Andrew Wallace
Fisher · Liberal National Party · Australia
“Based on that meeting, I worked pretty closely with the former shadow minister for communications David Coleman, and I was the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when, with the member for Newcastle, we held an inquiry into protecting the age of innocence.”
“On 3 January 2018, Dolly Everett passed away at the age of 14. She was a young woman, a young lady, who had been bullied mercilessly. Sadly, she took her own life as a result of the bullying she encountered on social media. That happened not long into my parliamentary term in this place.”
“Later, in June 2024, the then opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The Labor government did not introduce a bill to protect under-16s from social media until 12 months after we introduced our private member's bill.”
“It was the coalition that consistently led the charge on the protection of children. We actually set up the eSafety Commissioner—and what we now know, from the eSafety Commissioner herself, is that 70 per cent of children are still on social media as a result of this government's flawed legislation.”
“The continuity, the trust and the prevention that a good family GP, like my doctor in Maroochydore, provides cannot be replicated by a clipboard and a six-minute timer. That is where the human cost begins to accumulate. Bulk-billing has collapsed under this government, no matter what those opposite say or how they try and spin it.”
“For decades, Commonwealth governments, including coalition governments, have used health incentive payments to support quality care, to encourage digital health adoption, to sustain general practice in aged-care settings and to keep doctors working in rural and remote communities, where the economics of medicine are hard and the distances…”
The complete record
Every one of 667 lines we hold for Andrew Wallace, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 14.
“Part 6 strengthens hate-symbol offences by lowering the fault element to 'recklessness', extending prohibitions to symbols of prohibited hate groups and providing police with powers to seize symbols and order their removal online. These changes reflect reality. Hate symbols are not neutral expressions. Supporting these measures is entirely consistent with the coalition's longstanding position. But it should not have taken Bondi for the government to act. Part 4 establishes a new regime for listing prohibited hate groups who engage in, prepare for, assist or advocate hate crimes relating to race or national or ethnic origin. This regime is designed to address a real gap in Australia's national security framework.”
“Part 3 introduces a sentencing principle requiring courts to treat hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin as an aggravating factor. This sends a clear signal that crimes motivated by antisemitic hatred will be punished more severely. Part 5 introduces aggravated grooming offences, targeting adults who radicalise or recruit children, including through online platforms. Radical Islamic extremism does not emerge overnight; it is cultivated through grooming, indoctrination and manipulation. Addressing that reality requires a proportionate and necessary response to people who abuse their special position of authority as a religious or spiritual leader, or those who target minors.”
“This is a sensible and overdue deterrent, particularly against radical Islamic preachers and other figures who exploit religious settings to radicalise, groom and incite violence. The message must be unmistakable: abusing religious authority and using the pulpit to threaten force or violence will attract serious criminal consequences. Importantly, we ensured that this provision captures anyone who stands up in a religious setting and promotes extremist violence, whether or not they hold a formal religious title. Part 2 increases penalties from two to five years for using postal or similar services to menace or harass. It's another commonsense measure that recognises that hate does not always occur in person.”
“That is why we are here today, dealing not with a comprehensive or considered response but with a narrower bill salvaged from that failure. I now turn to the criminal law provisions that remain before the House and which we support, in principle—subject to the safeguards and amendments we've sought, to ensure these measures are targeted, proportionate and lawful. Schedule 1, part 1 introduces new aggravated offences for religious, spiritual or other leaders who provide religious instruction or pastoral care, applying to the existing offence of threatening force or violence under part 5.1 of the Criminal Code. Religious leaders occupy a position of trust and authority. With that influence comes a higher duty of care and a greater responsibility.”
“For more than two years, despite repeated warnings from the Jewish community, intelligence agencies and law enforcement and despite a clear and alarming rise in antisemitism, the government sat on its hands. Rather than confronting antisemitism when it mattered, the government appeased extremist protesters, abandoned the State of Israel, left Jewish Australians feeling isolated and then sat on the recommendations of its own Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism for almost six months without implementation. When legislative action finally came, it did not come from moral leadership; it came because the government was dragged into action under sustained pressure from the community, grieving families and this parliament.”
