{"id":8230,"date":"2013-08-07T12:30:22","date_gmt":"2013-08-07T02:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=8230"},"modified":"2013-08-08T09:08:21","modified_gmt":"2013-08-07T23:08:21","slug":"a-little-transparency-please","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/a-little-transparency-please\/","title":{"rendered":"A little transparency, please"},"content":{"rendered":"
Amid the circus that was the final week of the 43rd Parliament, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) quietly tabled its report<\/a> on the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia\u2019s National Security Legislation<\/i>. This is an important report\u2014the proposed changes include some especially topical issues such as data retention and telecommunications interceptions by intelligence agencies. As the furore in the United States over the ‘Prism’ program shows\u2014and as discussed here <\/a>(and here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>) on The Strategist<\/em>\u2014these are issues that go to the heart of the tension between secrecy and transparency in intelligence work.<\/p>\n The report is comprehensive and the PJCIS made some sound recommendations. But it could have been better if the government had provided the Committee with enough information to make informed recommendations.<\/p>\n Announcing the referral of the Inquiry to the PJCIS, then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said<\/a>: \u2018Unlike the Howard Government, the Gillard Government wants to give the public a say in the development of any new laws’. More than a year later, when the report was tabled, the exact same words<\/a> apparently came from the new Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus.<\/p>\n Poor copy and paste choices in those media releases aside, it\u2019s not clear how serious the government was about public consultation. When the referral was announced<\/a> on 4 May 2012, the government said that it would ask the Committee to report back by 31 July 2012. It was a tall order for the PJCIS to conduct a truly consultative public Inquiry on 18 specific reform proposals containing 44 separate items across three different reform areas in fewer than 12 weeks.<\/p>\n As it happened, the PJCIS took around 12 months to complete the Inquiry, but it was still plagued by other difficulties. Instead of producing an exposure draft of the proposed legislation changes, the large reform agenda was presented as a discussion paper<\/a>. No doubt a discussion paper appears less final and more consultative than draft legislation, but it didn\u2019t provide sufficient detail to allow for constructive feedback. Further, the Attorney-General\u2019s Department, author of the discussion paper, failed to provide timely information to the Committee when it was requested.<\/p>\n