Senator GREIG (12:02 PM) —I rise to speak on the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2003 on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The bill will invest officers of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, or ASIS, with the power to carry and use firearms for the purpose of self-defence and to participate in paramilitary operations in conjunction with other agencies. The express objective of ASIS is:

Under the current legislative regime, ASIS is expressly prohibited from planning or participating in paramilitary activities or activities involving violence or the use of weapons. This was a central feature of the original bill and one which was specifically highlighted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who said in his second reading speech:

The government is now seeking to remove those limitations. It argues that ASIS is now operating under different conditions as a consequence of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fundamental issue associated with this bill is whether it will ultimately change the character of ASIS from an intelligence-gathering agency to a paramilitary organisation. As the Bills Digest argues, this legislation represents:

Of course, one of the difficulties we Democrats have in assessing the merits of the bill is that we have only limited access to information concerning the operations of ASIS, yet such information is crucial to a proper consideration of the bill. How can we really know whether ASIS should have the power to participate in paramilitary operations if we do not know which organisations it is conducting joint operations with? Similarly, how can we determine whether ASIS officers should carry weapons if we are not aware of the kinds of security threats they face?

For obvious reasons, this is not information which can readily be made public but that does not mean it cannot be provided in confidence to elected members of parliament. As the parliament has demonstrated for some time, it is entirely possible to provide intelligence briefings to non-government members of parliament without compromising national security. Unfortunately, we have a situation where the government and the opposition collude to ensure that they have a monopoly over high-level intelligence briefings. Currently, the opposition is the only non-government party able to receive such briefings. The Democrats do not see any reason for that limitation. We believe intelligence briefings should be made available to other non-government parliamentary parties as well.

Once again we are dealing with legislation which has been scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD. The composition of the joint committee has been a concern of the Democrats for some time. The committee comprises only government and opposition members yet, in nominating members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is required to give consideration to the desirability of ensuring representation of various political parties. The point I am making is that the Democrats, and indeed the entire crossbench, are in a very difficult position in considering the proposals contained in the bill. Our role as legislators is compromised by the lack of information we have access to. It is impossible for us to properly assess the justifications for the bill, or its implications, in a vacuum of any contextual information. While the government may have provided briefings to the opposition on the reasons why these powers are necessary, and while the joint committee has had the benefit of speaking directly with ASIS officers, the Democrats have not had the benefit of such briefings, nor has the government offered any. So a comprehensive consideration of the bill has been difficult.

Giving ASIS the power to engage in paramilitary operations and to carry and use weapons for the purpose of self-defence represents a significant change of policy on the part of the government. And, let us be honest, these are serious powers that we are talking about. We Democrats believe that in these circumstances the government has an obligation to persuade the parliament of the need for change. It needs to demonstrate very clearly why these new powers are needed and, as far as we are concerned, it has not met that threshold.

While the Democrats remain unconvinced of the need for these new powers, we do acknowledge that the bill contains a range of important safeguards and limitations. For example, ASIS will still be prevented from planning or undertaking paramilitary activities, from activities involving the use of force against a person and from the use of weapons by staff members or agents of ASIS. What it does permit ASIS to do is plan or participate in such activities when they are conducted by other agencies.

The new provisions relating to the use of weapons also contain limitations. ASIS staff members and agents can only be provided with weapons and weapons training for the purposes of self-protection, the protection of other ASIS agents or the protection of a person who is cooperating with ASIS. The Minister for Foreign Affairs must approve the provision of weapons for particular staff and for particular purposes. Ministerial approvals relating to weapons must be provided to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Director-General of ASIS must develop guidelines regarding the use of weapons by ASIS agents and these guidelines must also be provided to the IGIS.

The Democrats welcome these amendments recently introduced by the government in response to the recommendations of the joint committee. These amendments address a number of our concerns and have therefore negated the need for us to proceed with amendments which we may otherwise have intended to move. The Democrats do, however, have one outstanding amendment which we intend to move during the committee stage. The amendment seeks to enhance the accountability of ASIS in the exercise of its new powers and I will be advocating that shortly.