Division Description Changes — Bills — National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014; in Committee — 25th Sep 2014

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-11-14 11:10:57	Title Description The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful. The majority supported the bill's secrecy provisions, which means they disagreed with Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam)'s [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) that they should be opposed. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). ) These secrecy provisions include deleting subsection 35P(1) from the bill, which would make it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO) (see Senator Ludlam's [explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) of these amendments). ~~_Background to the bill_~~ ###Human rights issues The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). ) The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) makes many important changes, which the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) discusses in some detail. In particular, it extends the powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO) and the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). ) The bill also creates new offences that apply to any person who discloses information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO), with a maximum penalty of ten years in jail. Two [concerns with these offences](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) are that: The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include: * they don't have exceptions for [public interest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest) disclosures or [whistleblowing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower) by ASIO employees, and * they apply to any person, including journalists. - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO); - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; ~~- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;~~ ~~- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and~~ ~~- updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.~~ ###Background to the bill ~~(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)~~ After the [major counter-terrorism raids](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-18/authorities-thwart-beheading-plot-in-australias-biggest-raid/5754276) in Sydney and Brisbane, Prime Minister [Tony Abbott](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/tony_abbott) said that the balance between freedom and security had to shift (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/abbott-warns-of-shifting-balance-freedom-security/5760818)). This bill is part of that change. The bill also [seems to be a response](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/bureaucrats-attempt-to-calm-fears-over-media-spy-laws/5674526) to American [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) leaking classified American intelligence information last year. Read the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) for more information about the bill.
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-09 13:43:39	Title Description The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). ) ~~_Background to the bill_~~ The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). ) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). ) The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include: - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO); - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; ~~- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;~~ ~~- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and~~ - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).) The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). ) _Background to the bill_ The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). ) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). ) The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include: - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO); - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information. (Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:22:33	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. ) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. ) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. ) The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include: * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO); * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].) The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). ) _Background to the bill_ The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). ) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). ) The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include: - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO); - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:17:02	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1] The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. ) ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2] The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. ) The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3] The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. ) The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include: * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO); * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4] * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].) ~~''References''~~ * [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-02 12:38:02	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1] The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1] ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2] The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3] The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include: * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO); * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4] ''References'' * [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
senate vote 2014-09-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-02 12:37:36	Title Bills — National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014; in Committee National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Remove secrecy provisions Description ~~<p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p>~~ ~~<p>I, and on behalf of Senator Xenophon, Senator Madigan and Senator Ludlam, move amendment (1) on sheet 7582:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 31), after item 28, insert:</p>~~ The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1] ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2] The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3] The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include: * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO); * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security; * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities; * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4] ''References'' * [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. ~~<p class="italic">28A After section 25A</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  Insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">25B Reporting by Inspector -General of Intelligence and Security</p>~~ <p class="italic">(1) The Director-General must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year and in any case within 28 days, give the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security a report setting out the total number of devices accessed in accordance with a warrant under section 25 or 25A during the financial year.