Attorney general's office says security laws monitor should stay part time
|
Version 0 of 1. Australia’s national security legislation monitor should remain a part time position to keep the job flexible and to ensure there is a “wide pool of candidates”, the attorney general’s department has argued in a parliamentary inquiry. A bill currently before parliament introduced by the Greens would enhance the powers of the independent national security legislation monitor (INSLM), allowing it to review both proposed and existing legislation. It would permit the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee and Australian Human Rights Commission to refer matters for inquiry, prevent the position of the monitor being vacant and make the position full time. The federal government faced criticism in the past 12 months after it failed to appoint a new monitor during a period when substantial powers were granted to Australia’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies across three tranches of legislation. But the attorney general’s department said in a submission to the inquiry that many of the changes proposed to beef up the monitor’s power are not necessary, and rejected the view the appointment should be full time. “The workload of the INSLM will vary considerably depending on the security circumstances, and on whether or not the government responds to any changes in circumstances through enacting new laws. As such, it is appropriate that the position be part time and flexible,” it said. “One of the potential consequences of changing the position to full time is that the pool of candidates that would be available to fill the position will become more limited.” It also said mandating a six month period of response from the government once reports are tabled in parliament “may not be appropriate or practicable”. “The changing security environment, including intervening events, may require focus on alternative security issues. A six month deadline would be inconsistent with the flexibility required to respond to emerging challenges,” the attorney general’s department’s submission said. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) said in its submission the passage of national security legislation had been rushed through without sufficient discussion and constituted an “extraordinary assault on press freedom” that needed to be reviewed. It also called for a better-resourced office to investigate and analyse the impact of the laws. The first tranche of national security legislation could see journalists face jail for disclosing information relating to certain types of intelligence operations, while data retention laws have raised concerns that journalists’ sources could be tracked using the phone and web data set to be retained by telecommunications companies. MEAA’s submission said “the office of the independent national security legislation monitor must be properly resourced to undertake a wholesale examination of Australia’s national security law regime to ensure that this disproportionate effect on human rights does not trample on and undermine fundamental freedoms ,”. Teneille Elliot, advisor to the former national security monitor Bret Walker, said while she was supportive of improved oversight functions, some reforms proposed in the bill could benefit from amendments. Elliot recommended the government has a shorter timeframe for responding to INSLM reports, and the broadening of the nature of the response the government provides. “The need for an express legislative requirement on the government to respond to INSLM reports is shown by actual experience to date,” she wrote. “For the public to have confidence that the INSLM is an effectual oversight mechanism, the government must be required to provide a timely, considered and comprehensive response to each of the recommendations in the INSLM’s annual reports. There has been no such government response to date for any of the former INSLM’s annual reports.” She added the government had only responded to INSLM recommendations that were “cherry-picked”. “There is simply no reasonable excuse for government consideration of recommendations made as early as 2012 by the former INSLM to be ongoing, without any kind of formal response in the interim,” she said. Elliot agreed the role should not be left vacant, but noted that the UK’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, had recommended against the full time appointment of a similar role there. She also recommended against expanding the role of the INSLM to consider legislation before it had been enacted. The Muslim Legal Network said it agreed with the majority of the amendments in the bill, and that the “need for continual review and scrutiny of such legislation due to its nature is a necessary safeguard against the undue violation of human rights in Australia”. A joint submission from Australia’s councils for civil liberties said they supported the bill and welcomed an expansion of the monitor’s powers. “Counterterrorism and national security laws, designed to prevent and prohibit terrorist acts and other threats to national security aimed at the destruction of human rights, freedoms and democracy, may themselves, if not carefully monitored, violate human rights and be contrary to the rule of law.” The government appointed Roger Gyles to be the interim INSLM in December. He is currently taking submissions as part of his inquiry into the impact of new security laws on journalists, and will hold hearings in Canberra on 27 and 28 April on their impact . |