conducted and reported back as appropriate. As I said at the beginning of my contribution this morning, it is a complex area. It is a complex global environment—one that moves very rapidly and changes very quickly. This committee plays a crucial role in scrutinising the intelligence agencies that have been established by this parliament to make Australia as safe as it can possibly be, and we share that goal of making Australia as safe as it can reasonably be made. But we do believe that there has not been a strategic approach to this. We believe that the erosion of some fundamental civil and human liberties in this country has been done in a politically ad hoc manner rather than as a result of a carefully conceived strategy. We believe that owes much to the zombie lockstep in which both the coalition and Labor proceed in this space and we believe that having a senator who is not a member of either the government or the opposition on this committee would allow for a greater diversity of thought on this committee and a greater diversity of input to the processes of this committee. In broad terms, we support this legislation because we think it will go some way towards improving the operations of the committee. However, as I said, we feel strongly enough that there should be a senator who is not from government or opposition on this committee and we will be seeking to amend this bill to provide for that, should that amendment be successful. In conclusion, this is a challenging time for freedoms around the world. It is not only a challenging time because threats are arising; it is a challenging time because freedoms are being eroded in response to the threats that are arising. Both of those matters need to be considered strategically. They ought to be the subject of a white paper—a living, breathing white paper that can be adapted in response to the rapidly evolving global environment. Also, we need to ensure that this committee is made up of members who have the capacity to bring some thoughts and some positions to this committee that, potentially at least—depending on who the appointed senator from the crossbench would be, should our amendment be successful—bring a more strategic approach that is outside the political lock step, which we so often see in the context of discussions and conversations in this parliament and in the public debate in Australia around responding to the national security threats to Australia that exist today. Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (10:47): The matter of security, as we have heard, is one that we in this nation take very seriously. We obviously try to balance the liberties and freedoms that citizens would like to enjoy in our country. We take a fairly open-hearted approach to most things and most people from different cultures and different persuasions, and we generally try to abide by the laconic notion of a fair go for everyone. When that notion butts up against the heinous nature of indiscriminate assaults and murders of innocent citizens, in the most extreme consequences, by those who would want to destroy democracy and want to destroy the privileges, rights and freedoms that people enjoy, I think we find it very hard to get that balance right sometimes. I am not suggesting we have not got it right in Australia, but I do know we butt up against the tension point between our sense of freedom as a nation of people who tend not to understand, or tend not to have experienced, the atrocities we see in the Middle East and other places pretty much nightly on our televisions. We have experienced it in Bali with our citizens and in other places, and we are horrified when such things happen. In fact, today there was a report of a couple of Syrian citizens in Germany capturing a wanted felon, a terrorist, and then reporting that person to the authorities. The appreciation of the citizens of Germany for that helps them have a different view of people who are fleeing from violence in other nation states and coming to their own countries. In fact, they have suggested that such individuals should be honoured with a medal for their services to the nation. Here we are talking about something that is rather modest in its intent. The amending bill began with people like Senator Faulkner in his time here and way back, as Senator Macdonald said, with the recommendations in the report that came from by Mr Flood and others when we were in the beginning of the horrors of many of these CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4: FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6: Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8: Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10: Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12: CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 19: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 7
Page 71 and 72:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 59
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
show all

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?