</p> <p class="italic">(2) The Inspector-General's annual report referred to in section 35 of the <i>Inspector</i><i>-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986</i>for the financial year must include the number.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(3) The number included in accordance with subsection (2) must not be deleted from the report before it is laid before each House of the Parliament.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>~~ <p>I see this as a minimalist amendment but an important one nonetheless. Senator Ludlam's amendment was defeated earlier—and I did not support it—in terms of the number of devices covered by a warrant. Senator Ludlam sought to circumscribe that. I can understand why the government and the opposition took the position that you should not do so because it could constrain, on an operational basis, the intelligence agencies from doing their work effectively. But what this amendment essentially does is require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to give details in the annual report of how many devices are covered by these warrants. That is all it does. But it gives the public, the people of Australia, and this parliament an idea of how many devices have been captured by these warrants in terms of internet surveillance and surveillance of electronic devices. I think it is a reasonable transparency measure. It does not constrain or compromise any operational matters on the part of intelligence services but it does give us that glimmer of transparency that otherwise would be completely lacking in respect of the exercise of these warrants.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>~~ <p>The Greens will be supporting this amendment. Where I disagree with Senator Xenophon is that we are seeking more than a glimmer of transparency. Nonetheless, this amendment is an improvement. It relates to recommendation 5 of the joint committee. I should also identify at this point that, in relation to the joint committee that has provided the source material for so much of this work, the government, when it came to power just over a year ago, moved to eliminate the crossbench position that in recent memory has been filled by Mr Andrew Wilkie. Since then, there has been no crossbench representation on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. When the time comes to debate the bill the exclusion of the crossbench from that committee means our views have not been included—and then you get dissent in these amendments. The government supported recommendation 5 of the joint committee with respect to material disruption but not with respect to non-routine access. As Senator Xenophon has identified, it is minimalist but it is also very important. I think what Senator Leyonhjelm has done is extend the provisions of the bill so that both the minister and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security need to be notified of instances of material disruption. I think that does at least create a paper trail and a record of exactly what has been done under the use of these powers. I commend this amendment to the chamber.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p>~~ <p>I also commend this amendment to the chamber. What it does is prevent a blank cheque from being provided to ASIO in terms of the number of warrants and the number of computers that can be accessed, because they will be aware that those numbers will be reported in the annual report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. This provides a level of accountability which is currently missing. To my way of thinking, it does not interfere with the operations that are proposed under the ASIO Act but simply reminds ASIO that they are being scrutinised—and if there is one thing that we should never allow to occur, it is security agencies remaining unscrutinised.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>~~ <p>The government does not support this amendment. Reporting publicly on the total number of devices accessed under warrants would not be appropriate as it may reveal sensitive information about ASIO's capability. Pursuant to section 94 of the ASIO Act the organisation's unclassified annual reports tabled in parliament do not contain information that would if disclosed be likely to prejudice security. The total number of warrants sought and obtained by ASIO is not included in any unclassified annual report for that reason. Similarly, provision is made in section 35 of the IGIS Act in relation to the unclassified annual reports of the IGIS. The proposed amendments to the bill would have the effect of overriding those important protections and are inconsistent with what are accepted as the existing principles governing disclosure or, in this case, non-disclosure. Further, it is not necessary to impose a specific annual reporting obligation on the IGIS in relation to the total number of computers accessed by ASIO in accordance with warrants because the IGIS has extensive oversight powers in relation to ASIO under which such information can be requested. The IGIS can of course inspect ASIO's warrant documentation at any time.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>~~ <p>I appreciate that the position put by the various cross-party senators is minimalist and that they are hoping to attract support on that basis. But that does not change the in principle position that I have already indicated to the committee in relation to additional amendments—that is, we remain convinced at this stage that a comprehensive review of this bill by the joint committee has already occurred and no additional amendments beyond those recommended by the committee are required at this stage.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>~~ <p>I thank the Attorney for his answer. But I just want to ask him a very brief question and I am happy for a very succinct answer. How could knowing the number of warrants but not what they are about or which operations they relate to, and the number of devices affected by those warrants if it is simply reported annually in aggregate terms, compromise security operations or national security? How could knowing whether 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 devices are affected compromise national security without any further information other than the aggregate number of warrants and the aggregate number of devices that could be affected by those warrants?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>~~ <p>Because, as I said in response to your remarks before, what it could do is reveal ASIO's capability—and that is never done. That is why the legislation at the moment contains the exclusions which it does.