Government response to AABCC objections:
I refer to your letter dated 6 July 2014 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, concerning legislative amendments to security intelligence powers. The Attorney-General has asked me to respond on his behalf.
On 16 July, the Attorney-General introduced the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014 in the Senate. The Bill contains a package of targeted reforms to key legislation governing Australia's intelligence agencies, in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) in 2013 on potential reforms to Australia's national security legislation.
The Bill implements the Government's response to 22 recommendations in Chapter 4 of the PJCIS report, concerning reforms to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The Bill does not address the PJCIS's findings and recommendations on any other issues such as data retention or telecommunications interception. Similarly, the Bill does not address the Government's responses to recent independent reviews of counter-terrorism legislation. These matters remain under careful consideration by the Government, with responses to be released in due course.
Consistent with the bipartisan nature of the PJCIS report, the Government has supported 21 of the PJCIS's recommendations in Chapter 4, in full or in part. These recommendations are directed to modernising and enhancing the legislation to ensure that our intelligence agencies can operate effectively in the contemporary security environment, and respond to emerging and future security threats.
Such emerging threats include the involvement of terrorist organisations in civil conflicts and insurgencies, such as in Syria and Iraq, and the involvement of Australians in such organisations. The Bill has not, however, been introduced specifically in response to these circumstances. Its focus is to address a number of practical limitations in existing intelligence legislation, as identified by the PJCIS, which may impede the capability of our intelligence agencies to protect Australia and Australians from those who would do us harm. With the considerable benefit of the PJCIS's analysis, the Bill has been developed on the principles of security and accountability.
The Government has given careful consideration to the inclusion of appropriate safeguards in the legislation to ensure that any targeted extensions of powers are necessary and proportionate to the security threats to which they are directed, and are subject to rigorous, independent accountability and oversight arrangements. This has included appropriate protections for individuals' privacy.
Key safeguards include maintaining the strict statutory issuing criteria for intelligence gathering warrants, which require the Attorney-General to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the relevant activities will substantially assist in the collection of intelligence in respect of a matter that is important in relation to security. There are express limitations on the circumstances in which third party computers and premises may be accessed under a warrant. In addition, intelligence agencies must operate subject to Ministerial guidelines and directions, which require them to have appropriate regard to personal privacy. Under the Attorney-General's Guidelines in relation to ASIO, for example, that Organisation is required to conduct its activities with as little intrusion into individualprivacy as possible, consistent-with the-performance-of-its functions.
All measures in the Bill are further subject to the independent oversight jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). The IGIS reviews the legality and propriety of all aspects of intelligence agencies' actions, procedures and policies. The IGIS has extensive powers to inspect records and premises, and to conduct inquiries in response to complaints on her own motion, or as requested by the relevant Minister or the Prime Minister.
Recognising the importance of thorough scrutiny, the Attorney-General has also referred the provisions of the Bill to the PJCIS for inquiry and report by 8 September 2014. The Bill will also be scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Government will consider their recommendations carefully. The Government has also consulted the IGIS on the provisions of the Bill, and is giving consideration to additional resources for her Office to perform its important oversight functions. Further, the Government has announced that it will retain the position of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
Finally, I note your concerns that the measures in the Bill could be used to target members of the Muslim community. Like the existing provisions of the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Services Act, the reforms in this Bill are not targeted to any particular person or groups of people in the community. I also note that, in accordance with the Attorney-General's Guidelines in relation to ASIO, that Organisation has, and is required to have, due regard for the cultural values, mores and sensitivities of individuals of particular cultural or racial backgrounds, consistent with the national interest.
I trust that this information is of some assistance.
Yours sincerely
Annette Willing
National Security Legal Adviser
Opposition Leader Response
Dear Denls,
Thank you for your letter regarding the Abbott Government's proposed changes to Australia's national security laws. Mr Shorten has asked me to respond on his behalf.
Legislation setting out these changes was tabled in the federal Parliament on 16 July 20141 titled the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (NO. 1) 2014.
Labor recognises the paramount importance of our nation's security, and while in office we undertook a range of measures to strengthen national security, including:
- strengthening intelligence relationships with our major allies;
- proscribing terrorist organisations;
ensuring that our security agencies were resourced to prevent terrorist actions on Australian soil before they occurred; and - building a new, state of the art operations centre for the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in Canberra.