“The committee's report was only tabled this morning, making the committee's process an absolute farce. That approach was completely inappropriate for legislation of this scale and consequence, cutting across democratic principles and national security. Rather than protecting Jewish Australians, the original bill risked shielding radical Islamic extremists. Rather than stopping hate, it threatened to chill legitimate political and religious debate. Ultimately, the government was forced to abandon its approach. That collapse reflects a broader pattern. When it comes to antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism, this government either dithers or it bungles. This failure did not begin at Bondi.”
“I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I want to open by using that old Irish phrase 'if I wanted to get to Dublin, I wouldn't have started here'. That sums up the government's handling of antisemitism since 7 October 2023. In the wake of the Bondi Beach tragedy, the coalition called for serious, collaborative, decisive and targeted action to confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism. What Australians were given instead was a rushed, sprawling and incoherent omnishambles of a bill. Stakeholders were given barely 48 hours to make submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS is an important committee of this parliament that was tasked by the PM to conduct what could only be described as a sham inquiry.”
“Coalition committee members of the PJCIS indicate that witnesses raised credible concerns that essential firearms may be captured by the buyback or import restrictions, with limited replacement options. Restrictions on importing firearms and accessories such as straight-pull rifles will directly affect lawful users who already operate under some of the strictest laws in the world. For the reasons outlined, particularly in relation to the unacceptable levels and breadth of buyback compensation and importation restrictions on assisted repeated action, the coalition will be opposing— (Time expired)”
“Coalition members of the PJCIS are concerned that this bill will unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, particularly farmers and primary producers who rely on firearms for legitimate purposes such as pest control, animal welfare and land management. It is the view of the coalition committee members that recreational and sporting shooters, whether they be competitive shooters or hunters, enjoy the expertise and skill of using different types of firearms and appreciate the nuances of ammunition reloading and variations of accessories. They argue that these elements of the bill would make even the most mundane of those activities illegal through either restrictions on imports or prohibitions on sharing online manuals and discussions.”
“In the Senate, we will seek a referral of this bill to an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 2 March 2026. In the Senate we will also make a series of amendments to give effect to a John Howard buyback, including fair-market-value compensation for firearms, firearms parts, firearms accessories, ammunition, ammunition components and equipment. Our amendments will seek compensation for loss of business and hardship, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. The coalition will also move amendments seeking clarity from the states and territories by 28 February this year as to their intention to participate in buyback schemes.”
“States under this legislation have been told that these businesses will receive nothing—zip, nada. The 1996 buyback involved buyouts for those businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. This government couldn't care less about the fate of legitimate gun sellers, who will be run out of business. The coalition agrees with the statement of the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia that the only way to have a John Howard gun buyback is to legislate one. That is why the opposition has gone to the Prime Minister and asked that he be true to his word and amend his bill to make this a John Howard buyback. He has failed to make such a commitment. It's little wonder why we will be opposing this bill in this House.”
“The 1996 buyback was properly funded. This buyback calls on the states and territories to foot half the bill, irrespective of their capacity to pay. The 1996 buyback was based on the surrender of weapons at fair market value. States and territories have been told that this buyback will be based on price schedules at well under market values, providing little to no incentive for owners to hand in their guns. The 1996 buyback covered ammunition and pieces of equipment, such as scopes and spare parts, rendered unusable by virtue of the handing in of individual guns. Under this buyback, states are told these items are explicitly excluded from compensation. The 1996 buyback compensated legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry who had suffered due to the buyback arrangements.”
“After making repeated protestations that there would be no separation of the omnibus hate speech and gun control bill, the Prime Minister completely capitulated, when he revealed on Saturday his deal with the Greens to ensure passage of his gun legislation. The Prime Minister on Saturday made the outlandish statement, which has incensed those involved in the shooting community, that he is introducing a John Howard gun-buyback scheme. This could not be further from the truth. John Howard's 1996 national gun buyback was widely supported across the country. This buyback faces criticism from the governments of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through a process of cooperative federalism, and the buyback proposed in this bill has been advanced without securing such cooperation.”
“The Leader of the Opposition requested that the government transfer this schedule to its other bill for this reason, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. Equally, the gun bill's firearms AusCheck scheme has legitimate merit in the interests of national security. However, taken as a whole, these measures are completely overwhelmed by the deficiencies in the bill. This proposed gun legislation is fundamentally flawed. As was revealed in the PJCIS inquiry, there has been no genuine evidence-based examination applied to this bill by the government or the parliament. There has been insufficient time for the committee to properly examine the matter and the share of the 7,000 submissions to the inquiry that relate to the bill—7,000 submissions.”
“As coalition members of the PJCIS point out, the truncated nature of the inquiry compounded these failures, an approach utterly inconsistent with best practice lawmaking. This bill reveals the contempt the government has for the million gun owners of Australia. The Prime Minister has failed to recognise that guns are tools of trade for so many Australians, including for so many people on the land and for many Australians as part of legitimate sporting pursuits. There may be a number of reasonable measures in this bill, such as the schedule 1 customs amendments, but these amendments have nothing to do with guns and specifically relate to violent extremist materials and prohibited symbols.”
“Instead, they impose disproportionate burdens on lawful firearm owners, importers, wholesalers and retailers, as well as primary producers and state and territory governments. To the detriment of the bill, the government has chosen a reactive, politically driven approach to the preparation of these proposed laws, rather than the careful, judicious, evidence based process Australians would legitimately expect in such a highly regulated policy area. The presentation of this bill has also been marked by a distinct lack of meaningful consultation undertaken prior to its introduction, a view almost universally presented by witnesses before the PJCIS inquiry. There was little or no prior consultation with farming groups, sporting shooters, industry representatives or technical experts.”
“I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 on behalf of the opposition. May I begin my remarks by restating that the coalition unequivocally condemns antisemitism, hate motivated violence and radical Islamist terrorism. We have always been dedicated to the enactment of strong, effective and proportionate measures to protect Australians and uphold national security. What was previously known as schedule 4 of the original omnibus exposure draft proposed significant changes to Australia's firearms laws, including a so-called national firearms buyback scheme and expanded importation restrictions. Evidence before the PJCIS inquiry demonstrated that these measures are poorly constructed, inadequately justified and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives.”
“The victims of the Bondi attack deserved better; their families deserve better. Australia must do better, and that means all of us. As we honour their memory today, let us commit ourselves to vigilance, to honesty and to the principle that silence in the face of hatred is never neutral. May the memory of those lost at Bondi be a blessing to their families and to all 27 million Australians.”
“It is an attack on our values and our pluralism and on the idea that people of different backgrounds can live together with mutual respect. We must be unambiguous about that together. Today this parliament respectfully remembers the 15 people whose lives were ruthlessly, needlessly cut short: Matilda, the youngest, at only 10; Rabbi Eli Schlanger; Boris Tetleroyd; Boris and Sofia Gurman; Reuven Morrison; Edith Brutman; Marika Pogany; Rabbi Yaakov Levitan; Peter Meagher; Tibor Weitzen; Alexander Kleytman; Dan Elkayam; Adam Smyth; and Tania Tretiak. Moments like this test us as a nation. They test whether we are prepared to speak plainly about hatred, whether we are willing to learn from history and whether we have the moral courage to act before tragedy, not just after it.”
“They deserve answers, they deserve accountability and they deserve to know that everything possible will be done to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I want to acknowledge the dignity shown by the families, in the face of their unimaginable pain. Their calls for truth and transparency are not partisan; they are human, they are reasonable and they must be respected. To the Jewish community in Australia, many of whom are grieving, while also living with fear, and some of whom are here today: you are not alone. You have every right to live openly, to worship freely and to feel safe in your very own communities. Antisemitism is an attack on Jewish Australians, but it's also an attack on Australia and 27 million Australians.”
“Shortly after the attack, I reflected on words attributed to Martin Niemoller—words that bear repeating today: Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me These words are a confession, not a slogan. They are a warning about the cost of silence and inaction. Condolence motions are about mourning, but they are also about resolve. They are about saying that the lives lost mattered and that their loss demands more than words. For the families of the victims, sympathy alone is not enough.”
“Bondi is more than a location. It is part of Australia's identity—a place of openness, freedom and community. That such a place became the scene of Australia's worst act of terrorism makes this tragedy all the more confronting for our nation. This attack was not random, it did not occur in isolation and it did not happen without warning. It came after more than two years of escalating, unaddressed antisemitism in this country, after repeated concerns raised by Jewish community leaders, security experts and law enforcement professionals, after hatred was allowed to become louder, more visible and more normalised. That context matters, not to politicise grief but to honour it with honesty, head on. History teaches us a difficult lesson: antisemitism never ends with Jews alone.”
