{"id":33380,"date":"2017-08-05T08:00:44","date_gmt":"2017-08-04T22:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=33380"},"modified":"2017-08-04T16:43:41","modified_gmt":"2017-08-04T06:43:41","slug":"2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/","title":{"rendered":"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

In my previous post on the recently released 2017 Independent Intelligence Review<\/a>, I promised to come back to the subject of oversight. But before we get to that, it\u2019s important to understand the legislative framework under which oversight will take place. (Thus this series of posts now becomes a trilogy.)<\/p>\n

As I noted earlier, implementing the organisational changes recommended by the review will entail making a number of legislative changes. In particular, the Office of National Intelligence will require a new legislative instrument in order to subsume the Office of National Assessments, which currently operates under the ONA Act. And putting the Australian Signals Directorate on a statutory footing will require\u2014at least\u2014a modification to the Intelligence Services Act.<\/p>\n

But the review has much more to say about the legislative basis for the activities of the Australian intelligence community (AIC). In particular, there\u2019s an entire long and thoughtful chapter devoted to the subject. I\u2019ll try to summarise what I see as the most important points, as well as discussing some questions that it raised in my mind, but I\u2019d encourage interested readers to take the time to read chapters 6 and 7 of the review in full.<\/p>\n

Chapter 6 of the review begins with a survey of the existing raft of legislative instruments. It observes that the current framework has evolved over time, and that the net result is a less than cohesive combination of enduring principles and ad hoc provisions that cater for changes in the composition of the AIC and the external threat environment. The authors ultimately recommend an end-to-end review of the legislative basis for the AIC:<\/p>\n

We recommend a comprehensive review of the Acts governing Australia\u2019s intelligence community be undertaken to ensure agencies operate under a legislative framework which is clear, coherent and contains consistent protections for Australians.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a sensible recommendation, and it\u2019s something that should probably happen every 20 years or so. There are enduring principles that should always be reflected in a democracy\u2019s intelligence-related legislation, but technological and societal changes can render the specifics of even well-crafted legislation unworkable over time. The difficulties of dealing with modern encryption technologies under an interception framework based on the 1970s-vintage Telecommunications Interception Act are a case in point (here<\/a> and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A review of nine major pieces of interrelated legislation won\u2019t be something that happens on a timescale of weeks or even months. So the review also makes some recommendations about changes that could be made to existing laws to streamline processes and remove unnecessary (and often unanticipated) impediments to AIC activities. Most of the recommendations are sensible and unremarkable. For example, when two AIC agencies are cooperating on an activity, the review recommends that they be authorised to raise a joint request for a ministerial authorisation, rather than one each, as is currently the case\u2014even when the requests go to the same minister (paragraph 6.60).<\/p>\n

Less uncontroversial are some of the proposals for changes to the ability of AIC agencies to collect intelligence related to Australians. That is the essential tension in the practice of intelligence in a democracy, and so any proposals for change require rigorous justification, and the public is owed a clear explanation. That said, I don\u2019t think too many people would object to the notion of \u2018inferred consent\u2019 (paragraph 6.46) of Australians in extremis. <\/em>For example, I think most of us would want Australian authorities to act without delay if we were kidnapped by pirates or a terrorist group. The proposed change would allow the AIC to get to work immediately, without going through an authorisation process.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m less convinced of the review\u2019s argument that no authorisation should be needed retrospectively in cases of inferred consent. After all, the case ought to be a slam dunk, and I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any reason not to keep the bar high for protecting Australians\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n

In fact, the review shows a commendable respect for existing protections of Australians. For example, it considers the proposition that the degree of intrusiveness of AIC activity on individuals could form the basis for deciding whether a ministerial authorisation is needed. The authors rightly conclude that it should not (paragraph 6.39):<\/p>\n

Using intrusiveness as a defining principle could basically limit [Ministerial authorisations] to activities overseas that would require a warrant if conducted in Australia. This would mean most of ASIS\u2019s current activities to produce intelligence against an Australian would not need an authorisation at the Ministerial level. We are of the view that this approach would diminish the rights of Australian persons in an unacceptable way.<\/p>\n

One point on which I’m not entirely convinced (at least based on the detail provided in the unclassified review report) is the section titled \u2018Class Authorisations \u2013 Australians Involved with Terrorist Groups\u2019 (paragraphs 6.30\u20136.35). The proposed change concerns Australians \u2018whose involvement with terrorist organisations proscribed by the Attorney-General under the Criminal Code constitutes a threat to national security\u2019. So far, so good, but what does \u2018involvement with\u2019 mean? That\u2019s important, because we are told that class authorisations are needed because they \u2018would allow the [Intelligence Services Act] agencies to respond quickly to developing threats from previously unidentified individuals, a more common occurrence now with the emergence of \u201clone wolf\u201d attackers\u2019.<\/p>\n

But \u2018lone wolf\u2019 attackers have only loose affiliations with terrorist groups, almost by definition. To sign up to such a proposal, I\u2019d want to know where the threshold for involvement is set\u2014does someone have to self-identify as a member of ISIS, for example, or would visiting an ISIS website be enough for inclusion in the class? What if someone posts online supports for the religio-political ideal of a caliphate, but gives no indication of crossing the line into violent activity?<\/p>\n

All changes to intelligence-related legislation inevitably involve balancing freedoms and security. The devil is always in the detail, and the review\u2019s recommendations are yet to be translated into draft laws. Regardless of whether the proposed major review takes place, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor<\/a> is going to have a lot of work to do!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In my previous post on the recently released 2017 Independent Intelligence Review, I promised to come back to the subject of oversight. But before we get to that, it\u2019s important to understand the legislative framework …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":33381,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[343,249,667,826],"class_list":["post-33380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australian-intelligence-community","tag-human-rights","tag-intelligence-reform","tag-rule-of-law"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In my previous post on the recently released 2017 Independent Intelligence Review, I promised to come back to the subject of oversight. But before we get to that, it\u2019s important to understand the legislative framework ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-08-04T22:00:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-04T06:43:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2048\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1692\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Andrew Davies\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Andrew Davies\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\",\"name\":\"The Strategist\",\"description\":\"ASPI's analysis and commentary site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg\",\"width\":2048,\"height\":1692},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/\",\"name\":\"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-08-04T22:00:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-04T06:43:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73\",\"name\":\"Andrew Davies\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew Davies\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/andrew-davies\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist","og_description":"In my previous post on the recently released 2017 Independent Intelligence Review, I promised to come back to the subject of oversight. But before we get to that, it\u2019s important to understand the legislative framework ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/","og_site_name":"The Strategist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org","article_published_time":"2017-08-04T22:00:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-04T06:43:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2048,"height":1692,"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Andrew Davies","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ASPI_org","twitter_site":"@ASPI_org","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Andrew Davies","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/","name":"The Strategist","description":"ASPI's analysis and commentary site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/14401057612_eccea622a3_k.jpg","width":2048,"height":1692},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/","name":"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle | The Strategist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2017-08-04T22:00:44+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-04T06:43:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-review-intelligence-legislative-angle\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The 2017 review of intelligence: the legislative angle"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73","name":"Andrew Davies","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Andrew Davies"},"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/andrew-davies\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33380"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33380"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33380\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33384,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33380\/revisions\/33384"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}