In Opposition Labor is working constructively with the Government on matters of national security.
The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 is based on an inquiry and report that was commissioned by the previous Labor Government. In particular, the Bill purports to give effect to parts of chapter 4 of the Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of A us tra lia IS National Security
Legislation, conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee into Intelligence and Security (the PJCIS Report), tabled on 24 June 2013.
The inquiry was initiated by the previous Labor Government because we recognised that our national security framework needs to keep pace with changing threats and changing technologies, and that laws that dated back as far as the 1970s need to be reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to the current national security environment.
As Labor has consistently argued that, while we support the appropriate extension of the powers of our intelligence agencies to meet Australia's security needs, it is critically important that these powers be appropriately balanced against the rights and democratic values that our nation holds dear, and that suitable checks and balances are in place to ensure that these powers are always used correctly.
In this respect it is important to note that in recommending reforms to ensure that our national security agencies have appropriate powers to effectively gather intelligence, the PJCIS also sounded a note of caution, stating that "these intrusive powers must always be balanced by appropriate safeguards for the privacy of individuals and the community recognising that Australia is a democratic nation which values personal freedom and places limits on the power of the state."
In addition to recommending a raft of significant changes to our national security framework, chapter 4 of the PJCIS Report also includes a recommendation that the Government release draft legislation to the Australian public and key national security stakeholders. Labor argued for this recommendation to be respected by the Government, and welcomes the fact that this Bill has now been referred to the PJCIS, and that there will now be a period for the public and key stakeholders to comment on the significant _ changes being proposed. implements recommendations agreed by the PJCIS last year, and to assess the balance of national security and safeguards proposed in the Bill. If you are interested in making a submission to the Committee, I would encourage you to do so at the following link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary Business/CommitteesfJoint/lntelligence and Security/National Security Amendment Bill 2014
With respect to the importance of effective scrutiny and oversight of our national security framework, Labor also welcomes Senator Brandis's announcement on 16 July this year that the Government has backed down on its plan to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Tony Abbott announced the abolition of the Monitor as part of his recent "repeal day", wrongly labelling this safeguard of the rights of the Australians as 'red tape'. Mr Abbott also claimed the Monitor's review role had ended, instead of recognising the important ongoing role the Monitor holds.
Labor fought against the abolition of this important position, and it is clear that the Government's bill to abolish his office would almost certainly have failed to pass the Senate. The position of Monitor has been vacant since April, and Labor has called on the Government to fill this position as a matter of priority. If an appropriately credentialed and experienced Monitor can be appointed expeditiously by the Government, Labor would certainly welcome that new Monitor's views on the Bill now being proposed.
For Australians to have confidence in our national security framework we need to be assured that along with any changes there is also proper oversight and accountability. It is the job of the Government to- assure Australians that the powers of our national security agencies are and will continue to be used responsibly.
In closing I reiterate that the Labor Opposition is working constructively on the development of legislative measures to ensure that our national security organisations have appropriate powers to fulfil their important roles, and that at the same time these organisations are subject to appropriate democratic oversight. Labor will also continue to work to ensure that these important reforms are progressed in a transparent and consultative manner, with input from the Australian public.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Anti-Bases Campaign Response
Both the Government and Opposition have failed to answer the crucial questions that have come up in the Anti-Bases letter.
- 1. The Snowden revelations prove that the secret service has intercepted a wide range of Australian information and shared that information with a foreign service – NSA. A massive breech of privacy.
- 2. Documents showing that deputy head of DSD can just order a massive increase in who is surveyed and privacy issues were not respect.
- 3. The Government knows that these measures do not work and cannot work as the amount of data collected is too large.
- 4. In the US not a single a prosecution has resulted from the ‘collect it all’ approach of its secret service and claims of ASIO ‘successes’ are nothing more than exaggerations. (lies)
- 5. Good old fashion policing works not the processes recommended in this legislation.
- 6. Note: ASIO and DSD did not prevent teenagers going to Syria, there are several cases of this and the reason for this mistakes is not lack of surveillance but lack of knowledge of the various communities of Australians who may be attracted to jihad.
- 7. The powers sought can be used for first of all anti-muslim activities by the Government, then extended to criminal matters, then it will ultimately be used against political foes inside Australia. This is a threat to privacy and to democrarcy.