"None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes security partners – the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand – have such extensive powers."
It seems that Australia's MPs (Mutts in Parliament) are Masters of Deception.
People should recall the massive advertising campaign launched by the media, where Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull was focusing that the change to the Marriage Act of 1960 by allowing homosexuals to marry was an important law, totally omitting attention to more important legislation involving national security, involving work within the legislation that is (deliberately) 'sloppy'.
The national security laws were in parliament the very same day the "same-sex marriage" changes were occurring, and not a single word from Australia's PM about it to the good people of Australia.
Just another set of dodgy laws being passed by the people in government in order to oppress the masses and incarcerate them under ANY pretext they choose...
See article from thesaturdaypaper.com.au from 10 Mar 2018 of the headline:
ASIO changes hidden in ‘sloppy’ amendments process
To complete setting up the new mega security Department of Home Affairs, the federal government is amending a lot of legislation. But not all of the changes are being presented willingly for public scrutiny.
This week, the government produced the raft
of amendments parliament must pass to finalise the amalgamation of
Immigration and Border Protection with security and intelligence
agencies including the Australian Federal Police, the Australian
Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transactions Reports
and Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC, and the Australian Security
Intelligence Organisation, or ASIO.
There are 284 changes, amending 33 separate
acts, to complete the transfer of ministerial authority over these
agencies from the attorney-general to the minister for Home Affairs,
while preserving the attorney-general’s role in approving ASIO
investigation warrants and special operations.
But 47 of them relating to ASIO were being kept from public view.
The high-powered parliamentary watchdog on
security matters, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and
security (PJCIS), recently reviewed the first part of the Home Affairs
and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill and published its
report, recommending some changes.
On March 1, the committee received the rest
of the amendments and this week, following usual practice, published the
list of them on its website to indicate the start of this next review.
The amendments were all numbered according to
the alphabetic order of the acts they affected.
Without explanation –
and in a significant departure from usual practice – three sets of the
numbered amendments were missing.
They relate to the ASIO Act and the
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and are the most
controversial of the amendments being proposed – a point the committee
effectively acknowledged when it recommended in its earlier report that
parliament not vote on the Home Affairs bill until the amendments to
these acts had been introduced and, by inference, scrutinised.
The government-dominated committee is one of
the most important in the parliament and is made up of MPs and senators
from the two major parties.
It forms a key part of the oversight of
Australia’s intelligence community and plays a significant role in
scrutinising governments’ legislative plans on security.
It examines ASIO-related amendments, even the most basic, as a matter of course.
Some of its work is conducted in secret and its members face criminal penalties for disclosure.
But much of it is necessarily public, part of
the oversight that exists to reassure Australians someone is checking
what governments and their security agencies are doing.
Right now, it has a huge workload because of a
bundle of security-related bills the government wants passed –
including the one creating Home Affairs.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rushed a
package of four pieces of legislation – the Home Affairs bill, plus
others covering espionage and foreign interference and foreign influence
– into parliament on the evening of December 7, immediately after the
House of Representatives voted on same-sex marriage and while advocates
of the change were still celebrating in the chamber and the galleries
above.
Turnbull declared all amendments essential for national security.
In evidence to the joint committee inquiry
into the foreign influence, interference and espionage bills, the acting
Inspector General of Intelligence and Security revealed that the IGIS
had not been consulted in advance of any of the legislation – changes to
the law that affected his role.
Asked when the IGIS office first saw the
legislation, acting IGIS Jake Blight said: “On 7 December, 2017. That’s
the day it was tabled in parliament. That’s the day we saw it.”
Amendments to several of the bills are now
being sent back to the government for redrafting because they don’t do
what they are designed to do or in some cases appear to do the opposite.
Those in the security community frustrated by
the haste with which all of this is being done repeatedly mention one
word: “sloppy”.
The ASIO-related amendments are sensitive
because there is some concern within ASIO and sections of the wider
security community that shifting ASIO to the Home Affairs portfolio
might diminish its independence and leave it vulnerable to political
interference.
The new department’s secretary, Michael
Pezzullo, has said the concerns are unfounded and condemned what he says
is scaremongering about his powers.
But the retiring attorney-general, George
Brandis, echoed those concerns in a private farewell speech he gave to
ASIO last month, in which he also queried Pezzullo’s ambitions.
Of the agencies being transferred from the
Attorney-General’s Department to Home Affairs, ASIO is the only one that
has not yet moved. Its shift is contingent on the passage of the
legislation.
Those are the amendments now before the committee – and, only as a result of inquiries by The Saturday Paper, before the public, too.
Following questions from the paper, the amendments were added to the list late on Thursday.
Attorney-General Christian Porter had
originally provided the redacted version of the amendments, arguing that
the committee’s own previous report suggested it did not need to
examine them.
They are mostly administrative, but two in
the ASIO Act relate to the power to make or remake guidelines governing
ASIO’s activities. That power will now rest with Home Affairs Minister
Peter Dutton – but he will have to consult Attorney-General Christian
Porter first.
Asked why the amendments were not included in the first place, Porter told The Saturday Paper:
“Nothing about these amendments is secret. Labor has had all of the
amendments since 28 February and subsequently agreed on 2 March that
only those administrative amendments not relating to the committee
report would be referred for consideration by the PJCIS. This agreement
excluded the amendments to the ASIO Act and TIA Act.”
Porter said they were excluded because of a
recommendation in the previous report that said the amendments should be
put to parliament for examination before the whole Home Affairs bill
was voted on.
Shadow attorney-general and member of the committee Mark Dreyfus dismissed Porter’s explanation.