“In the 13th century, St Francis of Assisi said, 'All the darkness in the world can never extinguish the light of a single candle'. The act of what happened at Bondi on 14 December was an act of profound violence and hatred. It stole innocent lives, shattered families and traumatised a community. It shocked Australians from every corner of our country. I extend my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were murdered, to our brave first responders, to those who were injured and to all who continue to live with the consequences of that day. No words spoken in this place can ease the pain of parents who have lost children or families whose lives have been changed forever. But it is right that this parliament finally pauses, reflects and speaks with one voice, in sorrow, respect and solidarity.”
“As someone who works closely with mental health advocates in my own community, I know how important it is that we talk openly about men's mental health and support those who carry heavy burdens on behalf of others. To Ian's family, friends and the Queensland Police Service: I extend my sincere condolences on behalf of this place. His passing leaves a real void, and he will be deeply missed. Vale, Ian Leavers.”
“On behalf of this house, I extend our deepest condolences to his fellow brothers, his family and the communities he served. May he rest in peace. Vale, Brother William Firman. I also want to acknowledge the passing of Ian Leavers APM. Ian was a frontline officer, a union leader and a steadfast advocate for the Queensland Police Service. His leadership was marked by conviction and an unshakeable commitment to those who wear our uniform. He brought that same passion to his roles as Queensland's first cross-border commissioner, working to address the real challenges facing border communities and improving the lives of countless officers and their families. I also want to recognise the toll that service can take.”
“Brother Bill was a man of deep integrity and quiet strength, and he enjoyed the profound respect of both students and staff. His leadership was marked by fairness, compassion and a genuine concern for the wellbeing of every boy in his care. Those of us who knew him saw firsthand the way he inspired excellence not only in academics and sport but most importantly in character. Brother Bill's passing is a great loss to the Lasallian family and to Catholic education in Australia, yet his legacy endures in the countless lives he shaped and the values he championed. I, and thousands of Australian men, am who I am today in large part due to the influence of Brother William Firman. Brother Bill impressed upon us the importance of our school motto, and it is something I continue to try and live my life by—'Per vias rectus', by right paths.”
“Today I rise to pay tribute to the life and service of Brother William Firman. Brother Bill, as he was known to all, passed away in Launceston on 15 November 2025 after a short illness. He was 82 years old. Brother Bill joined the De La Salle Brothers on 13 January 1962 at the age of just 18. For more than 60 years, he dedicated his life to faith, education and service. Brother Bill embodied the Lasallian charism, placing the dignity of every young person at the heart of his work. His vocation was not simply a profession. It was a calling with humility and unwavering commitment. I had the privilege of knowing Brother Bill during his time as my headmaster of St Bede's College in Mentone. He was a truly remarkable man.”
“My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. BokaBites is a fish-and-chip shop in my electorate of Fisher. Since June this year, BokaBites has seen its power bills surge by 23 per cent. The owner, Bec, has told me it's simply 'untenable' to run a business under these conditions. Minister, when will power prices come down?”
“The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, has a unique responsibility for safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the Australian public. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Berowra for his efforts when he held the portfolio before I did and for the outstanding job he did as well.”
“But we've all seen how those words can be meaningless when bureaucracy replaces responsibility. We know from experience that parole boards get it wrong, and they get it wrong often. Every Australian jurisdiction has seen tragic cases where offenders released on parole have gone on to commit violent crimes. Each time, the public is left asking the same question: how could this happen? Under this bill, when that happens at the federal level, there will be no clear answer as to accountability. There will be no minister standing in this place to explain. There will be no transparency or accountability to the Australian people. It's just another arms-length body, another annual report, another government shifting the blame. That is not leadership.”
“The coalition opposes the substantive bill because it removes accountability from the executive and weakens community confidence in the justice system. Under this legislation, if the parole board makes a catastrophic error, if a convicted terrorist, child sex offender or organised crime figure is released and reoffends, the Attorney-General will simply point to the board and say, 'It was their decision.' That, to the coalition, is unacceptable. Public safety is too important to be delegated away. The coalition believes that with power must come responsibility, and with responsibility must come accountability. These bills fail that basic test. The government has included in this bill a statement that public safety will be the board's paramount consideration.”
“As I referred to earlier, it's called the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. It makes consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 to support the establishment and operation of the new board. It transfers existing powers and responsibilities from the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Parole Office to the new body and sets out procedural changes for making, amending and rescinding parole orders. It also includes transitional provisions to manage the handover of existing cases. While the coalition acknowledges the administrative intent of the companion bill, we cannot support the legislation that implements a deeply flawed model. The problem is not the mechanics of transition; it is the fundamental shift in accountability that the main bill represents.”
“Its stated purpose is to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. It will replace the Attorney-General as the primary decision-maker for parole. The bill gives the board the power to grant, refuse, amend or revoke parole orders, to interview offenders and victims and to obtain information from relevant agencies. It also allows the board to share information with law enforcement, national security agencies and other jurisdictions as required. The government claims this will bring transparency, consistency and expertise to parole decisions, but what it actually brings is confusion cost and a loss of ministerial control. There's an associated bill in relation to the substantive bill.”
“The government argues this change is necessary to depoliticise parole and to bring the Commonwealth into line with the states and territories, which already have their own independent parole boards. Let's be clear about what this bill really does. It removes accountability from an elected minister who answers to the public and gives it to a group of appointed officials who answer to no-one. That is not independence; that is avoidance. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 establishes an independent statutory authority called the Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will be made up of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General for terms of up to five years.”
“The coalition will oppose these bills because they weaken ministerial accountability, they increase risk to community safety and they create another costly and unnecessary bureaucracy. At present the Attorney-General is the decision-maker for parole in relation to federal offenders. That arrangement has served Australia well. It provides ministerial oversight, democratic accountability and clear responsibility for decisions that have life-and-death consequences for the Australian community. But now Labor wants to change that. This bill seeks to create a new statutory body, the Commonwealth Parole Board, which will take over those responsibilities from the Attorney-General.”
“I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the associated Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills go to the heart of one of our most serious responsibilities as legislators and that is protecting the Australian people. They ask a simple but profound question: who should have the authority and the accountability for deciding when convicted criminals are released back into the community? The Albanese government's answer is to hand that responsibility to an unelected board of so-called independent experts. Our answer on this side of the House is clear: those decisions must remain the responsibility of the Attorney-General, an elected minister who is directly accountable to the Australian people.”
“This is the real cost of a Prime Minister who made a promise he never intended to keep and a part-time energy minister who's more focused on politics than policy. The coalition backs responsible emissions reduction, but we will never support a path to net zero that punishes families or shuts down local businesses. Our plan puts reliability, affordability and Australian jobs first.”
“Do we all remember when the Prime Minister promised $275 power cuts—on 97 occasions, no less! After three years of Labor, families and small businesses are being hit with some of the highest electricity prices that we have ever seen. In Fisher, the stories are starting to pile up. Craig from Miles Plastics told me his bills have risen so sharply that he's had into increase prices just to stay afloat—all while struggling to find workers. Dave from BokaBites, just near my office, said his electricity tariff has jumped from 22c to more than 27c per kilowatt hour. That's a 20 per cent increase in just five months. And Howard, who runs a convenience store in Aroona, is paying 62 per cent more for power than he was a year ago. That is not sustainable for any business.”
“Australians expect nothing less of this place than to ensure that we uphold appropriate scrutiny of our national intelligence community and the intelligence legislation that comes before this House. I commend this bill to the House.”
“In this place we rightly acknowledge our men and women who serve this country in uniform, but not often enough do we acknowledge the efforts of our men and women of our national intelligence community, who often are placed in harm's way and often 27 million Australians will never know about it. These are men and women who serve this country with great pride, loyalty and passion across this country and across the world in what can be very difficult and dangerous circumstances. I want to use this opportunity at the dispatch box to encourage and ask all of the directors-general and secretaries of our national intelligence agencies to pass on the thanks of a grateful nation to those men and women who serve this country in our national intelligence community.”
“While we will support this bill as outlined, the coalition has misgivings about how the Albanese government approaches the parliament's oversight of national security matters, including in relation to this bill. We will continue to insist that the government allows proper legislative and parliamentary processes to run their course before seeking to ram legislation through this parliament so as to ensure we deliver the best national security legislation to protect the Australian people, their institutions and assets. As is my want to do in this place when I am talking all things national security, I do acknowledge the efforts of all of those men and women in our national intelligence community. I am joined at the table by my good friend the shadow veterans' affairs minister and also the veterans' affairs minister.”