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">John Madigan</p>~~ ~~<p>Senator Brandis, are you able to tell the Senate how many applications for warrants have been rejected in your time as Attorney?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>~~ ~~<p>I do not think I am at liberty to tell you that, but I can tell you that there have been applications for warrants rejected by me.</p>~~ ~~<p>Question negatived.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move Palmer United Party amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7564 together:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 6, page 85 (after line 27), after item 5, insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">5A Subsections 92(1) and (1A) (penalty)</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  Repeal the penalty, substitute:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Penalty:   Imprisonment for 10 years.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(4) Schedule 6, page 103 (after line 29), after item 19, insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">19A Subsection 41(1) (penalty)</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  Repeal the penalty, substitute:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Penalty:   Imprisonment for 10 years.</p>~~ <p>As I already indicated, the Palmer United Party supports the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. We support the need to increase intelligence powers in this country. We need to give ASIO and ASIS the powers they need to do their job well.</p> <p>The bill will increase various powers—including powers in relation to intelligence gathering and intelligence operations—and their reach. Advances in technology and communications necessitate this. The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security. The people involved in protecting our country put their lives at risk every day. We must ensure that we afford these people the highest level of protection. These people are involved in covert operations which require the highest levels of secrecy, discretion and anonymity.</p> <p>My amendments increase the penalty associated with exposing the identity of an ASIO or ASIS officer from one year to 10 years. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity puts the officer's life and livelihood at risk and it puts the security and safety of our country at risk. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity is therefore a form of treason. Treason is a serious matter. It is a direct breach of a person's allegiance to this country. It is a breach which compromises our national security. It is an act which harms the interests of our country. This is not an act which should be taken lightly. If anything, in the context of what we have seen happen in our country recently, we need to harden our stance on the need for our people to demonstrate their undivided loyalty to our country, our laws and our Constitution.</p> <p>While my amendments increase the penalty for exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity from one year's jail, which is what you would expect for a small offence, to 10 years jail, which is the sort of penalty that should be applied in the case of a serious crime, a prosecution under the division may be instituted only by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General or a person acting under the Attorney-General's direction. The Attorney-General still has the capability to manage the way Australia responds to acts of treason. If charged under this division, the matter will be dealt with in the judicial system, where every person is given a fair, just and exhaustive hearing. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity is a form of treason and should carry the potential for a harsh penalty. I therefore commend my amendments to the chamber.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>~~ <p>The government accepts and supports the amendments moved by Senator Lazarus on behalf of the Palmer United Party. In saying that, might I take the opportunity to thank Senator Lazarus and his colleagues for their very constructive engagement with the government in relation to this legislation. We acknowledge the persuasive observation that the penalties applying to those offences are currently disproportionately low in comparison with the wrongdoing they seek to punish. The existing maximum penalties are unlikely to serve as a serious disincentive to such behaviour and we agree that it is appropriate to increase them.</p> <p>The identify of our intelligence officers is highly sensitive information. Revealing their identifies can expose them to serious harm by making them targets for espionage or coercion. It could also involve exposing them to the risk of physical harm. The lives, safety and livelihoods of our intelligence professionals depends on maintaining absolute secrecy as to their identities. Australia's capacity to collect intelligence to protect its security and other national interests similarly depends on this. It is everyone's responsibility to keep this sensitive information confidential—and, particularly, to refrain from publishing it. A maximum ten years penalty will create a strong disincentive to such wrongful behaviour. It will, importantly, maintain parity with the penalty proposed to be applied to offences in schedule 6 of the bill concerning the unauthorised communication of intelligence related information. Indeed, the identity of intelligence officers could be seen as a form of intelligence related information. For those reasons, as I said at the outset, the government supports the Palmer United Party's amendments and thanks them for their foresight in moving them.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>~~ <p>I should indicate, again, consistent with the responses I have given previously, that Labor cannot accept these amendments at this stage. The Labor Party agreed to a process with the government that involved joint committee consideration of proposed changes, and I am advised that this issue was not canvassed in that process and that these matters have not been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We are concerned that what is proposed here is an increase in penalties tenfold, and, whilst there may well be—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Honourable Senators</p>~~ ~~<p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>~~ <p>as senators are currently interjecting, a good argument to that effect, I think, consistent with the process that Labor agreed to with the government, those issues should be addressed by the parliamentary joint committee and, as I pointed out previously in relation to amendments that have been proposed by other senators, that opportunity does indeed exist in relation to the next tranche of measures.</p> <p>So we are not necessarily opposed on the issue of dealing with penalties, but, at this stage of the process, as indeed regarding some of the other amendments that have been proposed, Labor would like to see the process that we signed onto in the first instance proceeded with.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-11-14 11:10:57

Title

Description

The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The majority supported the bill's secrecy provisions, which means they disagreed with Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam)'s [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) that they should be opposed.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). )
These secrecy provisions include deleting subsection 35P(1) from the bill, which would make it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO) (see Senator Ludlam's [explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) of these amendments).
~~_Background to the bill_~~
###Human rights issues
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) makes many important changes, which the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) discusses in some detail. In particular, it extends the powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO) and the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS)
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
The bill also creates new offences that apply to any person who discloses information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO), with a maximum penalty of ten years in jail. Two [concerns with these offences](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) are that:
The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
* they don't have exceptions for [public interest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest) disclosures or [whistleblowing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower) by ASIO employees, and
* they apply to any person, including journalists.
- modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
- enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
~~- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;~~
~~- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and~~
~~- updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.~~
###Background to the bill
~~(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)~~
After the [major counter-terrorism raids](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-18/authorities-thwart-beheading-plot-in-australias-biggest-raid/5754276) in Sydney and Brisbane, Prime Minister [Tony Abbott](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/tony_abbott) said that the balance between freedom and security had to shift (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/abbott-warns-of-shifting-balance-freedom-security/5760818)). This bill is part of that change.
The bill also [seems to be a response](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/bureaucrats-attempt-to-calm-fears-over-media-spy-laws/5674526) to American [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) leaking classified American intelligence information last year.
Read the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) for more information about the bill.

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-09 13:43:39

Title

Description

The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). )
~~_Background to the bill_~~
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
- modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
- enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
~~- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;~~
~~- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and~~
- updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). )
_Background to the bill_
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
- modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
- enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
- updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.
(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:22:33

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. )
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. )
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. )
The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
* modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
* enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
* enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
* enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
* updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].)
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1). )
_Background to the bill_
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
- modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
- enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
- enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
- enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
- updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:17:02

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1]
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).(Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here]. )
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. )
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. )
The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
* modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
* enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
* enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
* enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
* updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
* updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].)
~~''References''~~
* [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here].
* [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
* [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
* [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-02 12:38:02

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1]
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1]
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
* modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
* enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
* enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
* enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
* updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
''References''
* [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here].
* [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
* [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
* [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
* [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].

senate vote 2014-09-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-02 12:37:36

Title

Bills — National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014; in Committee
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Remove secrecy provisions

Description

~~David Leyonhjelm~~
~~I, and on behalf of Senator Xenophon, Senator Madigan and Senator Ludlam, move amendment (1) on sheet 7582:~~
~~(1) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 31), after item 28, insert:~~
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful. The amendments relate to the secrecy provisions within the bill. For example, the amendments would have omitted subsection 35P(1), which makes it an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment for a person to disclose information that relates to a special intelligence operation (SIO).[1]
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
* modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
* enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
* enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
* enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
* updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
''References''
* [1] Read more about the amendments in Senator Ludlam's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.233.1 here].
* [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
* [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
* [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
~~28A After section 25A~~
~~  Insert:~~
~~25B Reporting by Inspector -General of Intelligence and Security~~
(1) The Director-General must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year and in any case within 28 days, give the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security a report setting out the total number of devices accessed in accordance with a warrant under section 25 or 25A during the financial year.
(2) The Inspector-General's annual report referred to in section 35 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986for the financial year must include the number.
~~(3) The number included in accordance with subsection (2) must not be deleted from the report before it is laid before each House of the Parliament.~~
~~Nick Xenophon~~
I see this as a minimalist amendment but an important one nonetheless. Senator Ludlam's amendment was defeated earlier—and I did not support it—in terms of the number of devices covered by a warrant. Senator Ludlam sought to circumscribe that. I can understand why the government and the opposition took the position that you should not do so because it could constrain, on an operational basis, the intelligence agencies from doing their work effectively. But what this amendment essentially does is require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to give details in the annual report of how many devices are covered by these warrants. That is all it does. But it gives the public, the people of Australia, and this parliament an idea of how many devices have been captured by these warrants in terms of internet surveillance and surveillance of electronic devices. I think it is a reasonable transparency measure. It does not constrain or compromise any operational matters on the part of intelligence services but it does give us that glimmer of transparency that otherwise would be completely lacking in respect of the exercise of these warrants.
~~Scott Ludlam~~
The Greens will be supporting this amendment. Where I disagree with Senator Xenophon is that we are seeking more than a glimmer of transparency. Nonetheless, this amendment is an improvement. It relates to recommendation 5 of the joint committee. I should also identify at this point that, in relation to the joint committee that has provided the source material for so much of this work, the government, when it came to power just over a year ago, moved to eliminate the crossbench position that in recent memory has been filled by Mr Andrew Wilkie. Since then, there has been no crossbench representation on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. When the time comes to debate the bill the exclusion of the crossbench from that committee means our views have not been included—and then you get dissent in these amendments. The government supported recommendation 5 of the joint committee with respect to material disruption but not with respect to non-routine access. As Senator Xenophon has identified, it is minimalist but it is also very important. I think what Senator Leyonhjelm has done is extend the provisions of the bill so that both the minister and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security need to be notified of instances of material disruption. I think that does at least create a paper trail and a record of exactly what has been done under the use of these powers. I commend this amendment to the chamber.
~~David Leyonhjelm~~
I also commend this amendment to the chamber. What it does is prevent a blank cheque from being provided to ASIO in terms of the number of warrants and the number of computers that can be accessed, because they will be aware that those numbers will be reported in the annual report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. This provides a level of accountability which is currently missing. To my way of thinking, it does not interfere with the operations that are proposed under the ASIO Act but simply reminds ASIO that they are being scrutinised—and if there is one thing that we should never allow to occur, it is security agencies remaining unscrutinised.
~~George Brandis~~
The government does not support this amendment. Reporting publicly on the total number of devices accessed under warrants would not be appropriate as it may reveal sensitive information about ASIO's capability. Pursuant to section 94 of the ASIO Act the organisation's unclassified annual reports tabled in parliament do not contain information that would if disclosed be likely to prejudice security. The total number of warrants sought and obtained by ASIO is not included in any unclassified annual report for that reason. Similarly, provision is made in section 35 of the IGIS Act in relation to the unclassified annual reports of the IGIS. The proposed amendments to the bill would have the effect of overriding those important protections and are inconsistent with what are accepted as the existing principles governing disclosure or, in this case, non-disclosure. Further, it is not necessary to impose a specific annual reporting obligation on the IGIS in relation to the total number of computers accessed by ASIO in accordance with warrants because the IGIS has extensive oversight powers in relation to ASIO under which such information can be requested. The IGIS can of course inspect ASIO's warrant documentation at any time.
~~Jacinta Collins~~
I appreciate that the position put by the various cross-party senators is minimalist and that they are hoping to attract support on that basis. But that does not change the in principle position that I have already indicated to the committee in relation to additional amendments—that is, we remain convinced at this stage that a comprehensive review of this bill by the joint committee has already occurred and no additional amendments beyond those recommended by the committee are required at this stage.
~~Nick Xenophon~~