“It seems the new attorney-general doesn’t
understand the important bipartisan role that the intelligence committee
fulfils. Mr Porter’s attempt to prevent that committee from considering
a raft of changes to two of our most critical national security acts,
including his own colleagues, as well as hiding those changes from
public scrutiny, does not augur well for the approach he brings to his
role.
“The committee recommended that the
government bring forward amendments to the ASIO and TIA Acts. Mr
Porter’s claim that the committee therefore has no further role in
reviewing the extensive amendments now that they have been drafted is
plainly nonsense.”
In the 40 years of ASIO’s existence,
legislation related to its operations has always been made public to
enable scrutiny before it is passed.
When Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton
takes over management of these guidelines, his department will be
responsible for any future reviews and the redrafting of them –
effectively a direct role in the oversight of ASIO.
This is despite the new Home Affairs
Department secretary telling a Senate committee recently that his
department “will not engage in the oversight of statutorily independent
agencies”.
ASIO’s most recent annual report revealed the
Attorney-General’s Department was reviewing the guidelines, which are
publicly available, at the committee’s recommendation. These guidelines
currently limit ASIO’s reach and effectively entrench the right to
peaceful protest and other lawful political activity in Australia.
With responsibility for the guidelines now to
be transferred to Home Affairs, the status of the attorney-general’s
review is unclear.
The amendments that had already been available for public scrutiny also raised some questions.
Some provide for shared authority between the
attorney-general and the Home Affairs minister – for example, in
authorising the laying of undersea communications cables through
protected areas – and it is not clear who is actually in charge.
It’s also not clear if this is deliberate or a drafting error.
The government has already agreed to redraft
other elements of important security legislation – relating to foreign
influence and espionage – because of concerns raised in evidence to the
joint committee about their impact.
The new amendments to a bill covering
espionage and foreign interference will narrow the previously proposed
definition of what causes harm to Australia and the scope of offences
involving private citizens as opposed to Commonwealth officials. They
also strengthen the original defences available to professional
journalists receiving information.
The initial omission of the sensitive ASIO
and telecommunications intercepts amendments from the public list of
changes is not the only unorthodox move the joint committee has made in
relation to ASIO this week.
It was due to complete its review of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers by Wednesday.
These powers allow ASIO to question people –
and in some cases detain them – if it believes they have information
relating to a terrorist act, past or future, even if they have no
personal involvement.
Although the joint committee says it has
completed the review – which usually also means the report is ready for
publication – it has not yet presented its findings.
Committees routinely seek extensions of time
for reporting on complex inquiries. The joint committee is in a special
category because of its legislated status and role in overseeing
intelligence agencies and this inquiry is itself specially entrenched in
legislation, with its deadline laid out in the Intelligence Services
Act.
Two minutes before the House of
Representatives began its adjournment debate on March 1, ahead of rising
for three weeks, the committee’s chairman, West Australian Liberal MP
Andrew Hastie, tabled two other reviews of counterterrorism legislation
and then mentioned the ASIO powers review that was due six days later.
“The committee has completed its review and
is currently in the process of finalising the report,”
Hastie said. “I
expect to be able to present the committee’s report to the House in the
near future.”
Generally, committee deadlines are not just
for completing the review, they are for reporting to the parliament. If
extensions of time are required, they are usually obtained before the
deadline.
The joint committee is likely to seek an
extension to resolve what are believed to be contradictions in some of
the evidence, including from ASIO, about whether the
questioning-and-detention powers are still required.
There is a growing list of significant
figures involved in overseeing the intelligence agencies arguing that
while ASIO’s questioning powers should stay, the powers combined with
detention are excessive.
ASIO’s questioning-and-detention powers were
legislated after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States
and the Bali bombings in 2002.
But in recognition of their potentially serious implications for human rights, there has always been a sunset clause.
Under the current clause, they are due to expire in September this year unless extended.
Under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act,
the agency can obtain a warrant from an “issuing authority” for a
person to appear before a “prescribed authority” for questioning to
obtain intelligence about a terrorism offence, past or future.
If the agency believes that person may not
appear, may destroy or damage evidence, or may alert someone involved in
a terrorism offence, it can also apply for a detention warrant.
The person does not have to be suspected of
involvement in the offence to be questioned and detained under these
powers, simply to be reasonably suspected of having important
information.
He or she can then be detained and held
incommunicado – without contacting a lawyer before being questioned –
for seven days. They can be questioned for up to 48 hours within that
time.
Refusing to appear before the “prescribed
authority”, refusing to answer questions or hand over relevant items,
and giving false information, are all punishable by five years’ jail.
None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes
security partners – the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand –
have such extensive powers.
In its submission to the committee, ASIO
argues for its questioning powers to be extended, saying the threat
environment has changed and the powers need to change, too.
This is despite a series of reports – from
three consecutive Independent National Security Legislation Monitors,
including the current one, and from the Inspector General of
Intelligence and Security – saying the questioning-and-detention power
is excessive and should be abolished.
The current IGIS argued that the existing
questioning powers available to the Australian Criminal Intelligence
Commission are an adequate model for similar powers for ASIO, both
agencies being intelligence-gathering and not law-enforcement bodies.
ASIO has executed just 16 questioning warrants since 2003 and none since 2010.
The separate question-and-detain power that has also existed since 2003 has never been used.
It is not clear what the joint committee will decide to recommend, or when it will report.
It remains another puzzling and opaque
dimension to the handling of national security, which no longer just
leaves the spies in the shadows, but the legislative process as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment