after the fact in effect? That’s a question rather than a statement, because it’s not something I’ve studied. MR KEIM: We have dealt with it. Natasha, do you want to deal with that, the existing offences? There’s 15HK and 15HL of the Crimes Act relate to unauthorised – no, sorry, that the criminal investigation - - - MR GYLES: Yes, that’s a different thing I think. MR KEIM: Natasha, do you know the references? DR MOLT: No, I don’t, sorry. MR KEIM: There’s one that carries a two-year maximum. MR GYLES: Yes. MR KEIM: And one relates to insiders and one tends to relate more to public disclosure. MR GYLES: Yes. MR KEIM: I think they may have been dealt with in the Gilbert + Tobin submission. I’m just trying to find the reference which I have read recently. MR GYLES: I’m familiar with some of it too, but I - - - MR KEIM: We’ve also footnoted to a Law Council factsheet which deals with the other aspect of it, which is the protection and the limits of the protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which also applies to ASIO officers but only gives very limited protection. MR GYLES: See what 93 says. Sorry to take up time, but it’s something I want to try and follow. It would certainly be the usual Public Service Act, wouldn’t it? Division 1 of Part III of the ASIO Act, about section 18. I’m looking at section 18(2). The carve-outs are public domain with the authority of the Commonwealth, IGIS. Internal communications to the Minister, staff members of the Commonwealth or a state where it’s appropriate. The unauthorised dealing with records is another one. MR BRADLEY: That was strengthened as a result of the recent amendments as well.
possible. I’ll stop there so we can have time for questions after my colleagues. MR GYLES: Thank you very much. Pass on. DR KLUGMAN: Dr Kristine Klugman, Civil Liberties . What we’ll do is to have Bill Rowlings speak to our submission and then I will add an addendum at the end after he’s spoken. MR GYLES: Thank you. DR KLUGMAN: Correction. I’ll go first. Additional submission. Civil Liberties asks you to recommend to the government and parliament that clauses relating to penalties for unauthorised disclosure of ASIO special operations be removed entirely for these reasons: it is not the duty of the media or the public to keep ASIO operations secret. That duty belongs to ASIO, it’s partner agencies and officials and MPs to whom they disclose operations. And it is the duty of the media to reveal any excesses or potential excesses by ASIO and its partners. Point 2, recommend to the government and parliament a complete rewriting to be undertaken of all anti-terror and associated laws passed since 11 September 2001. As the Crimes Act was consolidated over a century ago because criminal acts have grown like topsy, so there’s now a clear need to rewrite a hundred or so pieces of legislation passed since 2001 into a Crimes (Terrorism) Act. The extent to which the terror creep has spread into the laws of is indicated by legislation such as 35P of the ASIO Act and the recent legislation concerning data retention. There has been no consolidated overview of the myriad of acts passed since 2001 other than the reports of INSLM and the INSLM reports have been ignored by the government, even to the extent it is the government’s express intention to abolish that office. MR GYLES: It was. “Was” is the operative word. DR KLUGMAN: I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. MR ROWLINGS: It was abolished and it’s only acting, I notice. MR GYLES: Yes, that’s - - -
MR GYLES: It was on the news this morning, yes. MR ROWLINGS: About ANZAC, and he had a viewpoint which not many Australians would share, I suggest. He’s been sacked on the basis of his views, which he’s entitled to express, aren’t in keeping with the mainstream. That’s a very dangerous - - - MR GYLES: Breach of the code of conduct, it was said. MR ROWLINGS: Well, there’s no code of conduct. What code of conduct? MR GYLES: SBS. DR LYNCH: Mind you, that is a growing issue which the New South Wales Council of Civil - - - MR ROWLINGS: Why does a person expressing a personal view, which is clearly – he’s a soccer reporter. He’s not commenting on soccer. DR KLUGMAN: Yes, we are a bit off. MR GYLES: Now, look, if you’re telling me I haven’t got enough resources to deal with this legislation, I can’t solve all those other problems. But I am anxious to make sure that – are there any detailed aspects that we haven’t covered? MS THOMAS: Could I just say a couple of things in relation to a few of the things that have been said? First of all, in relation to what you were just saying about information that might disclose the identity of an officer, I’ve only just appreciated this potential scenario where the – it might not be apparent on the face of the story to me but to somebody who could perhaps put the officer in danger, it might disclose to them. MR GYLES: It joins the dots. MS THOMAS: You can, if you think about it, there’s obvious once that it’s suggested to you. I think that one of the problems that arises in the dialogue, if I can describe it that way, between government agencies and NGOs and the media in this field is that those examples are not made explicit enough because there is an obvious interest, national security interest, engaged there. So I would not necessarily see a law that was directly directed to preventing that from occurring as being problematic.
MR GYLES: Yes, all right. Anything else? Because that’s all been very interesting and fruitful? MR ROWLINGS: No, thank you. Thank you for your time. DR KLUGMAN: Thank you for the opportunity. DR LYNCH: Thank you, yes. MR GYLES: Thank you for your cooperation. DR LYNCH: And good luck with your vetting. May it proceed rapidly. MR GYLES: I’ll just formally close the proceedings. I’ll be resuming at 9.30 tomorrow for a second day of hearings. Thank you very much. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 3.31 PM UNTIL TUESDAY, 28 APRIL 2015 AT 9.30 AM