“I have been provided just this morning with a number of those amendments, which I am still trying to get my head around. When those amendments are moved in this House, I will be speaking to them more closely. The coalition will be constructive where we can, especially on important reforms to improve our national intelligence architecture. We recognise that this bill is an important strengthening of the oversight of our national intelligence community but we will continue to hold the government to account in relation to how it develops and implements these measures. The Australian people deserve transparency wherever possible in relation to intelligence legislation. They deserve accountability and confidence that their parliament is doing its job.”
“The imposition of unrealistic timeframes places an unnecessary burden on stakeholders, secretariat staff and members of the PJCIS and, ultimately, more importantly, potentially leads to unintended consequences and/or poorer legislative outcomes for our national security. The coalition will continue to call out this government's perfunctory approach to parliament's vital oversight role and to national security matters. I also want to acknowledge the work of the PJCIS in its inquiry into this bill. The committee's report recommended the bill be passed and set out 11 further recommendations to strengthen oversight of the national intelligence community. The government has advised that it will adopt several of these recommendations and move amendments accordingly.”
“On the topic of proper oversight by the PJCIS, I am obliged to observe that we do have significant concerns about how the Albanese Labor government has handled consideration of a number of national security bills, with disregard for the proper work of the PJCIS. This is regrettably emblematic of this government's approach to national security matters in this parliament. The important oversight of intelligence and security matters performed by the PJCIS has been restricted and impeded by this government, including through truncated and rushed consideration of legislation. That must stop.”
“Open source intelligence, OSIT, activities are increasingly being used by a wide range of government departments and agencies. The information that can be collected, as well as the analysis that can be performed on such information, can rival covert collection methods in some instances. The question of proper oversight of OSIT practices should be an ongoing consideration for the PJCIS, including whether it is the appropriate remit of the IGIS or whether other bodies should fulfil this function. Lawmakers should regularly consider if new intelligence oversight legislation is suitably future proofed in the face of how emerging technologies may interact with intelligence practices.”
“Finally, schedule 5 of the bill contains application and transitional provisions. Turning now to the issue of ongoing oversight: as with the ever-present requirement to consider how best to protect and safeguard our national security, an ongoing obligation for this parliament and its successors will be to ensure that Australia's intelligence oversight legislation remains fit for purpose for how technology is likely to disrupt intelligence practices. In particular, the use of artificial intelligence will expand the capability and lower the barrier to entry for those departments and agencies, including those outside the NIC, wishing to undertake so-called open source intelligence collection—and that is information that is freely accessible.”
“Schedule 3 of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to introduce an exemption from civil and criminal liability for Defence officials and others for certain computer related conduct connected to an effect outside Australia. Schedule 4 of the bill would amend the meaning of 'counterterrorism and national security legislation' for the purposes of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the INSLM Act, to ensure the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is able to review any Commonwealth legislation relating to counterterrorism or national security. Schedule 4 will also make a number of minor amendments to streamline and modernise provisions in the INSLM Act to ensure the INSLM's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances.”
“Schedule 1 will also make consequential amendments to ensure that information protected by secrecy offences under relevant legislation can be disclosed to IGIS officials performing duties or functions or exercising powers as IGIS officials. These amendments would allow for the transfer of complaints regarding AUSTRAC and Home Affairs between the IGIS and other integrity bodies to facilitate effective consideration of those complaints by the appropriate body. It will also make consequential amendments to address overlap in jurisdiction between the IGIS and other relevant oversight bodies. Schedule 2 of the bill would amend the review and access of ACIC criminal intelligence assessment records under the archives law.”
“These are critical and measured reforms to ensure that the parliament, through the PJCIS, has oversight of intelligence and security matters across all the national intelligence community. Turning to other specific aspects of the bill, schedule 1 would also require the inspector-general and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence to provide annual briefings to the PJCIS. It will also make a number of technical amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to modernise and clarify the provisions to ensure the PJCIS's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. It will remove the ACIC from the oversight jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, the PJCLE, noting that the ACIC will be oversighted by the PJCIS in its entirety—I apologise for the acronyms in this speech!”
“The bill also strengthens the relationship between the PJCIS, the IGIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, and provides the PJCIS with a power to request the IGIS to conduct an inquiry, complementing the committee's existing ability to request that the INSLM undertake a review. The coalition welcomes the granting of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with the power to initiate reviews into the full suite of contemporary counterterrorism or national security legislation at the Commonwealth level rather than the current defined list of legislation. The bill, importantly, provides an own-motion power to the PJCIS to review certain legislation and a requirement that the IGIS and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence provide briefings to the committee.”