I thank the Attorney for his answer. But I just want to ask him a very brief question and I am happy for a very succinct answer. How could knowing the number of warrants but not what they are about or which operations they relate to, and the number of devices affected by those warrants if it is simply reported annually in aggregate terms, compromise security operations or national security? How could knowing whether 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 devices are affected compromise national security without any further information other than the aggregate number of warrants and the aggregate number of devices that could be affected by those warrants?
~~George Brandis~~
Because, as I said in response to your remarks before, what it could do is reveal ASIO's capability—and that is never done. That is why the legislation at the moment contains the exclusions which it does.
~~John Madigan~~
~~Senator Brandis, are you able to tell the Senate how many applications for warrants have been rejected in your time as Attorney?~~
~~George Brandis~~
~~I do not think I am at liberty to tell you that, but I can tell you that there have been applications for warrants rejected by me.~~
~~Question negatived.~~
~~Glenn Lazarus~~
~~by leave—I move Palmer United Party amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7564 together:~~
~~(3) Schedule 6, page 85 (after line 27), after item 5, insert:~~
~~5A Subsections 92(1) and (1A) (penalty)~~
~~  Repeal the penalty, substitute:~~
~~Penalty:   Imprisonment for 10 years.~~
~~(4) Schedule 6, page 103 (after line 29), after item 19, insert:~~
~~19A Subsection 41(1) (penalty)~~
~~  Repeal the penalty, substitute:~~
~~Penalty:   Imprisonment for 10 years.~~
As I already indicated, the Palmer United Party supports the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. We support the need to increase intelligence powers in this country. We need to give ASIO and ASIS the powers they need to do their job well.
The bill will increase various powers—including powers in relation to intelligence gathering and intelligence operations—and their reach. Advances in technology and communications necessitate this. The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security. The people involved in protecting our country put their lives at risk every day. We must ensure that we afford these people the highest level of protection. These people are involved in covert operations which require the highest levels of secrecy, discretion and anonymity.
My amendments increase the penalty associated with exposing the identity of an ASIO or ASIS officer from one year to 10 years. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity puts the officer's life and livelihood at risk and it puts the security and safety of our country at risk. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity is therefore a form of treason. Treason is a serious matter. It is a direct breach of a person's allegiance to this country. It is a breach which compromises our national security. It is an act which harms the interests of our country. This is not an act which should be taken lightly. If anything, in the context of what we have seen happen in our country recently, we need to harden our stance on the need for our people to demonstrate their undivided loyalty to our country, our laws and our Constitution.
While my amendments increase the penalty for exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity from one year's jail, which is what you would expect for a small offence, to 10 years jail, which is the sort of penalty that should be applied in the case of a serious crime, a prosecution under the division may be instituted only by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General or a person acting under the Attorney-General's direction. The Attorney-General still has the capability to manage the way Australia responds to acts of treason. If charged under this division, the matter will be dealt with in the judicial system, where every person is given a fair, just and exhaustive hearing. Exposure of an ASIO or ASIS officer's identity is a form of treason and should carry the potential for a harsh penalty. I therefore commend my amendments to the chamber.
~~George Brandis~~
The government accepts and supports the amendments moved by Senator Lazarus on behalf of the Palmer United Party. In saying that, might I take the opportunity to thank Senator Lazarus and his colleagues for their very constructive engagement with the government in relation to this legislation. We acknowledge the persuasive observation that the penalties applying to those offences are currently disproportionately low in comparison with the wrongdoing they seek to punish. The existing maximum penalties are unlikely to serve as a serious disincentive to such behaviour and we agree that it is appropriate to increase them.
The identify of our intelligence officers is highly sensitive information. Revealing their identifies can expose them to serious harm by making them targets for espionage or coercion. It could also involve exposing them to the risk of physical harm. The lives, safety and livelihoods of our intelligence professionals depends on maintaining absolute secrecy as to their identities. Australia's capacity to collect intelligence to protect its security and other national interests similarly depends on this. It is everyone's responsibility to keep this sensitive information confidential—and, particularly, to refrain from publishing it. A maximum ten years penalty will create a strong disincentive to such wrongful behaviour. It will, importantly, maintain parity with the penalty proposed to be applied to offences in schedule 6 of the bill concerning the unauthorised communication of intelligence related information. Indeed, the identity of intelligence officers could be seen as a form of intelligence related information. For those reasons, as I said at the outset, the government supports the Palmer United Party's amendments and thanks them for their foresight in moving them.
~~Jacinta Collins~~
I should indicate, again, consistent with the responses I have given previously, that Labor cannot accept these amendments at this stage. The Labor Party agreed to a process with the government that involved joint committee consideration of proposed changes, and I am advised that this issue was not canvassed in that process and that these matters have not been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We are concerned that what is proposed here is an increase in penalties tenfold, and, whilst there may well be—
~~Honourable Senators~~
~~Honourable senators interjecting—~~
~~Jacinta Collins~~
as senators are currently interjecting, a good argument to that effect, I think, consistent with the process that Labor agreed to with the government, those issues should be addressed by the parliamentary joint committee and, as I pointed out previously in relation to amendments that have been proposed by other senators, that opportunity does indeed exist in relation to the next tranche of measures.
So we are not necessarily opposed on the issue of dealing with penalties, but, at this stage of the process, as indeed regarding some of the other amendments that have been proposed, Labor would like to see the process that we signed onto in the first instance proceeded with.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~